SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.A.KADER, R.N.MANICKAM, RAMANI MATHURANAYAGAM
RAMASAMY – Appellant
Versus
JAYAPAL – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Tr. S. Hameed Ismail, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Tr. D.S. Rajasekaran, Advocate.

ORDER

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.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top