Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President;
Mr. R.N. Manickam & Dr. Tmt. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Members
RAMASAMY—Petitioner
versus
JAYAPAL—Respondent
A.P. No. 75 of 1994—Decided on 21.4.1995
Registered Post Acknowledgement - Consumer Dispute - The court upheld the dismissal of the petition for the production of the Registered Post Acknowledgement, stating that it was not necessary for the determination of the main question involved in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for the production of the Registered Post Acknowledgement from the Postal Department, which was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The petitioner appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the production of the Registered Post Acknowledgement was not necessary for the determination of the main question involved in the case, and therefore upheld the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for the production of the Registered Post Acknowledgement and the contention of the Opposite Party regarding the necessity of this request.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the production of the Registered Post Acknowledgement was not essential for the determination of the main question involved in the case, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Final Decision: The petition for the production of the Registered Post Acknowledgement was dismissed by the court.
Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President—The appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin, dated 20.8.93 in unnumbered petition in OP No. 53/92. The Opposite Party in the main OP is the petitioner.
2. He filed an application for the production of the Registered Post Acknowledgement from the Postal Department. The District Forum dismissed the petition and hence this appeal.
3. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party, who is not a qualified Medical Practitioner, was practising the medicine and administered injections and the Complainant himself was a victim. He claimed compensation. The Opposite Party contended that this complaint has been filed on account of some other enmity and that he had given a police complaint. This is really not necessary for the determination of the main question involved in the OP The District Forum has, therefore, rightly held in rejecting the petition for non-production of acknowledgement card.
4. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
