M.K. MATHEW CHARITABLE TRUST V/S P.V. SUDHAKARAN - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/3910/2009

P.V. SUDHAKARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.K. MATHEW CHARITABLE TRUST - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

04 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3910 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 23/05/2009 in Appeal No. 232/2009 of the State Commission Kerala)

1. P.V. SUDHAKARANResiding at Palakkadan House, Vadakkumbhagom Village, Ashtamichira Desom,Mukundapuram TalukTrissurKERALA						...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M.K. MATHEW CHARITABLE TRUSTManaging Trustee, Kallettumkara, Mukundapuram Taluk,TrissurKERALA						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 04 Jan 2010

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.

In this revision filed with a delay of 26 days challenge by the opposite party is to the order dated 23.5.2009 of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthpauram dismissing appeal against the order dated 22.12.2008 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest @12% per annum from the dates of payment till date of order and interest @6% per annum thereafter till realization to the respondent/complainant. Respondent allege that he paid amounts of Rs.90,000/- on 2.1.2006 and Rs.25,000/- on 10.2.2006 in advance to the petitioner for supplying 10 moulds of artificial legs to the petitioner and in spite of this payment, the petitioner failed to supply the moulds and/or to refund the amount paid. In the written version, petitioner alleged that he is not a manufacturer of the moulds and had suggested the name of R. B. Engineering, Delhi to the respondent. Respondent directly ordered for moulds to R. B. Engineering. It was further alleged that balance was not paid and respondent was not ready to take delivery of the moulds from the said manufacturer at Delhi. On appreciation of evidence, the District Forum disbelieved the defence taken by the petitioner and ordered refund of the paid amount by the petitioner. Appeal against forums order has been dismissed by the State Commission in terms of the order under challenge. Short submission advanced by Shri Jain is that there was a compromise between the parties at P.S. Chalakkudy and pursuant thereto the respondent did not pay the balance amount and taken delivery of the moulds, copy of the proceedings before the police is at page 18. This was not filed either before the District Forum or the State Commission. Shri Jain submits that petitioner may be permitted to file it now. At this belated stage, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner to file it as evidence. District Forum had rightly passed the award for refund of the paid amount with interest and that order has been correctly upheld by the State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.

......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER