Kerala

StateCommission

974/2003

Branch Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manoharan - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Venugopal

04 Dec 2007

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 974/2003

Branch Manager
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manoharan
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




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.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM


 

APPEAL No.974/2003

JUDGMENT DATED: 4.12.2007


 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER


 

Branch Manager, : APPELLANT

Kerala State Financial Enterprises,

Kottarakara Branch,

City Tower Buildings,

Near M.G.T.H.S., Kottarakara.

(By Adv.P.K.Venugopal)

Vs.

Manoharan,

S/o.Kumaran, : RESPONDENT

Charuvila Puthen Veedu,

Kalayapuram, Kottarakara,

(C.No.6677, Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram)

(By Adv.Anitha Jacob)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT


 

The appellant is the opposite party/KSFE in OP.351/2003 in the file of CDRF, Kollam that are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.28,750/- with 9% interest from the date of the termination of chitty and also to pay compensation of Rs.2000/-.

2. The case of the complainant who was the subscriber in chitty No.8/2000 is that he had remitted 10 instalments, altogether Rs.38750/-. He had bid the 8th lot for sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. He could not arrange the sureties as he got imprisoned during the period. After the termination of the period of chitty he applied for withdrawal of the amount deposited. But the opposite party allowed only Rs.54/-. It is the contention that the terms of the chitty did not enable the appellant to deduct that much of amount out of Rs.38750/-remitted.

We find that there is no justification for deducting that much of exorbitant amount whatever is mentioned in the variyola. The lower forum has allowed the appellant to deduct Rs.10000/-. Only the balance is ordered to be repaid. We find that there is no scope for interference at all. The appeal is dismissed.


 


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT


 

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER