Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/60/2015

S. Jayaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.P. Sethuraman - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE        Thiru. J.JAYARAM                  PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 MEMBER

F.A. 60/2015

[Against the Order in  CCSR No.147/2014 dated 12.6.2014 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE  6^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

S.Jayaraman, Age-66

S/o Shanmuga Nadar

6/125, 3^rd street, P.M.Samy colony,

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002                                                                         ..Appellant

                                                                                 Vs

A.P.Sethuraman, Proprietor,

Arasu Medicals Groups

204, Thiruvengadasamy Road,

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002                                                                     ..Respondent

 

 Appellant/complainant                  : S.Jayaraman, Party in person

   This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 5.10.2015 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following

                                  ORDER

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.            This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CCSR. 147/2014 dated 12.6.2014 rejecting the complaint.

2.             Appellant’s argument heard. Records perused.

3.         It is pertinent to note that the District Forum has rejected the complaint on the sole ground that the name of the appellant/complainant has not been noted in the cash receipt to establish that he purchased the articles from the opposite party.

4.           The evidentiary value of the cash receipt can be decided in the enquiry of the complaint. The complaint can be disposed of after due enquiry on merits. The District Forum has erred in rejecting the complaint at the premature stage.

5.              In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum rejecting the complaint with costs and the District Forum is directed to take the complaint on file, if it is otherwise in order.    

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                  J. JAYARAM                    

        MEMBER                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER