Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant herein was the complainant and the respondents were the opposite parties in OP 977/1998 on the file of the CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed for getting refund of the excess amount of Rs. 9,188/- which was collected from the complainant by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and also for compensation of Rs. 3,000/- with costs. The complainant has also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,188/-. The opposite parties 1 to 4 entered appearance and filed written versions in the said OP 977/98. The 5th respondent remained absent. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contended that the complainant booked seats of flight No. 9W 443 and paid only lesser charges and also the opposite parties 1 and 2 collected the balance amount of Rs. 9,188/-. Thus, the opposite parties 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 28th April 2004 of the CDRF, Kozhikode in OP No. 200/03. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in causing delay and also overlooking the seniority of the complainant in giving the new telephone connection. The complainant claimed refund of Rs. 7,000/- which he paid as additional amount to convert his application under Non-OYT General category into OYT General category and also for compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part in giving the new telephone connection to the complainant; that the opposite parties were at liberty to give connection by overlooking the seniority on consideration of the technical feasibi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.15,49,512/- alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 (opposite parties 1 to 3). 2. The case of the complainants is as follows:- The first complainant is the husband and complainants 2 and 3 are the daughters of Mrs. Rosey Thomas. Domestic gas connection was given to the house of first complainant in the name of his wife Mrs. Rosey Thomas. The aforesaid gas connection was given by respondents 1 to 3 through the third respondent with Consumer No.7926. The Complainants and Mrs. Rosey Thomas were residing at Kadalikad in Muvattupuzha Taluk. The complainants and Mrs.Rosey Thomas were handling the gas connection with great care and all possible caution. The first respondent is the company engaged in manufacture and distribution of liquid petroleum gas. The second respondent is the person responsible for the affair...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 4.11.2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.A.139/2002 . The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P2 bill for Rs.7554/-. The aforesaid bill was issued alleging unauthorized connection from the domestic connection given to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that there was no unauthorized drawing of electricity line; but she had only drawn a line for providing a 40 watts bulb to her pathway. The opposite parties relied on Ext.B3 site mahasar prepared by 2nd opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section North, Alappuzha and also the testimony of the 2nd opposite party as RW1. On an appreciation of the evidence on record the Forum below allowed the complaint by quashing P1 and P2 Notice and bill for Rs.7554/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties therein. 2. We heard both sides. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 30th April, 2003 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP. No. 255/2001. The complainant in the said original petition was filed by the appellant herein against the respondents/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in the sale, supply and after sale service of the Solar Water Pumping System. The complainant alleged defect in the Solar Water Pumping System and that the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects in the said system. Hence the compliant was filed for getting the defective Solar Modules (12 in numbers) replaced. In the alternative to pay the present market value of the Solar Modules with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance before the Forum below and filed joint written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contended that the first opposite party is a government agency engaged in propagating t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are opposite parties 4 and 5, the Government Ophthalmic Hospital represented by its Director and the Health Secretary, Government of Kerala, who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation with future interest at 16.5% and costs of Rs. 2,000/- in OP 513/97 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 08-05-1996 he had watering, pain and redness to his left eye. He is a person making out his livelihood by running a small poultry farm. He immediately rushed to the Ophthalmic Hospital, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He was attended by the second opposite party who gave him an injection and advised to use eye drops. He was examined by the opposite parties 2 and 3 on the succeeding dates ie, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th and the doctors advised him to put the eye drops prescribed earlier. On 13-05-1996 pain was so intense that he requested the doctors t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 10.12.04 in OP.297/03 the CDRF, Alappuzha has quashed the bill dated 24.3.03 and directed the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount remitted for the three phase connection and also restrained the opposite parties from levying any amount from the complainant during the disconnected period from 3.10.03. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The brief facts of the case bereft of unnecessary details are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was running an oil mill and from 1990 onwards it was functioning as a Match factory. The complainant has stopped the functioning of the Match factory in 1999 and on 31.3.99 he has submitted an application to perpetuate the single phase connection to light connection and dismantle the motor connection. Deposit amount was also requested to be refunded along with a prayer that the tariff from LT IV be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/dealer in OP 75/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.41,890/- towards compensation and the 1st opposite party/sub dealer is directed to pay Rs.4,000/-. The complainant has also been permitted to continue the ownership and possession of the vehicle. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 21/2/04 he purchased the Hero Honda Ambition Motor Cycle from the 1st opposite party. Subsequently it was found that the vehicle sold was not a new one. It was the vehicle manufactured in the year 2002 and he sought for the replacement of the vehicle or refund of the amount paid. The 1st opposite party contended that the vehicle was sold at 8 pm on 25/5/04. The vehicle was brought from the 2nd opposite party dealer on 25/2/04 and immediately the same was delivered to the complainants. The vehicle was brought by the road at 8 O clock in the night to the place o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The 1st opposite party in CC.43/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad is the appellant . The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards compensation and cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had booked the entry to the Amusement park run by the 1st opposite party for visit on 1.11.2007. It was the trip along with the workers of the shop owned by the complainant. Booking was made on 26.10.2007 through the 2nd opposite party. The day fixed for the journey happened to be a hartal declared by the BJP. On knowing about the hartal the complainant had contacted the opposite party and the opposite party confirmed the booking. The complainant hired 2 vehicles and reached the park at 5.30AM on 1.11.07. But the park was not opened for the entire day. He has claimed the rent of the vehicles amounting to Rs.14850/- incidental expenses Rs.10000/- Rs.25000/- as compensation. 3. It is the contention of the opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.20.lakhs on the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sale and service of the machineries purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The facts of the case are as follows:- Complainant is a private limited Company having its office at Thattamala, Kollam. The complainant company installed a metal crusher unit manufactured by the opposite party. The machineries namely Jaw crusher, Vibrating screen and Ref. feeder are supplied and erected by the opposite party based on the orders placed by the complainant. Opposite party supplied the general lay out of the machineries and drawings which were prepared by the opposite party at its registered office in Baroda. The order for the machineries was placed on 19..11..1998. Advance payment of Rs.11,70,785/- was made by 2 cheques. The 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!