Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/415

Rajendran - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Gopalakrishnan

17 Apr 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/09/415
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/05/2009 in Case No. OP 378/05 of District Kollam)
1. RajendranKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. TATA Motors Ltd.Kerala ...........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 VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

                                              APPEAL  NO:415/2009

 

                              JUDGMENT DATED:17..04..2010

 

PRESENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

 

Rajendran, S/o Rajan,

Rajendra Vilasom,

Sooranadu North,                                               : APPELLANT

Anayadi.P.O, Kollam.

 

(By Adv: Sri.Sreevalsam R.Gopalakrishnan)

 

          Vs.

Tata Motors Ltd.,

Oottukuzhi Road, TVPM.                                   : RESPONDENT

 

                                      JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

                                   

The appellant is the complainant in CC:378/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The complaint stands dismissed.

2. The complaint is with respect to the alleged exorbitant amount claimed by the opposite party/financier with respect to the finance availed for the chassis of a bus.  The Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that in the case of hire purchase agreement the owner is not rendering any service vide Sec.2(1)(O) of the Consumer Protection Act.

3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4.

4. The counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it was a mistake that it has been mentioned in the complaint that the owner of the vehicle is the financer.   He has stated that the RC is in the name of the complainant and that the chassis has only been hypothecated.

5. In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum is liable to be reconsidered.

In the result the order of the Forum is set aside.  The Forum is directed to further hear the parties and dispose of the case on merits.  The case stands posted before the Forum on 27/52010.

The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

 

 

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

 

VL.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 17 April 2010

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