Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/14/400

Suresh kumar C - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanpdeal.com - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

                           SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

                           SMT.PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                           SRI.VIJU.V.R                       : MEMBER

CC.NO.400/14 (Filed on : 26/05/2014)

ORDER DATED : 14/11/2022

COMPLAINANT

Suresh kumar.C

Technician, Fabricator,

Brahmos Aerospace Tvm Ltd (BATL)

Chackai, Beach.P.O – 695007

(By Adv.N.G.Mahesh)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Snapdeal.com

246, First Floor, Okhia, Phase III,

New Delhi – Pin – 110020

2. Iechnix Electronics Pvt Ltd,

Shop No.3, 392- Ground Floor,

Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar,

New Delhi – 110025

3. Corporate Communication Department,

Xolo Mobile Head Office,

Xolo Smart Phones,

A-56, Sector – 64,

Noida – 201301(UP)

        (OP1 by Adv.Bhagavath Singh)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. The opposite parties 2 & 3 were called absent and set exparte. When the case came up for consideration on 19/09/2022 the complainant as well as first opposite party were represented and submitted that there is a possibility of settlement. Accordingly complaint was referred for settlement talk to 13/10/2022. When the case came up for consideration on 13/10/2022 the parties submitted that the matter is settled for an amount of Rs.16,000/- and the case was adjourned to this date for payment of the settlement amount. When the case came up for consideration today, the first opposite party produced DD for Rs.16,000/- and the same was handed over to the complainant’s counsel. The first opposite party also filed a memo which contains the signature of the complainant’s counsel with an endorsement to the effect that the complainant has received DD for Rs.16,000/- from  the first opposite party. The complainant’s counsel also submitted that in view of the settlement the complainant is not willing to further proceed with this complaint. The memo filed by the first opposite party and the submission made by the counsel for the complainant were accepted and recorded. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties to the proceedings, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed as settled.

                  In the result, complaint is dismissed as settled. There will be no order as to costs.

       A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 14^th day of November 2022.

 

                                                                              Sd/-

                                                               P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                         Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                               Sd/-

                         VIJU.V.R         : MEMBER

 

be/