Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/379/2022

Radha T mahalexmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

manager,KSFE - Opp.Party(s)

09 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHAR LANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695010
 
Complaint Case No. CC/379/2022
( Date of Filing : 03 Oct 2022 )
 
1. Radha T mahalexmi
valiyarathara,uruttabalam,Trivandrum
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. manager,KSFE
Trivandrum
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 09 Sep 2024
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

 

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 379/2022 Filed on 03/10/2022

ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024

 

Complainant

:

Radha.T.Mahalekshmi, Valiyarathala, Ooruttambalam.P.O – 695 507.S

(Party in person)

Opposite party

:

KSFE, Maranalloor Branch, Koovalasheri.P.O – 695 512.

(By Adv.N.G.Mahesh)

ORDER

 

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party to appear before this Commission.  After accepting the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying allegation raised by the complainant.  On 17/04/2023 the complainant filed proof affidavit.  Since 16/06/2023 this case is adjourned for marking documents of the complainant.  The complainant is continuously absent since 17/04/2023 and also failed to mark the documents.  As such there is no piece of evidence against the opposite party to establish the allegation raised by the complainant.  In the above circumstance we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case against the opposite party.  Hence in view of the continuous absence of the complainant, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed for want of evidence.    

In the result complaint is dismissed.  There will be no order as to cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 09th  day of September,  2024.

 

Sd/-

P.V. JAYARAJAN

:

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR

 

:

 

      MEMBER

Sd/-

VIJU  V.R

:

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R]
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.