Kerala

Malappuram

CC/08/231

JEORGE P.V, PUTHIYA KUNNEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAYALAKSHMI, TEAM LEADER - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2009

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, PIN-676 505
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/231

JEORGE P.V, PUTHIYA KUNNEL
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

VIJAYALAKSHMI, TEAM LEADER
SECRETARY, POTHUKAL GRAMAPANCHAYATH
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 3. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN

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.

 

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,


 

1. Complaint is filed alleging imperfections in the conduct of 'Jalanidhi' project. It is stated that the project is not commissioned so far even though Rs.2,250/- was paid by each beneficiary. Complainant prays to direct opposite parties to implement the project at the earliest and resolve the drinking water problem of the several beneficiaries under the scheme.

2. First opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that W.H.I. Who is the first opposite party is only a Voluntary Organisation indulging in activities of helping social organisation to avail of the various benefits offered by State Government. That 1st opposite party has not received any consideration from the complainant or from other beneficiaries. That no service was availed or hired from first opposite party for consideration. That complainant is not a consumer with regard to opposite party and that he is only a beneficiary of the scheme. That complaint is to be dismissed.

3. Notice to second opposite party was served. Second opposite party was absent and set exparte on 04-12-2008.

4. The complainant was heard in detail on 18-5-2009. He has no case that he has paid any consideration to first or second opposite parties. The alleged amount was remitted to the society formed for the implementation of the Jalanidhi Project. Hence complainant is not a consumer with regard to opposite parties and the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

     

    Dated this 30th day of May, 2009.


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 


 


 


 

APPENDIX


 


 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil


 


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN