BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI MEMBER
R.P.NO.21/2015
(Against order in Memo in CC No.25/2015 on the file of the DCDRF, Krishnagiri)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2017
J.R.Sakthivel
S/o. (Late) Raju
D.No.1-B, Periyasamy Pillai Street
Dharmaraja Kovil Road M/s. R. Dhinesh Kumar
Krishnagiri Town & Taluk Counsel for
Krishnagiri District Petitioner/ Complainant
Vs.
Chinnasamy Agencies
T.V.S. Mopets, Motor Cycle M/s. Rajmahesh
276, Bangalore Road Counsel for
Krishnagiri- 635 001 Respondent/2nd Opposite party
The Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in Memo in CMP.No.21/2015 in CC.No.25/2015 dt.20.7.2015.
This petition is coming on before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, this commission made the following order in the open court.
Dr. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT (Open Court)
1. Respondent present. There was no representation for the Petitioner when called and after passed over. Hence the matter is posted today under the caption for the appearance of petitioner or for dismissal. We have heard the learned counsel for the Respondent. Petitioner counsel subsequently represented.
2. The Petitioner /complainant has filed a petition in CMP.No.21/2015 in CC.No.25/2015 on the file of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, praying for a direction to the opposite party to register the vehicle of the petitioner, pending disposal of the main complaint. In the said petition a memo has been filed by the Respondent/ 2nd opposite party stating that since the relief sought for in the main complaint, as well as in the CMP.No.21/2015 are one and same, and requested that the main complaint itself be taken up for consideration.
3. The District Forum, after hearing the submissions of bothsides, passed a considered order by allowing the memo, against which the present Revision petition is filed by the Petitioner/ complainant.
4. On perusal of the material records, and on hearing the submissions, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has come to a correct conclusion in allowing the memo which needs no interference. Since the prayer sought for in the petition in CMP.21/2015 and the main complaint are one and the same, disposing of the main complaint itself would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, we find no error in the stand taken by the District Forum to dispose of the main complaint itself. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Revision Petition and is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.
P. BAKIYAVATHI S. TAMILVANAN
MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
