Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/499

Nobi Sudarshan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiley Augusty - Opp.Party(s)

Rajmohan.C.S

17 May 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/09/499
(Arisen out of Order Dated 15/05/2008 in Case No. CC 70/07 of District Idukki)
1. Nobi SudarshanKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Shiley AugustyKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENTHONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA Member
PRESENT :

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

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

Common Order in IA.1029/09 and in  APPEAL/499/09

ORDER DATED : 17.5.2010

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

 

Nobi Sudarshan                                           : APPELLANT

Kattarukudiyil House,

Rajakumari.P.O.,

(Managing Partner,

 Pace IT Solutions, 

Devamatha Complex,

 Rajakumary South.P.O.)

 

(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan)

             

            Vs.

Shiley Augusthy,                                          : RESPONDENT

Punnolil House,

Arivilamchal.P.O.,

Mangathotty,

Kanthippara Village,

Idukki District.

 

(By Adv.Bimal.V.S)

 

ORDER

 

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

 

          Delay sought to be condoned  is of 394 days.  The case of the complainant is that the summons was sent in another  name ie. Nobi Salim and after the order in the  execution proceedings the name has been changed as Nobi Salim @  Sudarshan.  According to him he did not contest the matter  as he did not receive the summons.  The delay is sought to be condoned on account of the above ground. 

2. The respondent/complainant has filed objection contending that  the attempt of the opposite party is     only to protract the proceedings. 

3. We find that it is mentioned in the objection itself that the notice was returned with the endorsement unclaimed.  In the circumstances we find that the case of the petitioner can not be said to be  totally false.  In the circumstance the  delay is condoned.

          4. The petitioner  is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.8250/- and Rs. 2500/- as compensation within one month failing which the amount will carry interest at 12%.  In view of the fact that the matter has been decided
ex-parte  the same is set aside on condition that the petitioner/appellant pay a sum of Rs.7500/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant.

          5. On payment of cost the Forum will permit the parties to contest the matter .

          6. The case stands posted before the Forum on 4.8.2010.

          Office is directed to forward the copy of the order to the Forum urgently.

         

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

 

 

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

 

 

ps

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 17 May 2010

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT[HONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA]Member