Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/143

A.Mustafa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naseer C A - Opp.Party(s)

N.Anil kumar & Deepesh A S

03 Oct 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/143

A.Mustafa
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Naseer C A
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. A.Mustafa

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Naseer C A

For the Appellant :
1. N.Anil kumar & Deepesh A S

For the Respondent :
1.



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.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                    VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
            APPEAL:143/2008
 
                             JUDGMENT DATED.3..10..2008
 
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           : PRESIDENT
 
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              : MEMBER
 
Mustafa.A,
Soudi Electronics, Opp. Mallikarjuna
Temple, Chakara Bazar, Kasaragod.                     : APPELLANT
 
(By Adv:Sri.N.Anilkumar & Deepesh.A.S)
 
 
          V.
Naseer.C.A,
Glamour, K.P.R.Rao Road,
Opp. Telephone Bhavan, Kasaragod.                     : RESPONDENT
 
                                       JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
The appellant is the opposite party in CC:97/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellant is under orders to refund Rs.7850/- and also to pay cost of Rs.1000/-.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Nokia 6230 from the opposite party for Rs.7850/- for which no bill was issued. The mobile phone went out of order within two weeks. When complained sought replacement he was threatened.
3. Opposite party/appellant in his version totally denied the sale.
4. Evidence adduced consisted of PW1 and Exts.A1. We find that the Forum was satisfied on the testimony of PW1 as to the purchase of the mobile phone from the opposite party. Evidently he has not been cross-examined. The opposite party did not enter the witness box. 
In the circumstances we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum in the appreciation of evidence. There is no scope for interference. The appeal is dismissed in-limine.
 
                                  JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
                                   VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
VL.
                                 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN