Kerala

Malappuram

CC/09/265

C.T.MUHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROP. KOMAL MOTOR FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

09 Dec 2009

ORDER


CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/265

C.T.MUHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEEN		 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

PROP. KOMAL MOTOR FINANCE
PROPRIETOR/MANAGER, K.K. AUTOS
R.T.O.		 ...........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.

 

1. Heard the counsel for complainant. It is submitted on behalf of complainant that though the finance availed was in the year 2001 and the last instalment was paid on 06-6-2003 opposite party has not issued the hire purchase termination letter till date even after repeated requests. Counsel for complainant submitted that a lawyer notice was issued on 27-7-2009 to opposite party and therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation. We are not inclined to accept this contention. It is candid that the lawyer notice was issued only to circumvent the bar of limitation. Such notice will not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Per se the complaint is barred by limitation. There is a delay of more than 5 years. Hence complaint dismissed in limine as barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

    Dated this 9th day of December, 2009.


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 




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