Karnataka

StateCommission

A/749/2013

M/s. Ramco Systems Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Southern Ferro Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Keshava Kumar

04 Aug 2021

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/749/2013
( Date of Filing : 10 Jun 2013 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/01/2013 in Case No. CC/354/2012 of District Dharwad)
 
1. M/s. Ramco Systems Ltd.,
No. 64, Sardar Patel Road, Taramani, Chennai 600113 Rep. by R.V. Krishnan, Authorised Signatory .
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Southern Ferro Ltd.,
Industrial Estate, Gokul Road, Hubli 580030 Rep. by Sandeep, Executive Director.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 04 Aug 2021
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Basava Bhavan, Sri Basaveswara Circle, High grounds, Bangalore-560001.

 

Case No. - A/749/2013

 


Appellant/s

1 . M/s. Ramco Systems Ltd., .
No. 64, Sardar Patel Road, Taramani, Chennai 600113 Rep. by R.V. Krishnan, Authorised Signatory .
(By Keshava Kumar)

-Versus-

Respondent/s

1 . M/s. Southern Ferro Ltd., .
Industrial Estate, Gokul Road, Hubli 580030 Rep. by Sandeep, Executive Director.
(By RI&II APSN)

04.08.2021

ORDER

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.        The appellant/Opposite Party filed this appeal way back in the year 2013 being aggrieved by the Order dt.29.01.2013 passed in CC.No.354/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad wherein the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint which directed the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant and to return the cheque drawn for Rs.1,61,850/- which was acknowledged by him along with Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.  Failing to it, the said amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the day onwards, till realization.

2.        The appellant not appeared before this Commission inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to address his arguments and to convince how the impugned order passed by the District Commission is not satisfactory and against to law. 

3.        The case called twice, appellant not present.

4.        We have perused the appeal memo.  Mere memorandum of appeal is not sufficient to hold the appeal in the absence of any arguments and convincement by the appellant.  As such, the appeal requires to be dismissed.  Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.

Forward free copies to both parties.

 

           Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

 

MEMBER                                                      JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
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.