Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/70

T.V.Francis - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala Kera Karshaka Sahakarana Federation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.A.D.Benny

11 Nov 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/70

T.V.Francis
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kerala Kera Karshaka Sahakarana Federation Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. T.V.Francis

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Kerala Kera Karshaka Sahakarana Federation Ltd

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

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

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: This is a complaint filed for realization of compensation for the loss sustained to the complainant due to the service deficiency of respondent. The parties were entered into an agreement for supplying herbs like Devadaram and Anjanakallu. The price rate fixed for one kg. of Devadaram was Rs.30/- and Rs.110/- for Anjanakallu. The agreement was executed on 1.7.06 and the tenure was one year. It was agreed that if the petitioner failed to supply the items the respondent had even right to compensate. But during the period the respondent not even purchased one kg. of the items specified. The complainant had stored the items and occurred loss. Hence this complaint. 2. The respondent is called absent and set exparte. 3. To prove the case, complainant has filed affidavit and two documents which are marked as Exts. P1 and P2. 4. According to the complainant for the loss occurred he is entitled to get Rs.90,000/- and also costs. 5. There is no evidence to the contrary. 6. The compensation claimed by the complainant is Rs.90,000/- but there is no evidence to fix the quantum of damages. According to the complainant even one kg. of the products was not purchased by the respondent. So there is no need to collect more quantity. In the circumstances we inclined to allow Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs. 7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) 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 11th day of November 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S