Santha Gopinath & another V/S The Secretary,Thrissur Corporation - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

340/2007

The Secretary,Thrissur Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Santha Gopinath & another - Opp.Party(s)

K.B.Mohandas

30 Oct 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. 340/2007

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )

1. The Secretary,Thrissur Corporation

Thrissur

BEFORE:
	HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 340/2007

JUDGMENT DATED: 30..10..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

Secretary, : APPELLANT

Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur-1.

(By Adv.K.B.Mohandas)

Vs.

1. Prof.Santha Gopinath, : RESPONDENTS

Santhi, Patturaikkal, Thrissur.

2. Shiny George, Contractor,

3/57, Thazhathu House,

Green park avenue, Viyyur bridge,

Thrissur.

(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 1^st opposite party/Thrissur Corporation. The order appealed against is the one issued in IA.790/06 in CC.702/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.

2. The order is with respect to the maintainability of the complainant. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service as the portions of the road in front of the house of the complainant has been left untarred by the 2^nd respondent/contractor allegedly at the direction of the 1^st respondent/appellant.

3. On the other hand the 1^st respondent/appellant had contended that the complaint is not maintainable. It is also contended that the matter is pending before the Corporation Council. It is pointed out that the width of the road in front of the house of the complainant is only 3 meters whereas the width of the rest of the road is 5 meters. It is also pointed out that the people of the locality has formed an Action Council and resisted the tarring of the disputed portion of the road as it is not having sufficient width as is having on the remaining portions.

4. The Forum overruled the contention of the 1^st opposite party. The above order is challenged in the appeal.

5. At the time of hearing it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/complainant that tarring work has been executed in the portion of the road in front of the residence of the complainant. In the circumstances we find that the matter is infructuous. Hence the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]

PRESIDENT