E S Jose filed a consumer case on 29 Sep 2018 against Jeemon Paul in the Idukki Consumer Court. The case no is CC/225/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 23 Nov 2018.
Kerala
Idukki
CC/225/2016
E S Jose - Complainant(s)
Versus
Jeemon Paul - Opp.Party(s)
Adv.Tom Mathew
29 Sep 2018
ORDER
DATE OF FILING : 08/08/16
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of September 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMARPRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K.MEMBER
IA No.123/18 in CC NO. 225/16
Between
Complainant : E.S.Jose, Managing Director,
English Plantations,
Kumbakkanam, Moolamattom Elappilly Village,
Idukki District residing at Erasseril House,
Kaloor, Kochi-17
Represented by POA P.S.Peethambaran S/o Surendran,
Puthenpurayil, House No.13/292 J,
Thrikkakkara, Kochi - 21
(By Adv: Tom Mathew)
And
Opposite Party : Jeemon Paul,
Director, Anjiparambil Traders,
Near South Over Bridge, Kochi
(By Adv: George Cherian Karippaparambil)
O R D E R O F M A I N T A I N A B I L I T Y
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
The interim application is filed by the opposite party challenging the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum. In this petition the opposite party pointed out that complainant M/s English Plantation Pvt Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and engaged in large scale cultivation of Cardamom, Pepper, Tea and Coffee. The complainant company is having 1100 Acres of plantations and engaged about 100 employees for the cultivation in the plantation and managed by supervisors and estate managers. Thus the purpose of purchase of Earth Augur Machine is commercial and hence complainant is not a consumer.
(Cont......2)
-2-
The opposite party further pointed out that the purchase of the machinery is at Ernakulam and the delivery of the machine is also at Ernakulam. Hence a prima facie not maintainable against the opposite party.
This petition is resisted by the counter petition/complaint through detailed objection by denying all the contention of the petition.
Heard both sides,
We have considered the argument of learned counsel of both sides in this matter. On going through the averment the Forum came to know that, it is a matter of the year 2016, and the opposite party of the main petitioner, filed reply version for the main complaint on 28/10/16 and further evidence started and complainant was examined as PW1. Now the case is posted for opposite parties evidence for that opposite party filed proof affidavit also. At this juncture the Forum is of the considered view that, the allegation levelled against the counter petition in this interim application is a matter to be discussed on merits, as a primary issue and at this point of time this petition cannot be considered and hence the petition dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.