Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/164

Hypertech systems - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soji Somaraj - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Kalkura

19 Apr 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/10/164
(Arisen out of Order Dated 31/12/2009 in Case No. CC 274/09 of District Kollam)
1. Hypertech systems ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Soji Somaraj ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
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

 

FIRST APPEAL 164/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.4.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA              : MEMBER

 

The Manager,                                     : APPELLANT

Hyper Tech Systems,

Near Kochukodungalloor Temple,

N.H.47 Near Iroon Bridge, Kollam.

(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

                      Vs.

Soji Somaraj,                                      : RESPONDENT

Mani Mandiram, Ezhukone.P.O.,

Kollam.

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

The appellant is the opposite party in CC/274/2009 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.29,500/- with interest at 9% per annum and to pay Rs.7500/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/-.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he  purchased an assembled personal computer system from the opposite party for the price of Rs.29,500/- on 29.12.07.  According to him soon after the machine developed problems and he could not use the machine satisfactorily even for a single day.

3. The opposite parties stood ex parte before the Forum.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1; Exts. P1 to P6 marked.

5. The reason mentioned for the non appearance of the opposite party before the Forum is that the matter was entrusted to one Advocate and that he  due to an inadvertent mistake could not appear before the Forum and the opposite party could not follow up the case as he was admitted in a hospital undergoing treatment for back pain.

6. We find that nothing to establish the above fact alleged  has been produced.  The reason mentioned for non appearance is not convincing.  In the circumstances we find there is no scope for admitting the appeal.  The appeal is dismissed in limine.

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

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA              : MEMBER

 

 

 

ps

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 19 April 2010

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT