Telangana

StateCommission

CC/222/2014

Dr. Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Son of Mohammed Ghouse, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Shashidhar, Managing Director, Kamineni Institure of Medical Sciences, - Opp.Party(s)

Ms.Mohammed Abdul Rasheed P I P

08 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Telangana
 
Complaint Case No. CC/222/2014
( Date of Filing : 11 Oct 2013 )
 
1. Dr. Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Son of Mohammed Ghouse,
R.o. 5.3.333, Gosha Mahal, North Street No.11, Hyderabad 500 012
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Dr. Shashidhar, Managing Director, Kamineni Institure of Medical Sciences,
C.o. Kaminani Education Society Flat No.102, Kanchen Junga Complex, King Koti Hyderabad 500 001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri. K. Ramesh JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 08 Aug 2018
Final Order / Judgement

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

 

CC 222 of 2014

 

 

Between :    

 

Dr. Mohammed Abdul Rasheed

S/o Mohammed Ghouse,

R/o 5-3-333, Gosha Mahal

North Street No. 11,

Hyderabad – 500 012                ..        Complainant        

 

 

And

 

 

Dr. Shashidhar

Managing Director,

Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences,

C/o Kamineni Education Society,

Flat No. 102, Kanchen Junga Complex,

King Koti, Hyderabad – 500 001         .. Opposite party

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant                       :  M/s. M. Srinivasa Guptha

 

         

Counsel for the Opposite party                    :  M/s. Srinivasa Rao Pachawa

 

 

Coram                :

                                 

                           Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal ….. President

                                                            and

                

                          Hon’ble Sri K. Ramesh                  …      Member

 

                          Wednesday, the Eighth  Day of August

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

 

 

ORAL ORDER

 

                                                            ***

01.     This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party  to pay    Rs. 92 Lakhs towards the compensation for the actual loss suffered by the complainant.

 

  1. It is noticed from the docket proceedings that right from 10.11.2015, even though, the matter underwent several adjournments, there is no representation for the complainant  nor an affidavit evidence  has been filed.  The opposite party has been regularly represented.  Even then,  on 18.07.2018, as there was no representation for the complainant and hence the matter was posted under the caption, ‘ For Dismissal’, on 08.08.2018. 

 

03.          In spite of the above, on 08.08.2018,  there is no representation for the complainant. Counsel for the opposite party  is present.  Since interest is not evincing by the complainant in prosecuting the C.C., the same is dismissed for non-prosecution.

 

 

 

                                                                      PRESIDENT                     MEMBER

 

DATED : 08 .08.2018.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri. K. Ramesh]
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.