Kerala

StateCommission

A/750/2017

PUSHPALATHA K A - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SYNDICATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

COINPAR

27 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO. 750/17

JUDGMENT DATED:27.06.2019

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN          : PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

                                               

Pushpalatha K.A,

T.C-10/2063, TRA-67,

Thozhuvanacaudu Lane,

Vattiyoorkave P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram-695 013,

Through COINPAR, a VCO,

 R/by its Secretary General,                                             : APPELLANTS

M.A. Vahab, Sree Kunnil Buildings,

Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-35.

 

            Vs.

 

1. The Syndicate Bank,

Head Office of the Syndicate Bank,

Door No.16/355 & 365 A, Manipal,

Udupi District, Karnataka-576 104,

R/by its Managing Director.

 

2. The Deputy General Manager,

The Syndicate Bank, Regional Office,                          : RESPONDENTS

Carmel Towers, Opp. Cotton Hill High School,

Vazhuthacaud, Trivadrum-695 014.

 

 

 

3. The Chief Manager,

The Syndicate Bank-Main Branch,

P.B.No.110, Statue, Trivandrum-695 001.

 

(By Adv: Sri. P. Balakrishnan)

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This appeal is directed against the order dated, 15.6.2017 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as District Forum for short) in I.A.01(A)/2017 in CC.609/16.  The petitioner/complainant is the appellant before us.  This appeal was admitted on 7.2.2018.  The respondents have entered appearance though counsel.  However, thereafter there is no representation for the appellant during the subsequent postings.   In the above circumstances we had ordered notice to be issued to the appellant on 7.11.2018, notice has been served on the appellant.  Inspite of the above there is no representation for the appellant today also.

2.      We have heard the counsel appearing for the respondents.  We notice that the order appealed against has declined to condone a delay of 544 days in filing the complaint.  We find that the order is a considered one.  There is no infirmity in the order. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and  is accordingly dismissed.

 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

 

VL.