<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (8) TMI 1140 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173852</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, recognizing him as a &#039;consumer&#039; under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and confirming the deficiency in service by the respondents. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 with interest, and the respondents were directed to pay the costs. The appeal by the respondents was dismissed with costs, and counsel fees were assessed at Rs. 10,000 each.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1140 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173852</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, recognizing him as a &#039;consumer&#039; under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and confirming the deficiency in service by the respondents. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 with interest, and the respondents were directed to pay the costs. The appeal by the respondents was dismissed with costs, and counsel fees were assessed at Rs. 10,000 each.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>