Kerala

Trissur

CC/09/154

Sanila Moideen - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Muthoott Leasing & Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.C.I.Edison

31 Aug 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/154

Sanila Moideen
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager,Muthoott Leasing & Finance Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


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

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Sanila Moideen

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Manager,Muthoott Leasing & Finance Ltd

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.C.I.Edison

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 case of complainant in brief is that the complainant availed loan from the respondent to purchase a vehicle and purchased a Maruthi Wagon R car. The guarantors of the transaction were the husband of the complainant and one Rasiya Abdul Gafoor. The respondent has received blank cheques and stamp papers from the guarantors as security. The complainant repaid the entire loan amount. But the cheques and stamp papers were not returned. So the complainant apprehends that the respondent may misuse those documents and try to attach the properties of the guarantors. So this complaint is filed.
 
            2. In the counter the respondent stated that if the loan amount is not repaid by complainant they have entire right to take action against the guarantors. The Forum has no power to restrain the respondent from suing against the complainant and guarantors. The complainant is not a consumer of respondent and there is no deficiency in service committed against the complainant and guarantors. Hence dismiss the complaint.
 
            3. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum because there is no consumer relationship and also the Forum has no power to restrain the respondent from taking legal action against the complainant and guarantors. So we heard the maintainability. 
 
            4. The first prayer itself is restraining the respondent from attaching the movable and immovable properties of guarantors of the complainant. It is civil in nature and no consumer relationship arises and the Forum is definitely barred to entertain this type of complaint. As stated by the respondent no court has power to restrain anybody to sue against any other person. The complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer relationship and the complaint is liable to dismiss as not maintainable.
 
            5. In the result, complaint stands dismissed.
 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of August 2009.




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