RAJIV BAL Vs. HARRISON INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this Revision Petition No.1023 of 2016, the petitioner/complainant- Rajiv Bal (complainant hereafter) has challenged the impugned order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission, for short) dated 19.01.2016, the operative portion whereof, reads as below:

(2.) In challenge thereto, the petitioner has made the following prayer before the National Commission:

(3.) Learned counsels for the parties were heard at some length on 23.10.2019 . Each made out an elaborate case on behalf of their parties and argued as if the entire consumer complaint was to be decided by the Commission after hearing arguments on this RP. This was clearly not so as the RP, notwithstanding the elaborate prayer for relief made in it, is really quite limited in it's scope. This RP basically challenges the impugned order of the State Commission which, finding merit in an application of respondent 1 and 2 herein/ appellant 1 and 2/ OP1 and 2 (hereafter OP 1 and 2) for permission to file additional evidence, had allowed the same, after hearing the parties, and remanded the matter to the District Forum, and directed the parties to appear before it on 15.02.2016. Instead of appearing before the District Forum on 15.02.2016, the complainant has chosen to file this RP, challenging the aforementioned order of the State Commission.