Kerala

StateCommission

A/11/161

JOY JOHN - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.SANKARAN NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

O.V.MANIPRASAD

28 Mar 2011

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. A/11/161
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/11/2010 in Case No. CC/10/143 of District Wayanad)
 
1. JOY JOHN
JYOTHIS PROJECT,DEVDHAN LOTTERY PROJECT,M.G.ROAD
ERNAKULAM
KERALA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. P.SANKARAN NAIR
MUNDERI,KALPETTA,VYTHIRI TALUK
WAYNAD
KERALA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

APPEAL  NO: 161/2011

 

JUDGMENT DATED:28-03-2011

 

PRESENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

 

1.      Joy John,

Managing Partner,

M/s Devdhan Lottery Services,

Jyothis Project, DLS,40/8942 C,

M.G. Road, Ernakulam-682035.

                                                                   : APPELLANTS

2.      M/s Jyothis Project,

R/by its Branch Manager,

Trident Arcade, Pinangode Road,

Kalpetta, Wayanad.

 

(By Adv.Sri.O.V.Maniprasad & V.S.Bimal)

 

          Vs.

P.Sankaran Nair,

S/o Kunhiraman Nair, Nishanth,

Munderi, Kalpetta, Tythiri Taluk,               : RESPONDENT

Wayanad District.

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

 

 

The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.143/2010 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu, Kalpetta.  The appellants are under orders to return the deposit amount of Rs.6,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of deposit and cost of Rs.2000/-.

2.      It is the case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.6000/- with the opposite party on the assurance that the amount would be doubled within 100 weeks on 30/3/2010, when he approached for withdrawal the amount was not refunded.

3.      The opposite parties have contended that the promise was only to purchase lottery tickets and provide magazines.

4.      The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A3.

5.      The Forum has relied on the brochure provided in the opposite parties which contained the assurance.  PW1 has testified and proved Exts.A1 to A3 ie the receipts and brochure.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.  Hence the appeal is dismissed in-limine.

 

 

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

 

VL.

 

 
 
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]
PRESIDENT

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.