Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/312

Navas A - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhima Jewellery - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHAR LANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695010
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/312
( Date of Filing : 22 Jun 2016 )
 
1. Navas A
tvpm
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Bhima Jewellery
tvpm
............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 : 25 Oct 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. 312/2016 Filed on 22/06/2016

ORDER DATED: 25/10/2022

 

Complainant

:

Navas.A, S/o.Asanarupillai, Navas Manzil, Paichira, Pallippuram.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 316.

                   (By Adv.Siva Kumar)

Opposite party

:

M/s.Bhima Jewellery, Ayurveda College Junction, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001, Rep. by its Managing Director.

                    (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

 

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 complainant filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegation raised by the complainant.  Though the complainant filed an affidavit, he has not turned up before this Commission to mark the documents.  When the case came up for consideration, it is noticed that the complainant was absent since 02/08/2019.  Today also complainant was absent and there was no representation.  As the complainant was continuously absent and there was no representation from the side of the complainant, we find that the complainant is not interested to further proceed with this complaint.  In the above circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed for default. 

In the result 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 25th day of October,  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.