Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/392/2014

Omprakash Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries - Opp.Party(s)

A.V.C.N. Nageswara Rao

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                             Registration of the Complaint:06-12-2014     

   Date of Order:19-03-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                  

Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

 

 

THURSDAY, THE 19^TH OF MARCH, 2015

C.C.No.392/2014

 

BETWEEN:

DR.OMPRAKASH S/O LATE M.AGARWAL, HINDU,

AGED 51  YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.505,

M.V.HERITAGE, CBM COMPOUND, EAST EXTENSION,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

                 …COMPLAINANT

AND:

1.IFB INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

FLAT NO.IND-5, SECTOR-1, EAST KOLKATA TOWNSHIP,

KOLKATA-7000 088. WEST BENGAL.

2.IFB INDUSTRIES LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

NO.16/17, VISWESHWARAIAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

MAHADEVAPURAM, BANGALORE-560046.

3.IFB SERVICE CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,

D.NO.29-6-72/10, NEAR ANNAPURNA MARUTHI SERVICE CENTRE,

MURALIGNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM.

4.DIGITAL, THE RELIANCE DIGITAL RETIAL LTD., D.NO.52-1-35,

36,38, CMR CENTRAL, NEW RESAPUVANIPALEM,

MADDILAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

                                                                                             …OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

          This case coming on 19-03-2015 for Counter before us in the presence of Sri A.V.C.N.NAGESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri GUDLA RAMESH, Advocate for the 3^rd Opposite Party and of Sri HARI MEHAR, Advocate for the 4^th Opposite Party and 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties, being set exparte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

DOCKET ORDER

(As per the Orders of the Hon’ble President on behalf of the Bench)

 

The Complainant’s Counsel filed not pressing memo after issuing notice to OPs who endorsed received notice stating not pressing the complaint. Heard both sides. Memo is recorded. The Complaint is dismissed as not pressed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 19^th day of March, 2015.

 Sd/-                                                                                                   Sd/-

L.MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT