Sunilkumar and Another Vs. Ravindran and Another

Sunilkumar and Another vs Ravindran and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided Jan 18, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1110703

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/1110703
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: Justice Sri. K.R. Udayabhanu: President, Sri. M.K. Abdulla Sona: Member
Decided On: Jan 18, 2010
Case Number: First Appeal No. 122 of 2007
Subject: Consumer

Case Summary

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

Consumer

Key legal issue: Consumer

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunilkumar and Another

Respondent

Ravindran and Another

Excerpt

justice sri. k.r. udayabhanu: president appellants are the opposite parties in cc.199/2006 in the file of cdrf, kollam. the appellants are under orders to pay a sum of rs.16,353/- etc. to the complainant. 2. the matter relates to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in not returning the amount paid by the complainant after the vehicle that belonged to the appellants were taken by the complainant allegedly giving rs.25000/- as rent advance and rs.1000/- as rental per day. the case is that on the first day itself the vehicle hit on a wall and that the appellants repaired the vehicle and got the amount reimbursed by the insurance company but did not return the amount paid by the complainant as advance. it is contended that the complainant is the uncle of the 1st appellant which is allegedly suppressed by the complainant. the document produced which is the photocopy of the alleged agreement is denied by the appellants and it is contented the same is a fabricated one. 3.the evidence adduced consisted of pws 1 to 3 dw1; exts.p1 to p3, d1 and d2. 4. we find the matter has to be decided on the basis of appreciation of the evidence adduced in the absence of proper documents especially as ext.p1 the alleged agreement is not signed by the opposite parties and the genuineness of the same is disputed. the forum has not considered/discussed the evidence adduced at all. in the circumstance we find that the matter requires reconsideration as the judgment should reflect a proper discussion of the evidence adduced. there was no representation for the complainant/respondent also before this commission. in the circumstance order of the forum is setaside. the forum is directed to issue notice to the complainant and dispose of the matter by a considered order. the case stands posted before the forum on 6.3.2010. office is directed to forward the lcr to the forum urgently along with copy of this order.

Full Judgment

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.199/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.16,353/- etc. to the complainant.

2. The matter relates to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in not returning the amount paid by the complainant after the vehicle that belonged to the appellants were taken by the complainant allegedly giving Rs.25000/- as rent advance and Rs.1000/- as rental per day. The case is that on the first day itself the vehicle hit on a wall and that the appellants repaired the vehicle and got the amount reimbursed by the Insurance Company but did not return the amount paid by the complainant as advance. It is contended that the complainant is the uncle of the 1st appellant which is allegedly suppressed by the complainant. The document produced which is the photocopy of the alleged agreement is denied by the appellants and it is contented the same is a fabricated one.

3.The evidence adduced consisted of PWs 1 to 3 DW1; Exts.P1 to P3, D1 and D2.

4. We find the matter has to be decided on the basis of appreciation of the evidence adduced in the absence of proper documents especially as Ext.P1 the alleged agreement is not signed by the opposite parties and the genuineness of the same is disputed. The Forum has not considered/discussed the evidence adduced at all. In the circumstance we find that the matter requires reconsideration as the judgment should reflect a proper discussion of the evidence adduced. There was no representation for the complainant/respondent also before this Commission. In the circumstance order of the Forum is setaside. The Forum is directed to issue notice to the complainant and dispose of the matter by a considered order.

The case stands posted before the Forum on 6.3.2010.

Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently along with copy of this order.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties Sunilkumar and Another vs Ravindran and Another Same Subject Consumer Same Judge Justice Sri. K.R. Udayabhanu: President, Sri. M.K. Abdulla So...