Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/18/398

Jeena Muralidharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Akbar Travels - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHAR LANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695010
 
Complaint Case No. CC/18/398
( Date of Filing : 01 Nov 2018 )
 
1. Jeena Muralidharan
salabhanjika,ayanimood,vedivachacoil,Trivandrum
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Akbar Travels
velalyambala,sasthamangalam,Trivandrum
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 20 Dec 2022
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 398/2018 Filed on 01/11/2018

ORDER DATED: 20/12/2022

 

Complainant

:

Jeena Muralidharan, Salapanjika, Ayanimoodu, Vedivachankovil.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 501.   

                   (Party in person)

Opposite parties

:

  1. The Manager, Akber travels, Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

(By Adv.A.Abdul Kharim)

  1. Indigo Airlines, Airport Road, Chakkai, Thiruvananthapruam –  695 008.

(By Adv.Narayan)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties.  The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation raised by the complainant.  The 2nd opposite party was called absent and set ex parte.  Subcequently on 29/12/2020 the opposite party filed an application to review the order dated 18/06/2019 setting aside the 2nd opposite party.  That application was posted for objection of the complainant.  Since 31/03/2021 as the complainant was continuously absent on 06/07/2022 this Commission issued a notice to the complainant to appear before this Commission to further proceed with this case.  The said notice issued to the complainant was returned with endorsement ‘addressee left’ and hence two more chances were given to the complainant for her appearance to 31/10/2022 and 20/12/2021.  On 31/10/2022 as well as on today the complainant was absent and there was no representation.  In the above circumstances we find that the complainant is not interested to further proceed with this complaint. 

            In the result the complaint is dismissed for default.  There will be no order as to cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 20nd  day of December,  2022.

 

Sd/-

P.V. JAYARAJAN

:

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR

 

:

 

      MEMBER

Sd/-

VIJU  V.R.

:

MEMBER

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R]
MEMBER
 

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.