1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TRIS '1'!-IE8?' DAY OF' DECEMBER,
PRESENT
mm HOWBLE mm. P.D.mxAKARAH, CHIE¥'.".iI}8ff!¢'E "
THE Hownm 1\:R.JUs1';c!s:-B;$.f¢.§'i*xL----- "
wan' PETI'1'i01'l No.11G9 8 "
BETWEEN:
The Western Woods FIIITL'
and F'umisherS, V *
No.15-A, '.1' Block, »
Adi Chunchanagixi. Roa€1,'_ * '
Opp. to Apollo H("*Sp2'l"g'C§3,
Kuvempunagar,
Mysore _23'_. .... 2 y-: -- _
Rcprcscntcd'¥by its -- '
Sri.Bharat11." ' '
(By Sri N. Ravin'<'ira'.f3afl1' '§re-
" ' Western Woods Funtiitures
" and Funfishers,
No.15-A, 'J' Block,
pmrirrormn
3. . = .. petition, the petitioner is chaflenging the onéer
V . Disp'fxtcsv--..V§:Z£:{'.-1'i2ssa1 Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.23ii2/
R .'2Gf)?.?__. By "the said order, the State Commission has confirmed
'order of the District Gonsumefs Disputes Redressa}. Forum,
~h§§'som with some modikation.
Adi Chunchanagifl Road,
Opp. to Apolio Hospital,
Kuvcmpunagar,
Mysore -- 23,
Represented by its Manager, €;*ing:-
% ~ "MEN?
" '(U€1i§J€I;é{:1 by B.S.PatiI, J.)
passed by the Kanlamka Staia Consumer
3
2. The respondent no. 1 herein was the coInp1aiI1ant_bef0Ie
the District Consumefs Disputes Redxessal ForuIza,vV.e_M§?s0re.
The §3€ti1IiOI1£i’3I’ herein was the opposite party. The
had seught for refund. of Rs.1,60,00Q/V~– W”.i£}3;*
deficiency of service in the matter of :§;3.te;*io;*fivi?t?Qrk_9f
the complainant’s house entrusted__ to :
allegations made were that by the interior fumishing Work allowed
the complaint and §1irectec;1_ along with the
2nd: respondent’j:;j}§éty . bi;/» within two
months which to pay interest
at 12% the date of payment.
Agg1ieve<iVVV"b3,f:the herein filed an appeal
before the State" CQi1s1i::11e:"'tV Disputes Redressal Commission,
By the under challenge, the State Commission
passed by the Bistrict Consumefs
eisgmtets Re;i::¢5gesVa1 Forum and directed the petitioner herein
_ 'along 'the 'lad respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 131,000]-
months from the date of the onder, failing which to
ittterest at 12% 33.3. on the said sum from the date ef the
" till realisation. The opposite party – petitioner herein was
however permitted to remove and take away the interior Wood
4
work done by them except the kitchen cabin on such payment.
Aggicved by the two orders passed by the District Fo§:1,1,i1:,lé.~;id.
the State Commission, the present writ petition is ‘ v–v- ;. é
3. Though several cozitentions an: hurggd .Va1.,3′ ” =
not inclined to entertain this writ petif§,cn::’a:;”2.
got a remedy of statutexy appeaiiaefgire i1::tiVNatiori:2é1..¢jCop$ti;mér *
Disputes Redressa} Commission. I~Ii4i:911§::e,.;jesei’iri3’i1::g’ to the
pefitioncr to avail the altefixafiae ~:1f..i5:<aefcrring an appeal,
this writ petitien is disaczaissiétl, V' ' *
ch:e£ Justice
Sd/-E
Iudg3
KK
Efiidex: Yes§f.N6._ .