State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sree Devi Enterprises By Its Manager ... vs S. Srinivasan The Nilgiris Seed Depot ... on 20 April, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II R.P.NO.33/2011 (Against order in E.A.No.10/2011 in CC No.433/2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL 2011 Sree Devi Enterprises By its Manager Samsung Plaza 79A Sri Shanmugam Road R.S.Puram, Coimbatore -2 Petitioner / JD/ Opposite party Vs. S. Srinivasan The Nilgiris Seed Depot 41, Etines Road Ootacamund- 643 001 Respondent/DH/ Complainant This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of issuing NBW of the District Forum in EA No.10/2011 dt.09.11.201002.03.2011. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, this commission made the following order. Counsel for Petitioner/ Opposite party : M/s. S. Natarajan Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant: Mr. V. Santhanam M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT . (Open court) 1.
Revision Petition itself taken for hearing.
2. The Judgement Debtor/opposite party, having suffered an exparte order, failed to take further action, resulting execution petition, where NBW was ordered to be issued, when it was sought to be enforced, at that time the opposite party, who failed to contest the case, as reported, filed this Revision Petition, as well as CMP.480/2011, for the stay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission directed the Judgement Debtor to pay the entire award amount, less mandatory deposit, since already deposited before this commission, as per order dt.24.3.2011, which was complied with.
3. It is admitted by both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, in preferring appeal, there was a delay, and the petition to condone delay, in order to take the appeal, is pending, coming for hearing tomorrow. This being the position, allowing the Execution Petition to go for further proceedings, as the entire amount is secured, which is available with the District Forum, or the State Commission, as the case may be, may not be proper, and after the disposal of the appeal, the Decree Holder can workout their remedy, as per law, if he succeeds. In view of the above said position, keeping the Revision Petition, is of no use, since NBW was ordered to be recalled, and recalled also. Hence the Revision Petition is closed.
4. In the result, the Revision petition is closed. The amount deposited, shall remain, either in the State Commission, or the District Forum, as the case may be, which shall abide the result of the appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Revision Petition BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru J. JAYARAM, M.A.,M.L., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II R.P.NO.78/2010 (Against order in E.A.No.19/2010 in CC No.251/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011
1. M/s. Cox and Kings ( India) Ltd., Ceebros Rangam 11, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Chennai 600 018
2. M/s. Travel Toons Pvt. Ltd., 113-A, 2nd Floor West Perumal Maistry Street Madurai- 625 001
3. R. Ilango Executive (Leisure) M/s. Cox & Kings ( India) Pvt. Ltd., 468, Perumalkoil South Mada Street Madurai- 625 001 Petitioner / JD/ Opposite party Vs. V. Thangavelsamy, Red., College Professor 2/291, 5th Main Road, Gomathipuram Madurai- 625 020 Respondent/DH/ Complainant This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in EA No.19/2010 dt.09.11.2010.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, this commission made the following order.
Counsel for Petitioner/ Opposite party : M/s. S. Natarajan Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant: M/s. R. Kannan M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT . (Open court)
1. Revision Petition itself taken for disposal, by consent.
2. The respondent in this Revision Petition, as complainant, obtained an exparte order, wherein a direction has been given by the District Forum, to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,473/- alongwith 9% p.a., from 26.2.2007 till payment, alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as cost, which was not satisfied, resulting execution petition by the Decree Holder, before the District Forum, where NBW was ordered to be issued, which is challenged in this revision. In this revision, when a stay petition has been filed, considering the scope of the case, a direction has been issued to deposit Rs.50000/-, excluding mandatory deposit, which was complied, thereby securing 75% of the order of the District Forum.
3. It is an admitted fact, that a petition for condoning the delay, has been filed, and the same is also pending for compliance of certain condition, and on compliance, appeal will be taken. Therefore, keeping the Revision Petition, when appeal has been filed, may not be necessary, that too in view of the fact 75% of the amount is ordered to be secured, which will be in the safe custody of the District Forum, or State Commission concerned, which shall abide the result of the case. Hence the Revision is allowed, order of the District Forum set aide, giving liberty to the parties, to agitate their right in the appeal.
4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in E.A.No.19/2010 dt.9.11.2010.
S.SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Revision Petition BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru J. JAYARAM, M.A.,M.L., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II R.P.NO.78/2010 (Against order in E.A.No.19/2010 in CC No.251/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai) DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011
1. M/s. Cox and Kings ( India) Ltd., Ceebros Rangam 11, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Chennai 600 018
2. M/s. Travel Toons Pvt. Ltd., 113-A, 2nd Floor West Perumal Maistry Street Madurai- 625 001
3. R. Ilango Executive (Leisure) M/s. Cox & Kings ( India) Pvt. Ltd., 468, Perumalkoil South Mada Street Madurai- 625 001 Petitioner / JD/ Opposite party Vs. V. Thangavelsamy, Red., College Professor 2/291, 5th Main Road, Gomathipuram Madurai- 625 020 Respondent/DH/ Complainant This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in EA No.19/2010 dt.09.11.2010.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, this commission made the following order.
Counsel for Petitioner/ Opposite party : M/s. S. Natarajan Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant: M/s. R. Kannan M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT . (Open court)
1. Revision Petition itself taken for disposal, by consent.
2. The respondent in this Revision Petition, as complainant, obtained an exparte order, wherein a direction has been given by the District Forum, to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,473/- alongwith 9% p.a., from 26.2.2007 till payment, alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as cost, which was not satisfied, resulting execution petition by the Decree Holder, before the District Forum, where NBW was ordered to be issued, which is challenged in this revision. In this revision, when a stay petition has been filed, considering the scope of the case, a direction has been issued to deposit Rs.50000/-, excluding mandatory deposit, which was complied, thereby securing 75% of the order of the District Forum.
3. It is an admitted fact, that a petition for condoning the delay, has been filed, and the same is also pending for compliance of certain condition, and on compliance, appeal will be taken. Therefore, keeping the Revision Petition, when appeal has been filed, may not be necessary, that too in view of the fact 75% of the amount is ordered to be secured, which will be in the safe custody of the District Forum, or State Commission concerned, which shall abide the result of the case. Hence the Revision is allowed, order of the District Forum set aide, giving liberty to the parties, to agitate their right in the appeal.
4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in E.A.No.19/2010 dt.9.11.2010.
S.SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Revision Petition