Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/771

Ramadas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishnankutty - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.P.Pramod

02 May 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/771

Ramadas
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Krishnankutty
Ravi
...........Respondent(s)


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

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Ramadas

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Krishnankutty 2. Ravi

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.P.Pramod

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

 

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
 
            The complainant’s case is as follows: The respondents had received Rs.750/- as the service charges for giving application to the Guruvayur R.T.O. for the renewal of licence and badge for driving Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), 3 wheeler. The respondents had received the complainant’s original licence and badge on 1.4.08 for this purpose and the respondents assured to return the licence after renewal within 15 days. The last date of licence was on 18.4.08. After entrusting his documents for renewal the complainant approached the first respondent after 15 days and he was in urgency to get it renewed fastly. But it was not returned. So after 18.4.08 he couldn’t continue to work as driver. The complainant earns Rs.300/- daily by driving a LMV and this is the only means of livelihood of the complainant. The complainant lost his daily earnings. The act of the respondents is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
 
            2. The respondents called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. To prove the case of the complainant he has filed affidavit and the documents produced by him are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. 
            4. According to the complainant he had given Rs.750/- to the respondents for the renewal of his licence and badge. The respondents are doing the job of agents for renewal of licence and so complainant had entrusted them to renew it. The respondents ensured to return the licence after renewal within 15 days. But did not do so. 
 
            5. There is no evidence to the contrary.
            6. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the licence and badge of the complainant with Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the loss suffered and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs within one month.  
 
            Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced

in the open Forum this the 2nd day of May 2009. 




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