Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/34

Owner - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.Dileep Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

K.K.Muhammed Ravuf

31 Mar 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/34

Owner
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

A.Dileep Kumar
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Owner

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. A.Dileep Kumar

For the Appellant :
1. K.K.Muhammed Ravuf

For the Respondent :
1.



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAD, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
APPEAL NO.34/08
JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.08
Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Malappuram in CC.13/05
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
Owner,
P.S.M.Silks, Tirur,                                        : APPELLANT
Malappuram District
(By Adv.K.K. Mohammed Ravuf)
 
                        Vs.
 
A. Dileep Kumar,                                               : RESPONDENT
Achooru House,
Parassery PO,
BP Angadi, Tirur, Malappuram.
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU          :PRESIDENT
 
          The appellant is the opposite party in CC.13/05 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant who is running PSM Silks, Tirur is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.904/- and also sum of Rs.250/- towards costs.
          The complainant has claimed for an amount of Rs.3510/- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased two sarees for a sum of Rs.452/- each and that same were found to be defective. After the first use itself the colour got spread and the sari could not be used further.          
          The opposite parties disputed case of the complainant.
          The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits and Ext.s A1 and A2 bills.
          We find that version of the complainant as narrated in the proof affidavit stands unimpeached as the complainant was not cross examined. Further no patent illegality in the order was pointed out before this Commission.   We find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
 
          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
 
          SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
 
 
 
ps



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN