M/s. Alliance Financiers Loans and Chitties Thrithallur. V/S Sunilkumar - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Trissur

OP/04/435

Sunilkumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Alliance Financiers Loans and Chitties Thrithallur. - Opp.Party(s)

T.G. Shaju and K. Ramakrishnan

29 Aug 2008

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. OP/04/435

Sunilkumar						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Alliance Financiers Loans and Chitties Thrithallur. Manikandan P.K. Praharshan P.S. Shaju P.S. Chakrapani						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Sunilkumar

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. M/s. Alliance Financiers Loans and Chitties Thrithallur. 2. Manikandan 3. P.K. Praharshan 4. P.S. Shaju 5. P.S. Chakrapani

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. T.G. Shaju and K. Ramakrishnan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

5. P.V. Haridasan

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 Complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- in the respondent firm on 10/8/00 for 6 months with interest @ 12%. The respondent firm had also issued receipt for the deposit. The due date of the deposit was 10/2/01 and after that, petitioner had demanded the deposit and interest, but not paid. Subsequently lawyer notice sent on 4/7/03, but no reply and no remedy. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents in not returning the amount. Hence this complaint. 2. The respondents are absent and set exparte. 3. To prove the case complainant has filed affidavit and four documents, which are marked as Exhibit P1 to P4(series). 4. According to the complainant he is entitled for the deposited amount with interest @ 12%. He also claims compensation. 5. There is no evidence to the contrary. 6. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to returnthe amount stated in Exhibit P1 Fixed Deposit Receipt with 12% interest from 10/8/00 till realization. Further directed to give Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) towards costs. Compliance within two months. Dictated to the Cofdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of August 2008.

By Smt Padmini Sudheesh, President Complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- in the respondent firm on 10/8/00 for 6 months with interest @ 12%. The respondent firm had also issued receipt for the deposit. The due date of the deposit was 10/2/01 and after that, petitioner had demanded the deposit and interest, but not paid. Subsequently lawyer notice sent on 4/7/03, but no reply and no remedy. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents in not returning the amount. Hence this complaint. 2. The respondents are absent and set exparte. 3. To prove the case complainant has filed affidavit and four documents, which are marked as Exhibit P1 to P4(series). 4. According to the complainant he is entitled for the deposited amount with interest @ 12%. He also claims compensation. 5. There is no evidence to the contrary. 6. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to returnthe amount stated in Exhibit P1 Fixed Deposit Receipt with 12% interest from 10/8/00 till realization. Further directed to give Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) towards costs. Compliance within two months. Dictated to the Cofdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of August 2008.

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