Kerala

Kollam

CC/186/2021

Geevarghese Panicker.C,aged 55 years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Partner,Thomas Daniel, - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K.ABDUL SHAHAN

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Railway Station Road
Karbala Junction
Kollam-691001
Kerala.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/186/2021
( Date of Filing : 16 Aug 2021 )
 
1. Geevarghese Panicker.C,aged 55 years,
Residing at Arppura House,Hospital Junction,Kundara,Kollam District.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Managing Partner,Thomas Daniel,
Popular Dealers, Registered Office,Popular Towers,Vakayar,Pathanamthitta.
2. Biju Pappachen,aged 45 years,
Branch Manager,Popular Dealers (Popular Finance) Perumpuzha Branch, Kurian Swarga Auditorium,Perumpuzha.P.O,Kollam residing at Uliyanazhikathu Veedu,Koduvila.P.O,Koduvila,Kollam District.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the  31st     Day of  January   2023

 

  Present: -  Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,President(I/C)

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

 

                                                CC.186/2021

Geevarghese Panicker.C                                  :        Complainant

Arappura House

Hospital Junction, Kundara

Kollam District.

[By Adv.K.Abdul Shahan]

V/s

  1. Popular Dealers                                           :         Opposite parties

Represented by its Managing Partner

Thomas Daniel

Registered Office,

Popular Towers

Vakayar, Pathanamthitta.

  1. Biju Pappachen

Branch Manager

Popular Dealers(Popular Finance)

Perumpuzha Branch, Kuriyan Swarga Auditorium

Perumpuzha P.O, Kollam

Residing at,

Uliyanazhikathu Veedu, Koduvila P.O

Koduvila, Kollam District.

 

FINAL   ORDER

S.SANDHYA RANI, B Sc, LLB, PRESIDENT(I/C)

This is a case based on a complaint filed by the complainant against Popular Dealers represented by its Managing Partner, Branch Manager etc praying to return Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @12%  and costs of the proceedings.    The opposite parties No.1 and 2 remained exparte. Thereupon the case was posted for recording exparte evidence.  Though sufficient opportunity was granted, the complainant failed to produce exparte evidence. 

               In the circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is not intending to file any proof affidavit.  The document produced along with the complaint is only unattested photocopy of fixed deposit receipt which is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 114 1(i) of the Indian Evidence Act.  Hence it is not marked in evidence which indicates that there is no evidence to substantiate the averments in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.

 

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

          No costs.

Dated this the    31st     day of   January   2023.

                                                                                    S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

           Stanly Harold:Sd/-

          Forwarded/by Order

           Senior Superintendent

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S]
PRESIDING 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.