NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4370/2009

T.N. BHASKARAN NAIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CONSUMER AFFAIRS & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

24 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4370 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 01/07/2009 in Appeal No. 254/2009 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. T.N. BHASKARAN NAIRChairman, Consumer Vigilance Cell (Regd. No. Q.01/05) Thevally P.O. Kollam - 9 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CONSUMER AFFAIRS & ANR.Consumer Affairs, Secretariat, Trivandrum ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 24 May 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.

There has been delay of five days in filing revision petition for which no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Revision petition merits dismissal on this count alone. However, merit of case has also been considered.

Petitioner who claims to be Chairman of Registered Consumer Association was an aspirant to be inducted in District Consumer Protection Council. He had moved District Collector who was to constitute council, that did not find favour with selection body. Now, petitioner puts a volley of question before this Commission as to what were procedure adopted by selection body for selection of Members as also guidelines required to be followed by them. He claims to have suffered mental agony and injury due to action of respondent. State Commission regard being had to nature of grievance of petitioner which did not constitute service provided by respondents, finding no merit, dismissed complaint. We find no good reason for our interference in impugned order.

Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

 



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER