BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1115/2008 against C.C. 72/2007 ,   

Between:

Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.

Rep. by its Y. Rajendra Kumar

Branch Office at Mamtha Complex

Vijayawada Road, Kodad

Nalgonda Dist.And

Smt. K. Laxmi, W/o. Sathyanarayana

Teacher, R/o. Mittagudem

Mudigonda Mandal

Nalgonda Dist.                                                                                                                                    

Counsel for the 

Counsel for the 

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                                                                                       TUESDAY, THIS THE 

ORAL ORDER: 

***

1)                   

2)                    

office of the appellant.              Therefore she filed the complaint claiming    

3)                             

4)      

5)          

6)                  

7)      

8)                   

9)                    

10)                          

11)                              Since he became ill he was working as agent only and was entitled to commission.             

Q:     

Ans:  

Q: 

Ans:

Q:               

A:               

12)        No doubt the postal              address of the subscriber in order to draw such presumption.      would resort proof of      

13)                     

14)       dare not file the affidavit evidence          Necessarily an adverse inference has to be drawn for non-examining of an important witness M. Sriram who said to be their agent at the time when the complainant was jointed as a member and authorised to bid in the auction.                      taken at the same time.            

15)     

1)PRESIDENT 

2)      MEMBER 

                                                                              *pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”