K.S.Anilkumar V/S Abdul Latheef - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/202/2007

Abdul Latheef - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.S.Anilkumar - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2008

ORDER

Alappuzha
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
consumer case(CC) No. CC/202/2007

Abdul Latheef						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
K.S.Anilkumar						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(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

SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER) The complainant has filed the petition before this Forum alleging deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The complainants case is also follows:- He has sold the vehicle Maheendra Armada Reg. No.JK4G/302 to the opposite party on 19.1.2003for due consideration. Complainant contended that the purchaser has not taken steps to change the ownership of vehicle within the stipulated period as agreed. So the R.T.O. officials charged tax after the purchased vehicle. And the prayer of the complainant is to refund the tax arrears remitted by the complainant as per the proceedings, the R.R. proceedings. On a detailed perusal of the contention of the complainant, he is not a consumer u/s 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since complaint is not maintainable, it is dismissed. No order as cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of March, 2008.

SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER) The complainant has filed the petition before this Forum alleging deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The complainants case is also follows:- He has sold the vehicle Maheendra Armada Reg. No.JK4G/302 to the opposite party on 19.1.2003for due consideration. Complainant contended that the purchaser has not taken steps to change the ownership of vehicle within the stipulated period as agreed. So the R.T.O. officials charged tax after the purchased vehicle. And the prayer of the complainant is to refund the tax arrears remitted by the complainant as per the proceedings, the R.R. proceedings. On a detailed perusal of the contention of the complainant, he is not a consumer u/s 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since complaint is not maintainable, it is dismissed. No order as cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of March, 2008.

......................JIMMY KORAH
......................K.Anirudhan
......................Smt;Shajitha Beevi