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

Translate

This Page To:

 
THOTTOLI MAIMOONA V/S SHAMEER, decided on Thursday, November 2, 2017.
[ In the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram, Appeal No. 653 of 2017. ] 02/11/2017
Judge(s) : S.S. SAESACHANDRAN, PRESIDENT & V.V. JOSE, MEMBER
Advocate(s) : S. Vinod Kumar.
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






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    S.S. Satheesachandran: PresidentAppellant is the complainant. She has filed the above appeal against the summary dismissal of her complaint with a petition to condone delay of 122 days in preferring the appeal.2. We heard the counsel for appellant on the delay matter and also on merits of appeal as well. Appellant is a lady who claims to have purchased a lorry from respondent paying valuable consideration. Vehicle was defective and the engine provided in the vehicle was not of that vehicle but of a different vehicle was her case. Her complaint was a preliminary enquiry was rejected by the District Forum holding that the allegations set out in her complaint would give rise to a case of cheating and therefore it was not maintainable.3. Perusing the affidavit sworn to in support of the petition to condone delay we find no reason to doubt the case of complainant that she could not file the appeal within time since she suffered severe back pain and was under treatment. Delay involved is therefore condoned.4. Perusing the Order of the lower forum with reference to the submission made by counsel we are of the view that summary dismissal of the complaint taking a view that the allegation set out in the complaint would give rise to only a case of cheating is not prima-facie correct. Complainant comes within the definition of consumer who had paid valuable consideration for a vehicle allegedly purchased from opposite party which according to her had a defective engine. Ends of justice demand that she should have been given an opportunity to establish her case leading evidence. Setting aside the Order of dismissal of complaint District Forum is directed to take back the complaint on its file and dispose it in accordance with law.Appeal allowed.