Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/67

P.K.Thankappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

K.R.Haridas

26 Aug 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/67

P.K.Thankappan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretary
Sreekumar
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. P.K.Thankappan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Secretary 2. Sreekumar

For the Appellant :
1. K.R.Haridas

For the Respondent :
1. 2.



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, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM
 
FIRST APPEAL NO.67/08
JUDGMENT DATED: 26.8.08
 
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                             : MEMBER
 
P.K.Thankappan,                                                  : APPELLANT
Pournami,Mulakkuzha village,
Kotta.P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist.
(By Adv.K.R.Haridas)
         Vs.
1. S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam.No.1127,             : RESPONDENTS
    Kottamurry, Kidangannoor village,
    Pathanamthitta represented by its
    Secretary.
2. Sreekumar, Secretary, SNDP,
    Sakhayogam No.1127, Kottamurry,
    Kidangannoor village,
    Pathanamthitta .    
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU   : PRESIDENT
 
The appeal is sought to be filed over the order of the Forum dismissing the complaint as not maintainable.
          2. Of course, the order is not a speaking one but the matter is with respect to the subscription given by complainant towards the SNDP building funds. It is his grievance that an amount of Rs.50/- was received in excess towards subscription. He has also paid an amount of Rs.750/- for building funds. He demanded the amount back as the construction have not yet started but was not repaid. Hence the complaint.
          3. We find that by no stretch of imagination the complaint can be treated as a consumer entitled for reliefs under the Consumer Protection Act. In the circumstance the appeal is dismissed in limine.
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT
 
 
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER
 
 
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                     : MEMBER
 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA