NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3861/2009

CHIPPI M DAS & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. VIKRAMAN NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3861 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 26/02/2009 in Appeal No. 748/2006 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. CHIPPI M DAS & ANR.Puthen Vila veedu Odanavattom, P.O. Kollam,Kerala ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. R. VIKRAMAN NAIRMundoor Puthen veedu, Miyyannoor, P.O. Kollam,kerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 12 Jan 2010
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.

Vide order dated 03.12.2009, the petitioner/complainant was directed to file copies of pleadings, affidavits of evidence and the documents referred to in the order of the District Forum and since no one was present on behalf of the petitioners, Registry had issued notice to them to file these documents before 12.01.2010. However, the documents have not been filed. Order passed by fora below would show that dispute between the parties is with regard to the payment of fee for withdrawing the amount deposited in the bank. State Commission has recorded cogent reasons in reaching the conclusion that respondent / opposite party could not be held deficient in service as fee for withdrawl of the amount from the bank was not paid by the petitioners to the respondent. Revision petition thus deserves to be dismissed not only on the ground of non filing of copies of pleadings etc but also on merit. Dismissed as such.