Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
K.J. MADHU V/S THE PRESIDENT, FILM GUIDANCE SOCIETY OF KERALA, decided on Monday, March 1, 1999.
[ In the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram, Complaint No. 2 of 1999. ] 01/03/1999
Judge(s) : L. MANOHARAN, PRESIDENT, PROF. K. MADHURI LATHA, MEMBER & PROF. R. VIJAYAKRISHNAN, MEMBER
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Charu Khurana & Others Versus Union of India & Others,   10/11/2014.  

  Shri Subhkaran Luharuka & Another Versus State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Another,   09/07/2010.  

  Sony Pictures Releasing of India Ltd., & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, through its Secretary & Others ,   07/07/2006.  

  C.K. Rajan Versus State of Kerala & Others ,   10/01/1994.  

  Chunibhai Vaidya Versus H.J.D'Penha, Chief Censor to the Government of India,   22/03/1976.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1999 (3) CPJ 317"  ==   ""  







    L. Manoharan President:The complainant is represented by his agent who has produced before us a letter written by the complainant to the Secretary of this Commission. The complainant says that he has authorised the person mentioned therein to appear before the Commission on his behalf. The complainant alleges that he had remitted Rs. 500/- by draft to the Film Guidance Society of Kerala for membership of his daughter. The complainant further states that as he suspects the movement of the Society he wanted refund of the said amount which is not refunded in spite of repeated correspondence. He alleges that his daughter has suffered agony; therefore he has to be awarded compensation. Since the complaint did not mention as to the quantum of compensation the agent was asked as regards the same and he submits that it would be enough that Rs. 500/- alongwith interest is directed to be returned. As indicated the complaint does not state as to what is the quantum of compensation the complainant seeks. With due regard to the aforesaid statement of the agent of the complainant it has to be found that this complaint cannot be entertained before this Commission for this Commission’s jurisdiction under Section 17 with respect to complaint relief in which is between 5 lakhs and 20 lakhs. Since the relief now sought by the agent is below Rs. 5 lakhs the remedy if at all is to approach the District Forum. Without prejudice to the said right of the complainant to approach the District Forum the complaint is dismissed.