Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER: The opposite parties in OP.NO.153/03 of CDRF, Alappuzha are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated.6.7.04, whereby the Forum below has directed them to replace the WLL telephone provided to the complainant by a b-Fone within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant has approached the Forum for a direction to the opposite party to give connection through cable from Puthanchantha exchange which was newly started near the complainants house. 2. It is the case of the complainant that WLL telephone provided to him by the opposite party on 01.02.03 which is working in electricity is out of order in most of the time. It is his further case that the opposite party had assured him that after a new telephone exchange to be started to function at Puthanchantha within 1km from his house, the phone would be replaced with a cable telephone and in spite of his request that was not don...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER The opposite parties in OP.NO.155/03 of CDRF, Alappuzha are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated.6.7.04, whereby the Forum below has directed them to replace the WLL telephone provided to the complainant by a b-Fone within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant has approached the Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to give connection through cable from Puthanchantha exchange which was newly started near the complainants house. 2. It is the case of the complainant that WLL telephone provided to him by the opposite party, which is working in electricity is out of order in most of the time. It is his further case that the opposite party had assured him that after a new telephone exchange to be started to function at Puthanchantha within 200m away from his house, the phone would be replaced with a cable phone and in spite of his request that was not done and he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT: The appellant is the complainant in CC.105/2008 filed by him allegedly against the former counsel engaged by him. The CC was dismissed, as the complainant was continuously absent (as mentioned in the order). The complainant/party appeared in person. According to him the copy of the version filed in the Forum was not sent to him. He has sought for condoning his absence before the Forum. The counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no merit at all in the appeal and that the case is a fabricated and false one and that if any in case the matter is remitted back there should be an order to consider the preliminary objection as to the maintainability. In the circumstances and considering the fact that the appellant is a layman and party himself the order of the Forum dismissing the complaint for default is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to hear the preliminary objection of the opposite party a...
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 OP453/2004 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.27440/- and Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant. It is the contention of the appellant that he did not get a proper chance to counter the evidence adduced by the complainant. 2. Of course the Forum has noted that opposite party was absent continuously and was set exparte. 3. All the same considering the facts that the matter has been decided exparte, we are inclined to set aside the order and remand back the matter to the Forum on condition that the opposite party remit the entire amounts ordered to be paid in the Forum on or before 30.3.09. The amount of cost ordered can be permitted to be withdrawn by the complainant. 4. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 8.4.09. 5. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant and permit the parties to adduce further evidence if they so ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The case has been decided ex parte. It appears that the appellants/opposite parties has serious contentions. In the circumstance order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants remit a sum of Rs.2000/- before the Forum with notice to the complainant towards cost of the complainant. The amount can be withdrawn by the complainant. On remitting the amount of cost the Forum will reconsider the matter and dispose of the same on merits after hearing the opposite party also. The amount is to be deposited within 2 months from today. The office will forward this order to the Forum urgently. The matter stands before the Forum on 8.4.09....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. DAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Co. in CC.173/05 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.The appellant is under orders to settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis and to pay Rs.1500/- towards cost within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the opposite party is to pay Rs.88206/- as claimed. 2. The case of the complainant is that the jeep owned by him and insured with the appellant met with an accident on 18.11.2004. The vehicle hit against a compound wall. A sum of Rs.84206/- was paid towards repairing charges and a sum of Rs.4000/- was paid to the owner of the compound wall. The claim was repudiated alleging that the vehicle was carrying more passengers than permitted. It is contended that extra passengers did not contribute in the happening of the accident. 3. In the version of the opposite party it is contended that there was clear policy violation as more passengers than permitted was travelling in the ...
Tag this Judgment!