Kerala

StateCommission

448/2003

M.S.Mohan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ulahannan Mathew/Yohannan - Opp.Party(s)

Emmanuel Chathenchira

29 Nov 2007

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 448/2003

M.S.Mohan Kumar
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ulahannan Mathew/Yohannan
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




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.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURM


 


 

PRESENT


 


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER


 

M.S.Mohan kumar,

S.MTravels, Thriveni complex, -- APPELLANT

T.B.Road, Kottayam.

(By Adv.Emmanuel Chathenchira & Others)

Vs.

Ulahannan Mathew @ Yohannan

Vadakkekara House, -- RESPONDENT

Velloor-P.O, Pambady,

Kottayam.


 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT

 

The appellant is the opposite party in OP.237/02 under orders to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.750/- to the petitioner.

The grievance of the complainant is that she had made arrangements in the appellant/respondent to provide two tourist buses on 15.5.2000 for taking the invitees for the marriage of his daughter. The buses were booked on 15.4.2000 after paying Rs.1000/- as advance. But on the particular day of marriage only one bus was made available.

The appellant filed an affidavit stating that both buses were provided, but one bus reached the place only at 10.30. The delay was occasioned on account of mechanical problems.

Both parties have only filed affidavits and the complainant filed Ext.A1 to A3 documents; ie., the copy of the booking receipt, copy of the lawyer notice and acknowledgement card.

The case of the petitioner is that only one bus was sent to him and the same has been denied by the respondents/appellant. In order to refute the above averments of the opposite party the complainant has not adduced any evidence. In the circumstances, just the version of the complainant cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Hence we find that the order of the forum below cannot be sustained. Appeal is allowed.


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT


 


 

SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER