Kerala

Palakkad

CC/207/2012

P. Ramani Maruvalamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Trustee - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2012

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/207/2012
 
1. P. Ramani Maruvalamma
Puliyankalath house, Thenkurissi, Thenkurissi P.O, Palakkad- 678 671
Palakkad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Managing Trustee
'LIS' Deepasthambham Project, 39/76D1, 3rd Floor, Bharathi building, Mahakavi.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochin - 682 011
Ernakulam
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MRS. Seena.H PRESIDENT
 HONARABLE MRS. Bhanumathi.A.K Member
 HONARABLE MRS. Preetha.G.Nair Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2012.


 

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 23/11/2012


 

CC /207/2012


 

P. Ramani Maruvalamma,

Puliyankalath house, - Complainant

Thenkurissi, Thenkurissi P.O,

Palakkad – 678 671


 

Vs

Managing Trustee,

'LIS' Deepasthambham Project,

39/76. D1, 3rd floor, - Opposite party

Bharathi building,

Mahakavi. G. Road, Ernakulam,

Kochin – 682 011


 

O R D E R


 

BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT


 

Complaint in brief:-


 

Complainant deposited Rs. 9375/- in LIS Deepasthambham project on 13/09/05. It was published in the medias that the amount will be doubled with in a period of one year. Though demanded complainant has not recieved any amount from opposite party for the last 7 years. Hence the complaint.


 

Complaint posted for hearing on admission. Complainant was absent for hearing and hence taken for orders.


 

Complainant has deposited the amount in the year 2005 which was assured to be doubled within a year. So cause of action actually arouse on 14/09/2006. As per Section 24(A) , complaint has to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. So at the most complainant has to be filed in the year 2008. Complaint was filed after a lapse of 3 ½ years. No petition to condone the delay filed. No sufficient grounds for delay mentioned the complaint also. Hence we find that complaint is barred by limitation.


 

Further it is seen that opposite party herein does not reside or carries business within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum. No cause of action wholly or partly seems to arise with in the territorial jurisdiction of the forum. Hence as per sec 11 of Consumer Protection Act, The Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.


 

Hence without going in to the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint.


 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2012.


 

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

 

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

 

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member


 

 
 
[HONARABLE MRS. Seena.H]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONARABLE MRS. Bhanumathi.A.K]
Member
 
[HONARABLE MRS. Preetha.G.Nair]
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.