Rajesh Murali V/S N.K.Shridharan - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Trissur

CC/06/455

N.K.Shridharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Murali - Opp.Party(s)

Shrikumar Nambanath

08 Sep 2008

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/455

N.K.Shridharan						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Rajesh Murali Mahesh. V.M. Branch Manager, H.D.F.C.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. N.K.Shridharan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Rajesh Murali 2. Mahesh. V.M. 3. Branch Manager, H.D.F.C.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Shrikumar Nambanath

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

3. P.D.Jose

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.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Heard the issue of maintainability. The complaint is against the respondent No.3, the HDFC Bank to furnish the address of first respondent to enable the complainant to take action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The counsel for 3rd respondent argued that petitioner is not a consumer of third respondent and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word consumer. I am not quoting the definition. There is no such relation between the two and the complainant is not a consumer of third respondent. As a Bank the third respondent is precluded from disclosing the details of their customers to a stranger. 2. Hence the complaint is dismissed and parties are directed to suffer their costs. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 8th day of September 2008.

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Heard the issue of maintainability. The complaint is against the respondent No.3, the HDFC Bank to furnish the address of first respondent to enable the complainant to take action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The counsel for 3rd respondent argued that petitioner is not a consumer of third respondent and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word consumer. I am not quoting the definition. There is no such relation between the two and the complainant is not a consumer of third respondent. As a Bank the third respondent is precluded from disclosing the details of their customers to a stranger. 2. Hence the complaint is dismissed and parties are directed to suffer their costs. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 8th day of September 2008.

......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S