Kerala

Kottayam

CC/08/157

Reppeyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mathew - Opp.Party(s)

k.ki.venugopal

31 Dec 2008

ORDER


Report
CDRF, Collectorate
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/157

Reppeyal
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mathew
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindhu M Thomas 2. K.N Radhakrishnan 3. Santhosh Kesava Nath P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

 


 

The case of the complainant is as follows:


 

The opposite party had offered to sell the landed property (in Sy.No.962/ 4/2/06 and re.sy.No.100/4) to the extend of (.65 R.) 1.5 cents of land, house, improvements etc to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. On the basis of the assurance made by opposite party the complainant and the opposite party had entered into an agreement on 17th April 2006. The opposite party had received Rs.20,000/- from the complainant as advance for the sale of the property. Thereafter the opposite party has not taken any steps for arranging bank loan for sale the property to the complainant. The opposite party has purposefully violating the conditions of the agreement. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.


 

The notice was served with the opposite party. He did not

-2-

appear either in person or through their counsel even after accepting the notice from this forum.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A3.

Heard complainant. The case of the complainant stands un-challenged. The opposite party has not contest the case or not adduced any evidence even after accepting the notice from this forum. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the sworn proof affidavit of the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

In the result the complainant is allowed as follows: (1) We direct the opposite party to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and pay Rs.3500/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.1500/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.


 




......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P