Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/699

Alphonse.K.A. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Johnson. T. Thomas

28 Aug 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/699

Alphonse.K.A.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt Ltd
P.M.Manual
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Alphonse.K.A.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt Ltd 2. P.M.Manual

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Johnson. T. Thomas

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The respondent institution is a financial enterprise and has branches including in Fareedabad. The petitioner had joined in two kuries in the respondent firm as per statement No.723A & No.235. The petitioner has auctioned the kuri statement No.723A on 9/5/2006 and is entitled for Rs.70,000/- after deducting foreman commission and discount amount. The petitioner has paid entire instalments in kuri vide statement No.235 and the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.85,000/- after deducting the foreman commission. The amount has demanded by the petitioner on several times but not returned. Hence this petition. The respondents Counter is as follows: 2. The respondent denied the joining of kuri and everything. It is also stated that there in no unfair trade practice and the interest claimed is against law. Hence dismiss. 3.The points for consideration are 1) Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondent ? 2) If so relief and costs ? 4.Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and P2. No evidence on the part of respondents. 5. The definite case of complainant is that he was subscriber of two kuries. The kuri vide statement o.723A has got to him and he is entitled for Rs.70,000/- after deducting foreman commission and discount. The another kuri vide statement No.235 has terminated and the complainant remitted all the instalments and is entitled for Rs.85,000/-. But the amount not returned by the respondent. This is an unfair trade practice according to the complainant. The respondent does not have a serious defence and evasively denied every sentence in the complaint. Respondent has no case that complainant is not entitled for the amount sought as per the kuri. In fact he is admitted the liability by evasive denial. No specific denial is there. So there is unfair trade practice from the part of respondent and they are liable to return the amount remitted in the kuri. 6. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty five thousand only) to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of complaint and 6% interest from today till realization. Complainant is also entitled for Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs. Comply the order within two months. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28th day of August 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.