KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.33/08 JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Malappuram in CC.11/07 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Owner, P.S.M.Silks, Tirur, : APPELLANT Malappuram District (By Adv.K.K. Mohammed Ravuf) Vs. Prema.P, : RESPONDENT Puthukkattil, P.O.Chenakkal angadi, Via.Tenhipalam, Malappuram District. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellants is the opposite party in CC.11/07 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant who is running PSM Silks, Tirur is under orders to refund sum of Rs.614/- towards purchase of a sari by the complainant which was of an inferior quality. 2. It is the case of the complainant that after the first use itself the colour got spread and the sari could not be used. Further, the request for refund or replacement was turned down. 3. The opposite party/appellant has disputed the genuineness of the complaint and contended that there is no guarantee for colour or jerry. gerine. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of both sides, Ext.s A1 and A2 bills and MO1 series ie sari and the blouse. We find that complainant was not been cross examined. The recitals in the proof affidavit stands unimpeached. No patent illegality in the order of the Forum could be brought out. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER IA.127/08 ORDER DATED: 31.3.08 The complainant not sought for getting marked 2 documents for reopening evidence. The opposite parties strongly opposed the application. The administration sought to be marked certificates from the Bank authorities mentioning the complainants claimed the loan for Rs.2lakhs on 24.12.98 in the purchase Radio Frequency Lesion generator and that they have pledged 7 cents with building is collateral security. The other documents is also certificate from the Bank ie the sale deed of 7 cents of land is in the custody of the bank. We find that evidence has been closed and argument notes also filed by both sides. There is no explanation furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for the belated production of the above documents. In the circumstance we find that the complainant has not mentioned convincing reasons for accepting the appeals at this stage. the IA is dismissed.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
