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



FA No.364/2009 against PP.No.45/2006 in CD.No.78/2006 District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam.



Between:

K.Jayalaxmi, W/o.Nanajee,

Aged about 40 years, Occ: Owner of Trailor Lorry,

Bearing No.OR-07K-4905, Janakiramnagar Colony,

Srikakulam Town,

Srikakulam District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.Shriram Investment Pvt.Ltd.

Rep. by its Manager, Upstairs of Andhra Bank,

Women’s Branch, Women’s College Road,

Srikakulam.

2.The Divisional Manager,

Shriram Investment Pvt.Ltd.

Upstairs of Andhra Bank,

Women’s Branch, Women’s College Road,

Srikakulam.

…Respondents/O.Ps.



Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.A.Rama Rao.

Counsel for the Respondents : Admn.stage.





QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.



WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



Oral Order (Per Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, Hon’ble President)

*******

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The unsuccessful petitioner in PP.No.45/2006 in CD.No.78/2006 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam, is the appellant.

3. The appellant filed a complaint to release the vehicle together with damages, compensation and costs. During pendency of the complaint, he filed an application, IA.No.243/2006 and the District Forum by an interim order dt.28.10.2006 directed the respondents to deliver the seized vehicle on payment of Rs.1,59,450/- as condition precedent for release of the vehicle. It seems that the said condition was complied and on that the vehicle was released on 22.11.2006. During the interim period, P.P was filed to punish the respondents on the ground that they did not comply the said orders invoking Sec.27 of C.P.Act. Subsequently, on enquiry the very complaint was dismissed on 27.6.2008. Aggrieved by the order he preferred appeal before this Commission and the same is pending. On 27.6.2008 the said PP was dismissed on the ground that the order was complied besides the very complaint was dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant filed this appeal. Since the very appeal preferred against the dismissal of the complaint is pending before this Commission, and in view of the fact that the interim order that was passed by the District Forum was complied, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the District Forum in dismissing the petition. We see no merits in this appeal. In fact all the interim orders that were passed by the District Forum, could also be agitated in the appeal. In any view of the matter, the appeal is misconceived.

5. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

PRESIDENT

LADY MEMBER

MALE MEMBER

Dt:8.4.2009.