Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

372/2004

Piru Muhammed - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

B.Padmanabhan

30 Apr 2009

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 372/2004

Piru Muhammed
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Divisional 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

O.P. No. 372/2004

Dated : 30.04.2009

Complainant:


 

Piru Muhammed, T.C 8/46, Manikkavilakam, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By adv. B. Padmanabhan)

 

Opposite party:

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., St. Joseph's Press Building, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Rajeev)

ORDER

Complainant absent inspite of specific direction to appear on this day. On 28th July 2006, Mr. Aboo Salih, the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant filed a petition to accept the Power of Attorney and to allow Power of Attorney Holder to represent the complainant. Opposite party filed objection challenging the execution of the said Power of Attorney, that on 05.05.2008, counsel for the complainant submitted that the said petition to accept the Power of Attorney is not pressed and endorsed the same on the petition itself. Thereafter though counsel represented, complainant was absent continuously and no affidavit was filed in lieu of chief examination. After withdrawal of Power of Attorney, no further step was taken by the complainant to adduce evidence on


 

behalf of the complainant. From 05.05.2008 onwards around 10 postings were given to the complainant for evidence, instead no affidavit was filed by the complainant. Hence complainant was directed to appear before this Forum on 30.04.2009. Today also, complainant absent inspite of specific direction to appear on this day. Counsel for complainant applied, the same is rejected on the ground that sufficient opportunities were given to the complainant to file affidavit/adduce evidence. The application lacks bonafide. Hence complaint is dismissed for default.


 

G. SIVAPRASAD, President.

BEENAKUMARI.A : MEMBER


 

S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

 

 




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