SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5751

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KALOOR GENERATE SALES AND SERVICE(P) LTD – Appellant
Versus
YAHIYA EBRAHIM – Respondent
SC/32/A/766/2017



STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/766/2017 null KALOOR GENERATE SALES AND SERVICE(P) LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 36/1365-B2, KASIM LANE, KALOOR.P.O, KOCHI- 682017. ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus YAHIYA EBRAHIM PRESENT ADDRESS - WELLFITMANOR, NUSRATH ROAD, TALANGARA VILLAGE, KASARGOD.P.O- 671121. ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 23/05/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL Nos. 766/2017, 15/2018 and 31/2018 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 23.05.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 183/2012 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL No. 766/2017 APPELLANT:

Kaloor Generate Sales and Service (P) Ltd., 36/1365-B2, Kasim Lane, Kaloor P.O., Kochi-682 017 represented by its Managing Director-Jyothish Kumar.

(By Adv. Naveen Radhakrishnan)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Yahya Ebrahim Musliyar, S/o Abdulla Kunhi, residing at Wellfit Manor, Nusrath Road, Talangara Village, Kasaragod P.O., Kasaragod-671 121.

(By Adv. B. Vijayakumar and Adv. Arun Kumar D.R.)

2. M/s Kirloskar Electricity Company Ltd., Gokul Road, Hubli, Pin-580 030.

3. The Prime Syndicate, Paramany Road, Kozhikode P.O., Kozhikode-673 001.

(By Adv. B.A. Krishna Kumar for R3)

APPEAL No. 15/2018 APPELLANT:

P.K. Nizar Ahammed, Managing Partner, The Prime Syndicate, 17/1661, Opposite Coronation Theatre Pavamani Road, Calicut-67004. (By Adv.

B.A. Krishna Kumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Yahya Ebrahim Musliyar, S/o Abdulla Kunhi, residing at Wellfit Manor, Nusrath Road, Talangara Village, Kasaragod P.O., represented by Power of Attorney Holder Shafeeq. K., S/o Moideen Koya, ‘Amaana’, Arakkinar, Kozhikode-673

038.

(By Adv. B. Vijayakumar and Adv. Arun Kumar D.R.)

2. M/s Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Gokul Road, Hubli, Pin-580 030.

3. M/s Kaloor Generate Sales and Service (P) Ltd., 36/1365-B2, Kasim Lane, Kaloor P.O., Kochi-682 017.

(By Adv. Naveen Radhakrishnan for R3)

APPEAL No. 31/2018 APPELLANT:

M/s Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Gokul Road, Hubli, Pin-580 030.

(By Adv. V. Krishna Menon and Adv. S. Reghukumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Yahya Ebrahim Musliyar, S/o Abdulla Kunhi, residing at Wellfit Manor, Nusrath Road, Talangara Village, Kasaragod P.O., represented by Power of Attorney Holder Shafeeq. K., S/o Moideen Koya, ‘Amaana’, Arakkinar, Kozhikode-673

038.

(By Adv. B. Vijayakumar and Adv. Arun Kumar D.R.) 2. The Prime Syndicate, Paramany Road, P.O.Calicut.

(By Adv. B.A. Krishna Kumar)

3. M/s Kaloor Generate Sales and Service (P) Ltd., 36/1365-B2, Kasim Lane, Kaloor P.O., Kochi-682 017.

(By Adv. Naveen Radhakrishnan)

COMMON JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal No. 31/2018, the appellant in Appeal No.

15/2018 and the appellant in Appeal No. 766/2017 are respectively the opposite parties 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 183/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (for short, “the District Commission”).

2. The District Commission issued notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared before the District Commission and filed their version.

rd However, the 3 opposite party was set ex parte. Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence of PW1, DW1 and Exhibits A1 to A11 and B1 and B2, the District Commission allowed the complaint.

3. Heard. Perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 766/2017 has submitted rd that since the appellant/3 opposite party was set ex parte within the statutory period as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appellant was denied the opportunity to file written version and contest the matter on merits and in the said circumstances, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.

rd

5. It appears from the records that notice was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top