IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the   28^th      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.410/2020

Thankamma.T                                                                                    :               Complainant

Tincy Cottage

Pallimukku, Kundara,Kollam-691501.

[By Adv.P.Sajeev Babu]

V/s

1. 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.

2. Y.Mathew Panicker

       Former Branch Manager

        Mary Rani Trading LLP

       Kundara

        Residing at 

       Maliyekkal Mathew Bhavan,

        Punnamukku, Perumpuzha P.O-691504.

3. T.Mathunni Panicker

          Branch Manager

          Mary Rani Trading LLP, 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.1,00,000/-  covered by LLP dated 14.03.2020  made by the complainant at the office of the opposite parties. 

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.1,00,000/-.  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     28^th   day of   November   2022.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent