Kerala

StateCommission

CC/10/10

Solomon Pulickal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai KTC Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Kalkura

06 Feb 2020

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

CC.No.10/2010 

JUDGMENT DATED:06.02.2020

 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE  K. SURENDRA MOHAN                   : PRESIDENT

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

SMT. BEENAKUMARY. A                                         : MEMBER

SHRI. RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R                                    : MEMBER

Solomon Pulickal, S/o Pappachan,

R/at House No.405 B, Ayroor P.O,

Ernakulam District.: COMPLAINANT

 

(By Adv: M/s Kalkura)

 

1.  

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Hyundai KTC Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Kodungallur, Thrissur District.

 

2. The Deputy General Manager,

Hyundai KTC Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Guruvayoor road, Punkunnam, Thrissur.

 

3. KTC Automobiles Pvt. Limited,

R/by Managing Director,

YMCA Road, Calicut.

 

(By Adv. For Ops 1 to 3: Sri. Shyam Padman)

 

4. Hyundai Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,

R/by Managing Director, NP-54,

Developed Plot, Ekkadathungal, Tirur-Vika-

Industrial Estate, Chennai.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Rakesh Thampan)

: OPPOSITE PARTIES

5. Regional Transport Officer,

Sub Regional Transport Office,

Aluva, Ernakulam.

 

6. Kerala State, R/by District Collector,

Ayyanthole, Thrissur.

 

(By Adv for 5^th & 6^th OPs:Sri. Robin Jose)

 

ADDL. 7^TH & 8^TH Opposite Parties

 

7. M/s Kotak Mahindra Prima Ltd.,

No.45, Ceebros Center, Mandyth Road,

Egmore, Chennai-600 034.

 

8. M/s Kotak Mahindra Prima Ltd.,
4.  

Palarivattom, Kochi-25.

 

(By Adv. For 7^th & 8^th OPs: Smt. Suja Madhav)

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLEJUSTICE K. SURENDRAMOHAN  : PRESIDENT

          This is a case in which the parties had settled their disputes outside Court.  A joint statement was filed by the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3.  The joint statement was signed by the opposite parties as well as their counsel and the complainant.  However, it appears that the counsel for the complainant had not signed it.  On 23.01.2020, the complainant who was present in Court admitted that he had signed the joint statement.  Counsel for the opposite party submits that a cheque for Rs.14,00,000/- handed over to the complainant in terms of the settlement has also been encashed.  The counsel for the complainant relinquished his vakalath thereafter.  Subsequently, it was submitted that one Adv. Anoop wanted to appear for the complainant.  We notice from the proceedings that on a previous occasion the name of another Advocate, Smt. Reeja was also mentioned in Court as the person who wanted to appear for the complainant.  In view of the above confused state of affairs, as per order dated:29.01.2020 we directed the complainant to be present in Court today.

However, the complainant is not present in Court.  Nor is he represented through counsel.  The opposite parties are represented through counsel.  This complaint is of the year 2010.  In view of the above this complaint is dismissed for non prosecution.

 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

 

RANJIT . R : MEMBER

 

BEENAKUMARY.A : MEMBER

 

RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R: MEMBER

VL.