SHAMBHU PASWAN Vs. SHRI KULDEEP CHANDRA BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, the State Commission ) in First Appeals no. 78 and 83 of 2009. By this order, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent against the order dated 23.04.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (in short, the District Forum ) in consumer complaint no. 56 of 2007. This order of the District Forum entailed directions to the opposite party (OP Petitioner herein) to pay to the complainant (respondent herein) a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the OP was required to also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The District Forum also permitted the OP/Petitioner to take away the unused building material lying in the complainant s premises. Against this order, the complainant filed appeal no. 78 of 2009 before the State Commission seeking enhancement of the relief granted by the District Forum while the OP filed appeal no. 83 of 2009 challenging the validity of the District Forum s order.

(2.) After considering the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record and hearing the parties, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals by its impugned order, with the following observations/findings:

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP at the stage of admission and considered the documents. As a reading of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order would clearly show, the State Commission has properly analysed the pleadings and evidence on record and arrived at cogent findings giving reasons therefor. There is, therefore, no ground whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission under the provisions of section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity.