Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/09/134

Sheela - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sriram Transport finance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Raneen B. R. Kumar

20 Nov 2009

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/134

Sheela
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sriram Transport finance Co. Ltd
The manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

 


 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 134/2009

Dated : 20.11.2009

Complainant:

Sheela, W/o Sajeev residing at Parinkumamulaveedu, Harijan Colony, Chemmaruthi Village, Varkala.


 

(By adv. Raneen B.R. Kumar)

Opposite parties:-

        1. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Nazeema Complex, Hospital Road, Kollam.

                 

        2. The Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Nazeema Complex, Hospital Road, Kollam.


 

(By adv. R. Jayakrishnan)


 

ORDER

Opposite parties filed preliminary objection to complaint challenging territorial jurisdiction. Submission by the opposite parties is that 1st opposite party is at Kollam which is the branch of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. having its head office at Chennai. 2nd opposite party is also at Kollam. In this complaint, it is stated that the cause of action took place at Chemmaruthi village where agreement was executed. Submission uttered by opposite parties is that agreement was executed at Kollam. Opposite parties furnished the agreement wherein it is stated that “This agreement is made at Kollam this 15th day of June 2007” between


 


 

opposite parties and complainant. On going through the complaint, it is seen that opposite parties are at Kollam and agreement is seen executed at Kollam. In view of the above we lack jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. Complainant is at liberty to seek redress from appropriate authority.


 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.


 

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER


 


 


 


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 


 

 




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad