w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Prashna Electric Equipment v/s Innova Technologies

    Revision Petition No. 4112 of 2010
    Decided On, 24 June 2020
    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DINESH SINGH
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER
    For the Appearing Parties: Priank Adhyaru, Advocate.


Judgment Text
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 09.07.2010 passed by The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A. No. 797 of 2010 arising out of the Order dated 18.05.2010 in C.C. No. 962 of 2009 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'.

The Petitioner herein, Prashna Electric Equipment, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant'.

The Respondent herein, Innova Technologies, was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Opposite Party'.

2. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Complainant through video conferencing on 17.06.2020.

None was available for the Opposite Party. (Vide this Commission's Order 15.02.2012 the Opposite Party was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.)

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 18.05.2010 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 09.07.2010 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. The Petition has been filed with self-admitted delay of 10 days. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that the reasons stated therein are illogical and unpersuasive in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay in filing the Petition.

Sufficient cause to explain the delay is not forthcoming.

However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Complainant, to settle the matter on merit, the delay is condoned.

4. The Complainant's principal grievance, that caused it to file the instant Revision Petition before this Commission, is that it had entered into an "oral understanding" with the Opposite Party for casting a dye (mould); the work was to be completed within a period of 20 days; the Opposite Party failed to complete the work within the said period of 20 days; consequently the Complainant (inter alia) suffered future "business loss" of "Rs. 1,25,000/-" also; however, the District Forum, in partly allowing its Complaint and in making its Award, did not include compensation for the averred "business loss" of "Rs. 1,25,000/-"; neither did the State Commission allow the said future "business loss" in dismissing its Appeal.

5. It is seen that the District Forum vide its Order dated 18.05.2010 partly allowed the Complaint. It, however, did not award compensation for the averred future "business loss" of "Rs.1,25,000/-".

The Complainant filed Appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 09.07.2010 dismissed the Appeal.

6. It is noted that no evidence was placed by the Complainant before the forum of original jurisdiction i.e. the District Forum to substantiate and justify its averred future "business loss" of "Rs.1,25,000/-".

Neither was any substantiation or justification brought forth before the forum of appellate jurisdiction i.e. the State Commission.

The State Commission has concurred with the District Forum, that the averred future "business loss" of "Rs.1,25,000/-" could not be substantiated or justified by the Complainant.

No palpable or crucial error in appreciating the evidence on this count is visible on the part of the two Fora below, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision or call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

7. Since the averred future "business loss" coul

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
d not be substantiated or justified, the Petition fails. As such, in the present context, there is no need to examine the scope and ambit of Section 14 of the Act. 8. With this brief discussion, the Revision Petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. 9. A copy each of this Order be sent to the Complainant and to the Opposite Party by the Registry within three days of its pronouncement.
O R