https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106999 The appeal was allowed in favor of the complainant as the Commission found that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II erred in dismissing the complaint without proper consideration of crucial points. The respondents were held liable for deficient service, particularly for failing to provide proof of the demand draft sent by courier. The Commission ordered the respondents to pay interest for the 9-month period at a reduced rate of 9 per cent and awarded compensation to the complainant. en-us Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106999 The appeal was allowed in favor of the complainant as the Commission found that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II erred in dismissing the complaint without proper consideration of crucial points. The respondents were held liable for deficient service, particularly for failing to provide proof of the demand draft sent by courier. The Commission ordered the respondents to pay interest for the 9-month period at a reduced rate of 9 per cent and awarded compensation to the complainant. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106999