Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/54/2010

M/S.MANSANI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VEMULA RAMESH, S/O.V.KRISHNA - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.V.GOURI SHANKAR RAO

19 Nov 2010

ORDER

 
Revision Petition No. RP/54/2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/08/2010 in Case No. CC/173/2009 of District Rangareddi)
 
1. M/S.MANSANI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
10-1-88/A, VARDHAN COMPLEX, OPP:YADAVA REDDY GARDENS, KARMANGHAT 'X' ROAD, SAGAR ROAD, SAROOR NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. VEMULA RAMESH, S/O.V.KRISHNA
R/O.H.NO.11-3-152/1/A, MAHMOODGUDA, WARASIGUDA, SECUNDERABAD-500 061.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

 

R.P.No.54/2010 against I.A.No.116/2010 in C.C.173/2009,  Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy District

 

Between:

 

M/s.Mansani Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

10-1-88/A, Vardhan Complex,

Opp:Yadava Reddy Gardens,

Karmanghat ‘X’ Road,

Sagar Road, Saroornagar,

Hyderabad. Rep. by its

Managing Director.                           ***                                   Rev Petitioner/

          Opposite Party      

                                                                   And

Vemula Ramesh S/o.V.Krishna,

Aged about 30 years,

Occ:Engineer, R/o.H.No.11-3-152/1/A,

Mahmoodguda, Warasiguda,

Secunderabad-500 061.                    ***                                   Respondent/

Complainant

                                     

Counsel for the Petitioner                          M/s. V.Gourisankara Rao

 

Counsel for the Respondent:                      -Party in person

 

CORAM:

                                          SMT. M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
                                                                   and

                                      SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER                               

 

THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN

 

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member.)

 

***

 

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.  Respondent, party in person, present.

This is a revision preferred against the order in I.A.No.116/2010 in C.C.No.173/2009 in which the District Forum has set the opposite party exparte. 

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that due to severe traffic jam on that day, the petitioner could not attend the District Forum and his non appearance is neither willful nor deliberate and hence prayed to allow the revision and set aside the exparte order.

The respondent resisted the same, however, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to set aside the exparte order. since there are latches on behalf of the petitioner, on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent.

In the result this revision petition is allowed directing the counsel for the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent on 25-11-2010  and also file his written version in  C.C. 173/2009 on the very same day.  The District Forum is also directed to dispose of the C.D. within 3 months after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and arguments from that day.

 

 

                                                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

 

 

                                                                                                Sd/MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                     Dt.19-11-2010

                                               

 

 

 

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.