Kerala

Kollam

CC/44/2020

Joseph.S, - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.K.Somaraj, - Opp.Party(s)

09 Apr 2021

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station , Kollam-691013.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/44/2020
( Date of Filing : 28 Jan 2020 )
 
1. Joseph.S,
Jomin Studio, Kandachira,Mangad.P.O,Kollam.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. S.K.Somaraj,
New Aroma Bakery Front of Mail Theatre,Near S.B.I Bank,Chandini Chouwk, Sangli, Maharashtra-416416.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 09 Apr 2021
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the     9th      Day of  April   2021

 

  Present: -  Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

         Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                     Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

 

                                                                                          CC.44/20

Joseph.S                                                                 :         Complainant

Jomin Studio

Kandachira, Mangad P.O,

Kollam.

 

V/s

            S.K.Somaraj                                                :         Opposite party

          New Aroma Bakery

          Front of Mali Theatre,

           Near S.B.I Bank

          Chandini Chouwk, SANGLI

          Maharashtra-416416.

 

          FINAL     ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President

          Complainant present, produced photographs 28 in number.  Perused the complaint and connected records including photographs produced.  The complainant is the proprietor of a studio who has rendered his service to the opposite party in connection with the marriage ceremony of opposite party’s daughter and taken photographs, video and prepared Album but not fully paid the fee for the same and he seeks the balance amount of Rs.18000/- from the opposite party.  In view of the nature of allegation and reliefs sought for it is clear that the complainant is a service provider and the opposite party is the person who hired the service for consideration.  Hence the complainant has no locus standi to file a consumer complaint.

          In the circumstance the complaint is only to be dismissed being not maintainable.  However it is made clear that the complainant is entitled to seek civil remedy from civil court or file appropriate petition before the TLSC.

          In the result complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable subject to the above observations.  Return the photographs and CD produced.

No costs.

Dated this the  9th      day of  April     2021.

 

 

 

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

            Stanly Harold:Sd/-

            Forwarded/by Order

            Senior Superintendent

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD]
MEMBER
 

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.