Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/240

M/s T.P.Agencies - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.Sugesh - Opp.Party(s)

Shyam Padman

27 May 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/10/240
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/02/2010 in Case No. CC 361/09 of District Kozhikode)
1. M/s T.P.Agencies ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. T.Sugesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONARABLE MR. 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

 

APPEAL NO.240/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 27.5.2010

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

 

M/s T.P.Agencies,                                       : APPELLANT

Mavoor Road, Calicut.

 

(By Adv.Shyam Padman)

 

        Vs.

 

T.Sugesh,                                                    : RESPONDENT

S/o Sukumaran, Tharol House,

Nellikkode village,

Kovoor Desom,  Kozhikode Taluk.

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

The appellant is the opposite party/dealer in CC.361/09 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.1000/-. 

2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased first quality floor tiles from the opposite party’s showroom for a sum of Rs.37599/-.  Tiles after laying in his newly constructed house was found to have varied in colour.  The complainant had approached the opposite party   several times and also sent notice.

3. The opposite party/appellant stood ex parte at the Forum.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.A1 to A6.

5. The Forum has relied on the testimony of PW1 and ordered only a compensation of Rs.15000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.

6. The explanation by the appellant for his non appearance before the Forum is that on receiving the notice he had contacted the complainant and requested him to implead the manufacturer who would settle all his grievances and he agreed.  Hence believing the assurance of the complainant he did not contest.   We find the above version of the appellant is hardly believable.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum below.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.

Appeal 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 : 27 May 2010

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