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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1226 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 22/02/2013 in Appeal No. 6338/2012 & 2675/2012 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
WITH
IA/2243/2013
1. SATYAM LIGHT PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE AT.3RD FLOOR, AMAN, 47/52 OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, MAIN PUSHA ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 16
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. KRISHNA SHANKRA DEV KUTI
R/O PLOT NO-11, SHRI SATYA SAI NAGAR COLONY, NEAR BELGALMETTU,
SRIKAKULAM
A.P
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. MURARI KUMAR
For the Respondent :
Mr.D. Bharat Kumar, proxy counsel for Mr.Y. Rajagopala Rao, Advocate

Dated : 20 Nov 2013
ORDER

It is submitted by the respective counsels for the parties that they have arrived at an amicable settlement. As per the terms of the settlement, the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- to the respondent in full and final settlement of this claim and on the receipt of the aforesaid amount, the respondent would return automatic double dona and paper plate machine in question to the petitioner within four weeks. 2. Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner has delivered a demand draft dated 19.11.2013 of Rs.1,65,000/- in the name of Krishna Shankar Dev, the respondent drawn at ICICI Bank, Srikakulam to the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent after having received the demand draft gives an undertaking on behalf of the respondent that the respondent shall deliver the aforesaid machine to the petitioner within four weeks but the cost of transport shall be borne by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders of the fora below may be set aside for which the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of as settled and the impugned order dated 22.02.2013 in FAIA 2675 of 2012 in FASR 6338/2012 and order dated 16.11.2012 in E.A. No.27/2012 are set aside. It is further directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him. 4. Order dasti.

 
......................J
AJIT BHARIHOKE
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
MEMBER
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
whatsapp-icon Back to top