Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
KHAJA NAIMUDDIN V/S THE M/S. VARIETY AUTOMOTIVES PVT., LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, decided on Thursday, November 24, 2016.
[ In the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad, FA No. 716 of 2014 Against CD No.159 of 2014. ] 24/11/2016
Judge(s) : B.N. RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT & PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
Advocate(s) : M/s. Syed Ali Murtuza. M/s. Rakesh Sanghi.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page







#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Oral Order: (Patil Vithal Rao Member)The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party before the District Consumer Forum Ranga Reddy District in C.C.no.159/2014.2. The appellant has filed the above said case seeking return of his vehicle [goods carriage LMV AP 25W 3132] and Rs.50 000/- with interest and costs against the respondent herein. His claim is that after effecting necessary repairs to the said vehicle and having received the insurance amount from the insurer Insurance Company of the vehicle and also Rs.50 000/- from the appellant towards advance for the job work the respondent failed to deliver the vehicle amounting to deficiency in service. The respondent has filed his written version before the District Forum to contest the claim.3. When the case was being adjourned from time to time it seems the appellant herein has failed to adduce evidence by way of evidence affidavit. Therefore the impugned order was come to be passed which is as under :“Evidence Affidavit of complainant not filed. No representation for complainant. It appears he has no interest to prosecute his case. Hence the complaint is dismissed for default.”4. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that due to accident in the last week of November 2014 he was bedridden and as such could not contact his counsel but the District Forum without considering the material evidence borne by record dismissed the complaint in default instead of deciding the issue on merits. Be that as it may in our opinion the complainant has assigned a just and reasonable ground to consider the appeal sympathetically in his favour more particularly having regard to the nature of the dispute. Even otherwise both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the appeal have fairly conceded to remand the matter to the District Forum for disposal on merits in accordance with law by allowing the present appeal. In the given set up facts and circumstances in our opinion it will be just necessary and expedient to allow the appeal in the interest of justice.5. In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law by restoring the case on its file. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.