Kerala

StateCommission

187/2004

The General Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajeevalochanan - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Kalkura

04 Dec 2007

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 187/2004

The General Manager
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rajeevalochanan
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




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 NO.187/2004

JUDGMENT DATED: 4.12.2007


 

PRESENT


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER


 

The General Secretary, : Appellant

YMCA, Kollam

(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)


 

Rajeevalochanan,

Divisional Manager, : Respondent

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Kollam.

(By Adv.S.Reghukumar)


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT


 


 

The appellant is the opposite party in OP.440/2002 in the file of CDRF, Kollum who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

2. The appellant is the General Secretary of YMCA, Kollam . In the complaint he had alleged that after receiving 1500/- towards advance of the total amount of Rs.4400/-and allotting room to him the room was reallotted to another person. He was informed over telephone with respect to the allocation on 12.8.02, on which date he deposited Rs.4400. He was told by the staff of the appellant that he may pay balance amount ie an amount of Rs.2900/- when the room is ready for occupation and the key is handed over.

3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, complainant exts.P1 to P10 and DW1, the office bearer of the appellant.

4. The Forum below believed the version of PW1 the complainant that he was assured by the staff of the appellant that the balance amount is to be paid on receipt of the key of the room.

5. We find that as pointed by the counsel for the respondent that Rule 7 of the Hostel Rules ie ext.D2, mentions that prior to the admission to the hostel the full amount of the prescribed deposit, registration fee and admission fee etc shall be paid. It is the contention of the appellant that the complainant wanted to delay the matter to the end of the month so that he can avoid payment of the rent for the particular month. We find that the version of the complainant that he was assured by the staff of the appellant that he need to pay the balance amount only at the time of handing over the key cannot be believed in view of the specific provision in the Rules that prior to the admission the entire amount should be paid in advance. In the circumstances we find that order of the Forum cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.


 


 


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT


 


 

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER