Kerala

StateCommission

RP/09/12

The Development Officer - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Sankaranankutty - Opp.Party(s)

S.Reghukumar

13 Mar 2009

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Revision Petition(RP) No. RP/09/12

The Development Officer
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

P.Sankaranankutty
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

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.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                    VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
        REVISION PETITION: 12/2009
                             ORDER DATED.13..3..2009
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU        : PRESIDENT
 
SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN         : MEMBER
 
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                    : MEMBER
 
The Development Officer,
Rubber Board, Regional Office,                             : REVISION PETITIONER
Chembukkavu, Thrissur.
 
(By Adv: Sri.S.Reghukumar & Smt.Mary John)
 
          V.
P.Sankarankutty,
Porakkad House, Thalavanikkara,                 : RESPONDENT
Thalore.P.O.
 
                                      ORDER
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
Revision Petitioner is the opposite party in OP:247/93 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The Revision Petition is filed over the order of the Forum allowing the amendment of the complaint. It is the contention of the Revision Petitioner that the matter had been remanded in Appeal:1217/94 by this Commission directing the Forum to permit the parties to adduce further evidence as to whether the stumps of rubber seedlings supplied were defective. According to the Revision Petitioner the parties are entitled only to adduce further evidence on the above aspect which has been specified by this Commission. According to the Revision Petitioner the Forum has allowed the amendment sought for by the complainant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
2. Heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner
3. We find that the OP is of the year 1993. Fifteen years have elapsed since the filing of the complaint. Further we find that no prejudice is caused to the Revision Petitioner on account of the amendment permitted to be carried out. It can also be seen from the penultimate sentence of the order that the Forum will dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law.
4. Of course the order of the Forum is not a reasoned one. The Forum ought to have passed a speaking order.
All the same, in the circumstances we find that the Revision Petition is devoid of merits as such. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed in-limine.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
 
VALSALA SARNGADHARAN: MEMBER
 
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
 
VL.



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA