Kerala

Kollam

CC/297/2020

Philipose Panicker, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv.P.SAJEEV BABU

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Railway Station Road
Karbala Junction
Kollam-691001
Kerala.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/297/2020
( Date of Filing : 17 Nov 2020 )
 
1. Philipose Panicker,
Cheppallil Ajo Bhavan,Kundara,Kollam.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Managing Partner,Thomas Daniel,
Popular Dealers, Regd.Office,Popular Towers, Vakayar, Pathanamthitta.
2. Biju Pappachan,Branch Manager,
Uliyinazhikathu Biju Bavan, Koduvila.P.O, East Kallada.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 Feb 2023
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the  28th     Day of  February  2023

 

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

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

 

                                                CC.297/2020

 

Philipose Panicker                                        :        Complainant

Cheppallil Ajo Bhavan

Kundara, Kollam.

[By Adv.P.Sajeev Babu]

V/s

  1. Popular Dealers                                 :         Opposite parties

Regd.Office Popular Towers

Vakayar, Pathanamthitta.

(Incorporated under the Companies Act 2013)

Represented by its Managing Partner

Thomas Daniel.

  1. Biju Pappachan

Branch Manager

Uliyinazhikathu Biju Bavan

Koduvila P.O, East Kallada.

 

 

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, its Managing partner and Branch Manager praying to return Rs.1,24,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a and costs of the proceedings.  The opposite party 2 set exparte and the complaint was posted for return of notice of opposite party 1.  Today when the case was called the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has no instruction from the complainant.

            In the circumstances it is clear that the complainant is not intending to file any proof affidavit.  The document produced along with the complaint is only an un attested photo copy 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.  There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the averments in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the circumstances we are of the view that there is absolutely no evidence.

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

          No costs.

Dated this the    28th    day of   February   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.