Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sri B.Narasimha Reddy S/O.Sri Siva ... vs Tata Motors Limited (Mallika Cars, ... on 28 June, 2011

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE A
  
 







 



 

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

 

  

 

 F.A.No.1186/2009 against
C.C.No.176/2008, DISTRICT FORUM-II,   HYDERABAD. 

 

  

 

Between 

 

  

 

Sri
B.Narasimha Reddy 

 

S/o.Sri
Siva Reddy, aged 52 years, 

 

Occ:Retd.Employee,
H.No.1-88, 

 

Plot
No.47, Parvathipuram, 

 

Uppal,
  Hyderabad.     Appellant/ 

 

   Complainant  

 

 
And 

 

  

 

1.
Tata Motors Limited (Mallika Cars) 

 

 Banjara Hills,   Hyderabad. 

 

  

 

2.
T.M.L.Financial Service Ltd., 

 

 Rep. by its Area Manager, 

 

 Perika Bhavan, Besides of   Concord 

 

 Showroom, Khairatabad, 

 

   Hyderabad.   Respondents/ 

 

  Opp.parties   

 

Counsel
for the Appellant : Mr. V.Srinivasa Rao 

 

  

 

Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.Hari & Associates 

 

  

 

QUORUM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE
SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT 

 

SMT. M.SHREESHA, MEMBER 

AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER   TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

 

Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President ) *****   Heard the counsel for appellant.

This is an appeal filed against the order of dismissal of his complaint by the complainant on the ground that he was not present.

A perusal of the record shows that evidence of both parties was let in besides the complainant has already filed his written arguments equally so the opposite parties.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that he was absent. In fact, it ought to have considered the written arguments filed by both parties and in the light of evidence let in, passed appropriate orders on merits. At any rate it could not have dismissed the complaint for default.

Considering the fact that the entire material has been placed, we feel that it is better to give one more chance to the parties to address arguments and the District Forum after considering the arguments of both sides shall pass appropriate orders on merits. None appears for R1 and R2 before this Commission. Therefore, the District Forum is directed to issue notice to R1 and R2 and dispose of the matter according to law. The complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum on 12-7-2011 without insisting for fresh notice.

In the result this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The matter is remitted back to it for fresh disposal, according to law, after giving notice to opposite parties 1 and 2. However, the complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum on 12-7-2011 without insisting for fresh notice. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

 

Sd/-MEMBER.

 

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM Dt.28-06-2011