Kerala

Malappuram

CC/08/235

EECHARAN AYISHA REP. BY HUSAIN HAJI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUHAMMED KOYA PAYANAPARAMBIL, S/O. MOIDEEN - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, PIN-676 505
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/235

EECHARAN AYISHA REP. BY HUSAIN HAJI		 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

MUHAMMED KOYA PAYANAPARAMBIL, S/O. MOIDEEN		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI

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.

 

This complaint coming up for hearing on the question of maintainability the Forum doth order as under :


 

ORDER


 

1. This complaint is set out in the cause title to be preferred by E. Ayisha. Interestingly the complaint is not signed by Aysha and her address is not furnished in the cause title. Instead it is stated in the cause title that Aysha is represented by Hussain Haji. The address of Hussain Haji is furnished in the cause title and the same Hussain has signed the complaint.

     

2. It is averred in the complaint that Aysha entrusted Hussain Haji rennovation work of her house. That Hussain Haji entered into a contract with opposite party to complete this work for Rs.2,75,000/-. Opposite party failed to complete the work within the time specified in the Karar though opposite party collected Rs.3,78,000/- towards the work. The prayer in the complaint is to direct opposite party to complete the work and in the alternative to pay amount necessary to complete the work and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and loss suffered by Aysha and her family. It is seen from the Karar that Aysha is not a party to the Karar. Even as per the averment the privity of contract of Aysha is with Hussain Haji only who is the Haji person purporting to represent her in this case. Aysha does not have any privity of contract with opposite party and has not availed any services from opposite party. The Karar is in plain paper in which revenue stamps are affixed. The transactions are entirely between Hussain Haji and opposite party. The letter of authorisation empowering Hussain Haji to represent Aysha is not duly attested. There is no consumer relationship between Aysha and opposite party. The dispute if any between the agent who purports to represent Aysha and opposite party has to be agitated before a Civil Court only. No person can be allowed to take advantage of the nominal fee regime of consumer courts to eke out disputes against others on the pretense of representing another. For the above reasons we hold that this complaint is not maintainable. We therefore dismiss the complaint and make no order as to costs.

 

          Dated this 10th day of December, 2008.


 


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER




......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI