IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 28th Day of November 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.348/2020
Geevarghese Daniel : Complainant
Ajesh Bhavanam
Mulavana, Kundara, Kollam.
[By Adv.P.Sajeev Babu]
V/s
- Mary Rani Trading LLP : Opposite parties
Regd.Office:10/1, Popular Tower
Vakayar P.O, Konni,Pathanamthitta-689698.
Represented by its Designated Partner
Thomas Daniel.
- Y.Mathew Panicker
Former Branch Manager
of Popular Dealers
Kundara,Residing at,
Maliyekkal Mathew Bhavan,
Punnamukku, Perumpuzha P.O-691504.
- T.Mathunni Panicker
Branch Manager
Popular Dealers,Kundara
Residing at Plavila Thekkathil
Raju Nivas, Ambipoika
Kundara-691501.
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act against Mary Rani Trading LLP,Vakayar represented by its Designated Partner Thomas Daniel and former and present Managers of Kundara Branch by claiming refund of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest, compensation and costs covered by LLP dated 29.01.2020 made by the complainant at the office of the opposite parties along with interest, compensation and costs.
Opposite parties remained absent after receiving notice and they were set exparte. The complainant has not turned up and adduced exparte evidence though several opportunity was granted. Today when the case was called in the bench for recording exparte evidence the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he has no instruction from the complainant. The submission recorded.
In the circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is not intending to adduce any oral evidence. One document produced along with complaint is only unattested photo copy of the alleged LLP receipt. In view of Section 114(i)of the Indian Evidence Act copy of the LLP receipt cannot be acted up on without producing the original or examining the complainant. Even if the said LLP receipt is accepted and got marked in evidence it would not prove the case of the complainant, as the said document would indicate that the complainant has contributed towards the share of a limited liability partnership firm by paying Rs.2,00,000/-. As the complainant has contributed towards the share capital of a limited liability partnership firm he would become a partner of the said LLP firm. A partner is one of the owners of the firm hence not a consumer. In the circumstance the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
In the result complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this the 28th day of November 2022.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
