Kerala

Trissur

CC/06/33

Suresh Babu.E.S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandrasekharan Proprietor Sivasakthi Finance - Opp.Party(s)

A.D. Benny

09 Apr 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/33

Suresh Babu.E.S.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Chandrasekharan Proprietor Sivasakthi Finance
Chandrasekharan
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Suresh Babu.E.S.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Chandrasekharan Proprietor Sivasakthi Finance 2. Chandrasekharan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. A.D. Benny

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. V. Sunil Jose



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

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: Petitioner was a subscriber of kuri in the respondent’s kuri company named Sivasakthi Finance Corporation, Chettuva. The total sala of the kuri is Rs.1,00,000/- and he has paid the kuri amount in 20th day of every month and the monthly instalment is Rs.2500/-. The petitioner has remitted the kuri for 22 instalments. The said kuri was started on 20.12.99. Later the respondent company is closed and dropped their business. They agreed to return the payments, but no result. He is entitled to get Rs.55,000/- with 14% interest. Lawyer notice is sent on 4.1.06 but no reply and no remedy. Hence this petition. 2. The respondent has filed a counter stated that the petitioner has committed default in paying the kuri amount. He is not entitled for the amount claimed. The respondent kuri company is dropped its business only by the fault of the subscribers and legal actions were initiated to get back the money. No lawyer notice is received by the respondent. 3. The points for consideration are:- (1) Whether the petitioner is liable for the amount claimed? (2) Reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2. The petitioner approached the Forum through the Power of Attorney Holder and the Power of Attorney is marked as Ext. P3. No evidence is adduced by the respondent and no document is produced. 5. Points-1 and 2: The petitioner’s case is that he is a subscriber of kuri as per Ext. P1 and he has remitted Rs.55,000/- and it can be seen from Ext. P1. Ext. P1 is the pass book. On going through the pass book it is shown that total Rs.34,470/- is remitted by the petitioner. The auctioned benefit is added to the remitted amount from 20.1.2000. 6. In the counter, the respondent indirectly admitted the case of the petitioner. He is stated that the company is dropped due to the fault of the subscribers and legal actions were initiated to recover the money and he has no means to pay the debts. There assertions are establishing the case of the petitioner. So the petition is allowed and he is entitled to get the amount remitted by him with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of petition and 6% from today till realization. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get the remitted amount only with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of petition till today and 6% interest from today till realization. He also entitled for Rs.500/- towards costs. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 9th day of April 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.