Dr.Shaheem Sait v. M/S. Geeyem Motors Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015/12TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22568 of 2015 (U) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- DR.SHAHEEM SAIT.Y, S/O.YACOOB, RESIDING AT 1/8, GCDA FIRST KUNJATTUKARA, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 561.

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. M/S.GEEYEM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, 11/336, NATIONAL HIGHWAY BYE PASS, NETTOOR P.O., COCHIN - 682 040, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

2. M/S.CHEVROLET SALES INDIA PVT.LTD., BLOCK B, CHANDRAPURA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HALOL, DISTRICT PANCHMAHALS GUJARAT - 389 351, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

WP(C).No. 22568 of 2015 (U) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

---------------------------------------- EXT.P-1:

TRUE COPY OF THE CONSUMER COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CDRF, ERNAKULAM.

EXT.P-2:

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS IA 287/2015 IN CC 264/2015. EXT.P-3:

TRUE COPY OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FORUM.

EXT.P-4:

TRUE COPY OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CDRF, ERNAKULAM.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.22568 of 2015 - U ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's applications at Exts.P3 and P4 is not being considered. The petitioner only wants a panel of experts to be appointed to verify the condition of the petitioner's vehicle. The petitioner in fact submitted the name of three experts by Ext.P3. However, since none of them were from Ernakulam District, the same is declined to be considered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. Hence, the petitioner moved Ext.P4 application, wherein three Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Ernakulam itself was said to be appointed. The District Forum is now insisting for their education qualification, is the contention of the petitioner.

2. Since, all the three Motor Vehicle Inspectors are

W.P.(C) No.22568 of 2015 - U competent to examine a vehicle, their capacity to do so need not be doubted. In such circumstance, the District Forum shall appoint any two of the said persons as an expert panel and shall also fix the fees to be paid to them and specifically direct that the examination shall be done only on a holiday. In the nature of the orders passed, this Court does not find any reason to issue notice to the respondents.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.