AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 142 wordsIN this case, it is the complainant who is petitioner before us. His complaint for defects in vehicle purchased was allowed and it was ordered that the vehicle be replaced. He was further paid Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and interest was also awarded at the rate of 10 per cent from 22.7.1998 when the vehicle was kept with the respondent. Appeal by the complainant for enhancement was dismissed by the State Commission. It is submitted that the complainant had taken loan and was praying higher rate of interest than 10 per cent as awarded by the District Forum. But fact remains that no evidence was led before the District Forum on this account we do not find it a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.