Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the 1st opposite party/dealer in CC.36/2010 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. Appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.21,690/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- towards cost. 2. Appellant was exparte before the Forum. It is submitted that the counsel who was entrusted, omitted to represent the matter. 3. Although we find that the reason mentioned is such cannot be treated as a proper one, a considered order would be desirable. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/1st opposite party pay a sum of Rs.6000/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum will permit the opposite parties to file version and contest the case. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The case stands posted before the Forum on 28/2/2011. Office will forward copy of this order to the Forum at the earliest....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.33/06 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint herein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant based on the life policy issued in favour of the complainants husband, Abdulla. The complainant claimed the insured amount of Rs.2.lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical pain and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed a joint written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim vide repudiation letter dated:14/3/2005. It was further contended that the life assured, Abdulla.M.K suppressed material facts while submitting the proposal for the policy and the suppression of material facts re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.455/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The bill issued by the appellant with respect to the past fixed charges omitted to be collected stands set aside. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was conducting a clinic by name Athira Clinic with consumer No.18609. The tariff at the time was LT-I A with fixed charge at Rs.110/-. On 8/2/2005 the opposite party changed the tariff as LT VI-B without any reason and subsequently on 16/12/06 a bill has been issued with raising the fixed charge to Rs.660/- per each bill and directed to pay a sum of Rs.660/- as short assessment from February 2005 to December 2006 after deducting the fixed charge of Rs.110/- from each bill. It is the allegation with the above bill is illegal. 3. The contention of the opposite parties/appellants is that there was omission to collect the fixed charges from the date from which the tariff was changed from LT I-A to LT-VI-B. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the 1st opposite party in CC.148/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8509/- with compensation of Rs.2000/-and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant purchased 29 sq.mts of floor tiles from the opposite party/appellant for a sum of Rs.9610/-. The complainant purchased red tiles. At the time of opening the packets it was found that there were slight colour fading and white precipitate like stains on them. The matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party/sub dealer. The complainant was told the white patches would disappear when the tiles are polished. The tiles were laid by spending a sum of Rs.20/- per sq.ft. and a sum of Rs.6240/- was spend for polishing. The complainant has sought for refund of the purchase money and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the manufacturers have used the best quality...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in CC.136/06 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint stands dismissed. The case of the complainant is that the elephant by name Aravindakshan purchased by him for a sum of Rs.4.lakhs on 26/5/2003 died on 27/6/2003 due to acute Cardio Pulmonary failure. The elephant was covered by the policy of opposite party for a sum of Rs.3.lakhs. Postmortem was done by the Veterinary Surgeon on 28/6/2003. The claim was repudiated. The opposite party has contended that the condition of the policy that the opposite party ought to have been intimated immediately as to the death of the elephant has been violated. Clauses 4 and 6 of the conditions of the policy contains the above stipulation. It is alleged that the elephant was poisoned by the complainant. 2. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective sides and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B14. 3. The Forum has upheld the contentions of the opposite partie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.80/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.lakh the assured amount and Rs.6000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainants daughter had purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle and obtained a package policy from the opposite party which included the personal accident cover. The complainants daughter was pillion rider at the time of accident on 17/6/2006. It was her brother who was driving the vehicle and he had valid driving license but the claim was repudiated. 3. It is the case of the opposite parties that the coverage is confined to owner-driver ie the owner cum driver and that in the instant case the owner was not driving the vehicle. 4. The evidence adduced consists of Exts.A1 to A5 and Ext.B1. 5. It was not disputed that the deceased was not having the driving license. The opposite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.263/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to restrict the back assessment to 30/5/2008. 2. The complainant, Secretary of the Jamath has disputed the penal bill issued for Rs.36,000/- for the alleged unauthorized extension of electric connection to the nearby quarters of the Imam. It is the case of the complainant that the Imam and his wife started residing in the adjacent quarters on 30/5/2008 and that as the wife of the Imam was pregnant and after getting oral consent from the opposite parties 2 lights were used in the quarters by plugging current from the adjacent building. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have disputed the case of the complainant and relied on sec.126 (2) in support of the bill issued for the previous 6 months from the date of inspection. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, PW2, Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts. B1 to B3. 5. The Forum has relie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER No representation for the appellant. Appellant called absent. Appeal dismissed for non prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation from either side. Appellant is called absent. Hence appeal dismissed for non prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants in A.166/09 are the complainants in OP.267/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam and the appellants in A.210/09 are the opposite parties 1 and 2/insurance company. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.6,02,775/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1/6/2005 and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainants that in response to a purchase order from Teknor-Apex USA with respect to 800 numbers of Hercules mats at the rate of US$ 13.5 and 1300 members of ramp mats at the rate of US$ 9 for a total value of US$ 22,420/- the mats were despatched in 2 containers on 27/5/2004 from the complainants factory at Kollam to be forwarded by ship from Kochi. The agent of the buyer, Mr.Mohindar Satpal (PW5) stationed at New Delhi had visited the complainants factory and verified the export quality of the rubber mats on 19th ...
Tag this Judgment!