K.R.Anantha Sainam (LCT Babu) V/S Manbodh Sahu - Consumer Court Case

Orissa

Bargarh

CC/08/54

Manbodh Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.R.Anantha Sainam (LCT Babu) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B. Panda

16 Dec 2008

ORDER

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT),AT:COURT PREMISES,PO/DIST:BARGARH,PIN:768028,ORISSA
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/54

Manbodh Sahu						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
K.R.Anantha Sainam (LCT Babu) Manager, Proprietor						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA 2. SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI 3. SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Manager, 2. Proprietor

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Sri B. Panda

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

The Complainant's memo Dt. 17/10/2008 and OP No. 2(two)'s objection Dt. 24/11/2008 taken up for consideration. Admittedly, the OP No.1(one) is the manufacturer of the power tiller which is the subject matter of this dispute and the OP No.2(two) is the authorised distributor there of. Clearly, the OP No.1(one) is the principal and OP No.2(two) is the agent in the present case. The Complainant, vide his memo under consideration, admits that he has amicably compromised with OP No.1(one) and received money from him with full satisfaction and so it does not want to proceed against the said OP, but wants to retain the right to sue/proceed against the other OPs. Since the Complainant has compromised with the principal by receiving money to his full satisfaction, now there can't be a cause of action to proceed against the other Ops. Hence, proceeding drop. Complaint disposed of.

The Complainant's memo Dt. 17/10/2008 and OP No. 2(two)'s objection Dt. 24/11/2008 taken up for consideration. Admittedly, the OP No.1(one) is the manufacturer of the power tiller which is the subject matter of this dispute and the OP No.2(two) is the authorised distributor there of. Clearly, the OP No.1(one) is the principal and OP No.2(two) is the agent in the present case. The Complainant, vide his memo under consideration, admits that he has amicably compromised with OP No.1(one) and received money from him with full satisfaction and so it does not want to proceed against the said OP, but wants to retain the right to sue/proceed against the other OPs. Since the Complainant has compromised with the principal by receiving money to his full satisfaction, now there can't be a cause of action to proceed against the other Ops. Hence, proceeding drop. Complaint disposed of.

......................MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA
......................SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI
......................SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN