Kerala

Kollam

CC/154/2020

Sajitha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.ANAS.N

15 Oct 2022

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Civil Station ,
Kollam-691013.
Kerala.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/154/2020
( Date of Filing : 06 Jul 2020 )
 
1. Sajitha,
D/o.Shahul Hameed, Saidali Manzil, Vadakkumkara East, Thazhuthala Village, Umayanalloor.P.O, Kollam.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Manager,
K.S.F.E Evening Branch,Chinnakkada,Kollam.
2. Assistant Manager,
K.S.F.E Evening Branch,Chinnakkada,Kollam.
3. Principal,
A.K.M.H.S.S,Mylapur,Umayanalloor.P.O,Kollam.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 15 Oct 2022
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the   15th      Day of  October   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.154/2020

 

Sajitha                                                                         :         Complainant

D/o Shahul Hameed

Saidali Manzil

Vadakkumkara East, Thazhuthala Village

Umayanalloor P.O, Kollam.

[By Adv.Anas.N]

 

V/s

  1. Manager                                   :         Opposite parties

        K.S.F.E Evening Branch

      Chinnakkada, Kollam.

  1. Assistant Manager

         K.S.F.E Evening Branch

        Chinnakkada, Kollam.

  1. Principal

        A.K.M.H.S.S

        Mylappoor, Umayanalloor P.O

       Kollam.

 

 

FINAL    ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

Complainant absent on this posting date also.  There is also no representation for the complainant even though I.A 265/22 (review petition) was allowed on strict direction that the complainant shall be present on the next posting date and shall adduced evidence.  But today also the complainant and her counsel called absent. Hence we are of the view that the complainant is not having any oral evidence.  The two documents produced in this case by the complainant along with the complaint would indicate that the complainant is a surety who agreed to allow the opposite party to recover the loan availed by the subscriber along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum in monthly installment @ 15,000/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the subscriber has defaulted payment.  The 2nd document produced would indicate that the moratorium period already over.

In the circumstances we find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

          No costs

Dated this the  15th   day of   October  2022.

 

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

            Stanly Harold:Sd/-

          Forwarded/by Order

         Senior Superintendent 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD]
MEMBER
 

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.