P.V. Chacko Vs. Lissy Joseph and Another

P.V. Chacko vs Lissy Joseph and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided Feb 25, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1108376

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1108376
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. M.K. Abdulla Sona Member
Decided On: Feb 25, 2012
Case Number: First Appeal No. A/12/118 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/07/2011 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/11/45 of District Ernakulam)
Subject: Consumer

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer

Key legal issue: Consumer

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.V. Chacko

Respondent

Lissy Joseph and Another

Excerpt

justice sri.k.r.udayabhanu : president the appellant is the 2nd opposite party in cc.45/11 in the file of cdrf, ernakulam. the opposite parties including the appellant is under orders to refund rs.4,20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 5.6.07 the date of deposit. 2. the case of the complainant is that he deposited rs.4,20,000/- in the jyothis project of the opposite parties on 5.6.07 believing the assurance of the opposite parties that double the amount will be repaid on maturity on 28.4.09. after maturity the amount was not refunded. the complainant was claimed the above amount with interest at 12%. 3. the 1st opposite party/ firm represented by the managing partner stood ex-parte. the managing partner who is the 2nd opposite party/appellant in person has contended that he is not the managing partner of the 1st opposite party/firm and that there is no cause of action against him. 4. the evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of pw1 and exts.a1 to a12. 5. exts.a2 to a11 are the certificates of deposits. it is noted by the forum that pw1 was not cross examined. the 2nd opposite party did not adduce any evidence. it was in the above circumstance that the forum directed to refund the amount deposited with interest at 12%. the contention of the appellant is that he is not the managing partner of the 1st opposite party establishment. but nothing prevented him from testifying in this regard in support of his contention . in the circumstances we find that the finding of the forum cannot be found fault with. we find there is no patent illegality in the order of the forum. 6. hence we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. 7. in the result the appeal is dismissed in limine. office will forward the copy of this order to the forum.

Full Judgment

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in CC.45/11 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The opposite parties including the appellant is under orders to refund Rs.4,20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 5.6.07 the date of deposit.

2. The case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.4,20,000/- in the Jyothis project of the opposite parties on 5.6.07 believing the assurance of the opposite parties that double the amount will be repaid on maturity on 28.4.09. After maturity the amount was not refunded. The complainant was claimed the above amount with interest at 12%.

3. The 1^st opposite party/ Firm represented by the Managing Partner stood ex-parte. The Managing Partner who is the 2^nd opposite party/appellant in person has contended that he is not the Managing Partner of the 1^st opposite party/Firm and that there is no cause of action against him.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12.

5. Exts.A2 to A11 are the certificates of deposits. It is noted by the forum that PW1 was not cross examined. The 2^nd opposite party did not adduce any evidence. It was in the above circumstance that the Forum directed to refund the amount deposited with interest at 12%. The contention of the appellant is that he is not the Managing Partner of the 1^st opposite party establishment. But nothing prevented him from testifying in this regard in support of his contention . In the circumstances we find that the finding of the Forum cannot be found fault with. We find there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.

6. Hence we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

7. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.

Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties P.V. Chacko vs Lissy Joseph and Another Same Subject Consumer Same Judge The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President &Amp; ...