Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/395

THOMAS T T - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ABHISHEK R V

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.395/2016

 JUDGMENT DATED : 28.03.2018

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.300/14 on the file of CDRF,  Idukki, order dated : 29.09.2015)

 

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT

          Thomas T.T., aged 48 years, Thazhathuthundiyil House,

          Kattapana .P.O, Vettikuzha Kavala, Pin 685 308

 

          By advocate Sri. Abhishek.R.V

RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY

Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd,

KSHB, Shopping Complex, 1^st Flor, Kattapana,

Idukki-685 508

 

JUDGMENT

SHRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Complainant in C.C.300/2014 of the District Forum, Idukki has filed the appeal challenging the  Order passed by the Forum by which the complaint was dismissed.

2.  Complainant filed complaint with the prayer to direct the opposite party to settle his loan account with them with the agreed rate of interest and to direct them to release the gold on payment of the loan amount with the interest ordered and for compensation and costs.  Opposite party appeared and filed version. Thereafter on 29.9.2015 the Forum dismissed the complaint since the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter.

3.  Notice was issued to the respondent/opposite party.  They did not appear before the Commission.

4.  The Forum dismissed the complaint since it was submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter.  The counsel for the complainant submitted that the appellant never intimated his counsel before the Forum that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter.  The matter was entrusted with the counsel and he failed to intimate the complainant regarding the posting date of the case.

5.  We perused the records.  It can be seen that the  opposite party filed Written version on 26.3.2015.  Thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates for evidence or settlement.  But the complainant has not adduced any evidence and the matter was not settled.  Lastly on 29.9.2015 the Forum dismissed the complaint since the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter.  The case of the appellant is that he has not intimated his counsel that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter.  But it is to be noted that the appellant has not raised any specific allegation of malafides on the part of  his counsel who appeared for him in the Forum.  In these circumstances, it has been considered that the Counsel  for the complainant submitted before the Forum that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter as per the instructions given by him. We consider that there are no grounds/reasons to interfere with the Order passed by the Forum and the appeal is to be dismissed.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

T.S.P.MOOSATH                    :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

V.V.JOSE             :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          JUDGMENT IN  A.395/2016

         DATED:28.03.2018