Kerala

Malappuram

CC/06/59

P.P JAYARAMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURYANARAYANAN,C/O.GOVINDAN NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

19 Mar 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/59

P.P JAYARAMAN
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

SURYANARAYANAN,C/O.GOVINDAN NAIR
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Brief say of case of complainant is as follows:- Opposite party is a relative and intimate friend of complainant. Opposite party suffered much loss in his finance and chit business. Opposite party used to take loan from complainant. Thereafter he entrusted his business to his brother and left for Mumbai. Opposite party later returned to native place and visited complainant. Opposite party offered to arrange a visa for complainant's son on payment of one lakh rupees. Complainant made part payment of Rs.80,000/-. Opposite party failed to arrange the visa. When complainant requested for refund of amount opposite party issued cheque for Rs.80,000/-. The cheque bounced. Later complainant came to know that opposite party has cheated many others also. Hence the complaint to realise the amount and for compensation. 2. Notice issued to opposite party was returned as refused. Name was called. He was absent and set exparte on 21-12-07. Evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A2 marked on the side of complainant. Even though affidavit was filed on behalf of complainant it is not properly attested and therefore not admissible in evidence. 3. As per the averments in the complaint opposite party is doing vegetable business at Kunnamkulam. The facts narrated in the complaint does not constitute a consumer dispute. At the most it is a private dispute between parties. Complainant is at liberty to agitate the matter before proper court. Complainant has failed to establish any case in his favour. 4. In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated this 19th day of March, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2 Ext.A1 : Cheque for Rs.80,000/- dated, 02-8-2006. Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the memorandum of Cheque unpaid received from Canara Bank, Edappal to complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI