KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

  APPEAL  NO:78/2004

                            JUDGMENT DATED:28..04...2010

PRESENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN                                  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                   : MEMBER

T.V.Satheesan,

Thoppil parambil house,

Vadakkumpuram.P.O,                                           : APPELLANT

Aluva (Via), Ernakulam-683 521.

(By Adv:Sri.Baby Perumpillil)

            Vs.

N.C.Murali, S/o Chellappan,

Nambaru parapmil House,

Vadakkumpuram.P.O,                                           : RESPONDENT

Aluva (Via), Ernakulam-683 521.

(By Adv:M/s T.A.Soman & George)

                                                JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

This appeal preferred from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP:418/02 dated:5/12/2003.  The appellant is the complainant who under the orders of the dismissal of the complaint filed before the CDRF, Ernakulam.

2. According to the complainant he filed a complaint within allegation that opposite parties received Rs.15,590/- on 4/11/2001 from him, offering to make deliver a chain weighing 36 gms of 22 karat gold to the complainant by 4/1/2002.  On the other hand he will return the amount by the date.  Since the opposite party failed to render the service offered by him.  The complainant was filed return of the money with 12% interest and compensation for mental agony caused due to the failure of the opposite party to render the service offered by him.  But in the version the opposite party contended that the claim in the complaint is nothing but a civil nature by the CDRF has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  He admitted that he has any service offered to the complainant and he further contended that since he rendered no service, hence there is no deficiency of service.  He is not a professional goldsmith and he does not know how to make gold ornaments, that he has not received any amount as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant has already initiated a criminal complaint against the opposite party under section 420 of the IPC (cheating) and the same is pending in the criminal court.  He had money transaction with the complainant and certain signed blank stamp papers were entrusted by the complainant and that the fabricated documents and filed a complaint and prayed for dismissal.

3. In the evidence adduced admitted that the opposite party is a Goldsmith and witness examined on the side of the complainant gave evidence to prove that the money was received by the opposite party offered the service as a Goldsmith and photocopy of promissory note is marked as Ext.A1.  In the side of the complainant PW1 to PW3 were examined and on the opposite parties side DW1 was examined.  There is no document produced and marked from the part of the opposite parties.

4. Forum below heard both sides and found that the case of the complainant is based on Ext.A1, it is only a Photostat copy.  The opposite party has denied the execution of this.  According to him the complainant made use of some blank stamp papers obtained from him and a loan was issued to him by the complainant and creates Ext.A1.  PW1 and 2 would state that they have signed Ext.A1.  But Ext.A1 is a promissory note and the complainant wants from the opposite party the money cum ornament on the promissory note and that being so he should have moved a suit of Civil court.  The Forum below reached a conclusion that there is no deficiency of service in the part of the opposite parties. In other words such a deficiency was not established by the complainant from their evidence.  The Forum below discussed a decision from the National Commission, Sivaji Rao Vs. Daman Motors and Others (1992) CPJ 88 (NC).  In the result the Forum below dismissed the complaint, the complainant who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.

5. On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing both counsels appeared and argued their respective cases.  This commission perused the entire evidence adduced by both sides and heard both sides.  This commission is not seeing any apparent reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below.  A mere allegation in the complaint is not sufficient to pass an order for the compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  We think there are some other transactions and enmity was having between the complainant and opposite party.  In the absence of the evidence, this commission is not in a position to pass any compensation as prayed by the complainant.  The order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and we uphold the decision.

In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below.   Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.  Points of the appeal answered accordingly.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.