Kerala

Kasaragod

C.C.No.137/06

Sulfikar Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.M.Abdul Khader - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2008

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CDRF,Fort Road,Kasaragod
consumer case(CC) No. C.C.No.137/06

Sulfikar Ali
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

C.M.Abdul Khader
Abdul Rasaq
Moidhu
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Sulfikar Ali

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. C.M.Abdul Khader 2. Abdul Rasaq 3. Moidhu

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

Date of filing : 8-12-06 Date or order :4-10-08. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.137/06 Dated this, the 4th day of October 2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Sulfiker Ali, C/o.Aboobacker Musaliyar, } Complainant Jilani House, Nekraje.Po, Nellikkatta, Kasaragod. 1 C.M.Abdul Khader, S/o.Mariyumma, } Opposite parties Akkarappalla House, Alampadi.po, Kasaragod. 2 Moidu, Akkarapalla House, Alampadi.Po, Kasaragod. 3 Abdul Razak, Family Quarters, Baladukkam, Chengala.Po, Cherkala, Kasaragod. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ,PRESIDENT Complainant Sulfiker Ali a bachelor, through opposite party No.3 engaged opposite parties 1 & 2 namely C.M.Abdul Kader and Moidu, who are marriage brokers by profession to find out a suitable bride for him. They made him believe that there are a number of suitable marriage proposals with them and demanded Rs.10,000/- as their service charge. Out of that opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly collected Rs.2500/- as advance money. But inspite of their assurances and promises they did not make arrangements to show him the bride as promised. That apart they further collected a sum of Rs.100/- towards their travelling expenses. After receiving the money opposite parties 1 & 2 did not render their service as promised. Therefore Sulfiker issued registered notices to Opposite parties 1 & 2. Opposite party No.1 received the notice. Notice to opposite party No.2 returned as unclaimed. According to Sulfiker he has suffered much mental agony and believing the words of opposite parties 1 & 2 he take leave from his work frequently and that resulted in his job loss. Even though he directly contacted opposite parties 1 & 2 and explained his difficulty they ignored him. After receiving the advance amount towards the service charges opposite parties failed to render their services and it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint praying for an order for Rs.25000/- as compensation towards the loss hardships and mental agony caused to Sulfiker. 2. Notice issued to opposite parties 1 to 3 by registered post. But notice to opposite party No.1 returned as unclaimed since opposite party No.1 failed to collect the notice from the postal authorities inspite of intimation. Hence he is called absent and set exparte. Notice to Opposite parties 2 & 3 is ordered through substituted service by publication. Complainant produced the local daily in that the notice against opposite parties 2 & 3 published Even then opposite parties 2 & 3 failed to appear before the Forum. Hence opposite parties 2 & 3 called absent and set exparte. 3. Sulfiker examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked. Sulfiker testified in line with his complaint. Claim of Sulfiker is proved. The acceptance of advance amount and withdrawal from the promises and assurance that to find out suitable marriage alliance for Sulfiker is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2. As there is no allegation against opposite party No.3 and he has not received any consideration from complainant, we donot think it is a fair to pass an order against opposite party No.3. In the result complaint is allowed and C.M.Abulkader and Moidu jointly and severally held liable to refund the sum of Rs.2600/- to Sulfiker with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and a cost of Rs.1500/-. Time for compliance of the order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which on application by Sulfiker appropriate proceedings U/s 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act will be initiated against C.M. Abdul Khader and Moidu. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Unclaimed registered letter. A2. Postal acknowledgement card. A3. letter. PW1.Sulfiker Ali Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi