Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under Sec.11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming the insurance claim of Rs.20,00,000/- with costs. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant is a company engaged in manufacture of chemicals and production of hydro power having its registered office at Chingavanam, Kottayam District. It is having factory buildings, power house, plant building, stores, godown, sheds, administrative buildings, club etc, with stock kept in open, stock in godown, plant and machinery. The estimated vale for all the above items would come to Rs.19,66,15,922/-. The above said value arrived at and proved by the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Limited. The complainant/company insured the buildings, plant and machinery, stock in open, stock in go down, furniture for the year 2000-2001 with the opposite party/insurance company for an estimated value of Rs.19,66,15,922/- with a premium of Rs.1,96,123/-. The oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PREIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.205/05 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1363.60/- to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he was a member of the opposite party society, which is running in a milk collection unit and a provision shop. The profit was being determined and divided among the members periodically. The profits were distributed on 11.11.2003. On account of difference of opinion among the members and 4 members including the complainant resigned. The complainant resigned on 4.10.04. The opposite parties had given the amounts to the other 3 persons who resigned. The complainant was given only the deposits made by him in the Sangam and deposit in the provision shop and share in the profit of the shop alone. The share of profit in the milk collection center amounting of Rs.1363.60/- was not paid. It was undertaken to be paid later. The account of the society was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/LIC in OP.599/01 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh the assured amount with 9 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost. The case of the complainant is that her husband, deceased Musthafa availed a policy of Rs.1,00,000/- from the second opposite party in the year 1997. On 24.6.99 the defaulted four installments were paid and the policy was renewed. Her husband died on 2.8.2000. The claim was repudiated alleging that the deceased was suffering from Tuberculosis and diabetes since for 1.4.99. and the above facts were suppressed in the renewal statement dated.24.6.99. Her husband had no knowledge in English and he signed as per the direction of the second opposite party. The date of commencing risk was from 23.8.2000. Opposite parties have filed version admitting the policy. The policy had lapsed,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred by the opposite party/insurance company in OP:10/02 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent/complainant against the appellant/opposite party claiming the insurance amount of Rs.94,337.70. with interest and cost. The complainant had preferred an insurance claim for the said amount on the ground that the insured goods kept in his shop by name Southern Plantaids were damaged in flood on 8..7..2001. The opposite party deputed the Surveyor who inspected the insured premises namely the shop owned by the insured and assessed the actual damage at Rs.5,437.50. after deducting 50% as the salvage value. But the complainant/insured was not amenable for the said sum of Rs.5,437.50. offered by the insurance company. Hence the complaint in OP:10/2002 was filed before the Forum below. The Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to some extent and thereby passed the impugned ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP No.17/04 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 3/10/03 the date of purchase of marble slabs till payment and also cost of Rs.2,500/- 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had approached the 1st opposite party for purchasing marble for the flooring of his house under construction. As the items at the showroom were not to the satisfaction of the complainant the fist opposite party advised him to visit their showroom at Thrissur where there are more varieties. Accordingly he went to the 2nd opposite party another showroom of the same group and as suggested by the salesman Sherin purchased Arna White marble at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. ft. and a sum of Rs.2000/- paid as advance. He purchased 2826. 85 sq.ft of above variety of marble for which the price worked out to Rs.1,67,000/-. The price was paid by cheque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants in Appeal 399/02 are the opposite parties 2 to 4, the dealers and service providers and in the appeal 425/02 the appellant is the Manufacturer/1st opposite party in OP 403/2000 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to replace the gearbox of the Ambassador Diesel Car purchased by the complainant from the respondents and also to correct the wheel alignment of the above vehicle; and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost of proceedings. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the Diesel Ambassador Car from the 3rd opposite party dealer on 15.3.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,74,000/- obtaining financial assistance from the SBT and on hypothecating the car to the Bank. The complainant has to pay monthly instalments. At the time of purchase itself the odometer reading was 2600Kms. The vehicle was purchased for plying as tourist car. On plying it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parities in OP No.16/02 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.4,905/- as the value of the mobile handset etc and also the cost of Rs.400/-. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset on 30/6/2001 for Rs.2,645 and he paid Rs.1,260/- as the activation charges and Rs.1,000/- as security deposit and Rs.95/- as the plan enrolment fee. The complainant was conducting a business in Oachira which is only 3 kms from Kayamkulam from where he purchased the handset from the 1st opposite party. According to him there was no coverage at Oachira area. He intimated the matter through the 1st opposite party a number of times and also issued a letter to the officers mentioning the same. The manager of the opposite parties come to Oachira and examined the handset; but returned without making any specific comments. As per the letter received on 4/7/01 it is menti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.476/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a Bajaj Auto rikshaw with the opposite party on 10.9.98 for a sum of Rs.58265/-. He had remitted the amount for a fare meter also. When the vehicle was delivered the meter was not supplied. The invoice contained the price for the fare meter and the same included in the amount deposited on 10.9.98 and hence he has sought for the price of the meter ie Rs.2200/- and compensation. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that the price of the vehicle at the time of delivery was Rs. 58755/- and the insurance amount was Rs.1120/- and hence the total amount worked out to Rs.59875/-. The balance amount of Rs.1610/- due from the complainant was collect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 23/6/04 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP No.172/03. The complaint therein was filed claiming the amount due to the complainant under chitty which was conducted by the 1st opposite party as the Foreman. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and contended that the insolvency petition is pending before the Sub Court, Kollam and the complainant was well aware of the pendency of the insolvency petition before the Sub Court, Kollam. It is further contended that the complainants husband is a party in the said proceedings. In the light of the pendency of insolvency the proceedings before the Sub Court, Kollam the Forum below was reluctant to go into the merits of the complaint in OP 172/03. Thereby, the complaint in OP 172/03 was dismissed. It is against the said order the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. There was no represent...
Tag this Judgment!