Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The CDRF, Kottayam by its order dated 22-01-2009 in CC No. 93/2007 has directed the opposite parties to give reconnection to the electric supply of the petitioners building No. 561 of Athirampuzha Grama Panchayath and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties with Consumer No. 1390 and that on 24-11-2006 he found that the electric meter fitted in the building No. 561 turned upside down and there was no electricity in the building. On lodging a complaint the Junior Engineer of the opposite party visited the premises and rectified the complaint. At that time it was found that there was a gap of nearly one inch between the upp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Kerala Water Authority in OP.114/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The bill issued stands cancelled. The appellants are under orders to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. 2. There is no representation for the respondent/complainant before this Commission. 3. The case of the complainant is that he has been served with an arrear bill for a sum of Rs.8010/- for a period from 3/92 to 1/03 and further the readings and other particulars are not shown in the bill. The opposite parties had contended that the amounts are due as the complainant has consumed water to that extent. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P5. 5. The Forum has noted that as per Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991 the appellants are bound to take readings in every 6 months and revise the PIC. The impugned bill is for a period of about 12 years. Evidently there is deficie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 were the opposite parties 1 to 3 respectively in OP.282/04 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant being consumer of LP cooking gas. It was alleged that the complainant suffered damage in the gas explosion which occurred due to leakage of gas from the cylinder and the said gas explosion occurred due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in maintaining the gas installation at the premises of the complainant and also in supplying defective cylinder LP gas to the complainant. The third opposite party being the insurer of the first opposite party Gas Agency failed to pay compensation to the complainant. Thus, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by way of compensation. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed sepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.83/08 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim with respect to the life policy No.794379673 in the name of the life assured late Sri.C.Gopalan Nair. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the insurance claim was repudiated by the opposite party LIC of India on valid ground of suppression of material facts. It was contended that the proposor (life assured C.Gopalan Nair) failed to disclose the material facts regarding his health condition while submitting the proposal for the said policy and thereby the opposite parties justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Dr.Suba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31-01-2007 of CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 527/02 wherein and whereby the opposite parties are under directions to take back the Incubator Setter and the Hatcher Automatic machines and pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the price of the machines to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from 18-01-2001 till realization with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The opposite parties are aggrieved by the said directions and hence the present appeal. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has purchased one incubator setter automatic worth Rs. 58,000 and a hatcher automatic worth Rs. 42,000/- from the opposite parties and that the same was purchased for self-employment by availing a loan from Catholic Syrian Bank. The amounts were paid on 05-08-2000 and 18-01-2001 respectively and that the complainant has alleged that the machines became defective from the initial stage it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant herein was the opposite party and the respondent was the complainant in OP.224/2000 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in causing delay in disbursing the pension due to the complainant. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The Secretary of the pension board took the contention that there occurred delay on the part of the employer society namely Alakkodu service Co-operative Bank in remitting the contribution to the pension fund. Thus, the opposite party contended that the delay in disbursing the pension was due to the fault on the part of the complainant/ employee and his employer, the Alakkodu Service Co-operative Bank. 2. Before the Forum below no oral evidence was adduced from the side of the parties to the complaint. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30th January 2006 passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party/financial institution in OP.141/2003 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to refund the amount of interest recovered in excess of 24.44% and also to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1500/- etc. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party private bank and that they collected an excess of Rs.47,892.50 when the loan was closed. It is the contention that the opposite party violated the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. The excess amount is sought to be refunded with compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the amount was availed agreeing to pay interest at 22% per annum calculated on quarterly basis on the strength of a promissory note; and further that the appellant has agreed to pay 7% of the balance amount due as service charges and also penal interest at 6%...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The CDRF, Alappuzha vide its order dated 19-01-2005 in OP No. 253/2003 has directed the opposite parties to issue Ext.A4 bill in agricultural tariff itself and to pay Rs. 25,000/- with 10% interest from 05-11-2003 till payment as compensation along with costs of Rs. 500/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is aggrieved by the said directions that appeal 311/2005 is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order. The complainant has also preferred another appeal as Appeal No. 396/2008 for enhancement of the compensation as he is aggrieved by the low amount of compensation ordered by the Forum below. 2.The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties having an agricultural connection with Consumer No. 2426 and that the connection was for the purpose of conducting a hatchery under the agricu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the second opposite party and the respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and first opposite party respectively in OP No. 111/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not completing the finishing work of the residential building owned by the complainant. Thereby the complainant claimed refund of R. 4,50,000/- with compensation under various heads and also for costs. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed separate written version denying the alleged deficiency of service on their part. The first opposite party contended that the agreement to carry out the finishing work was entered into between the complainant and the second opposite party and that the second opposite party had taken all the responsibility for completion of the work specified in the agreement. It was further contended that the first opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in OP No. 112/2002 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The second opposite party/ Government of Kerala has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2.The case of the complainant is that he met with a road traffic accident on 06-04-2002 and was taken to General Hospital, Pathanamthitta and there from to District Hospital, Kozhencherry. The complainant was treated by the first opposite party doctor. The complainant had sustained right leg fracture and below knee slab was applied. He was discharged on 08-04-2002. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was incurred towards treatment expenses. It is alleged that during his IP period at the hospital the first opposite party doctor compelled him to execute a Vakkalath in favour of one advocate from Pathanamthitta Bar by name Mr. Babu Varghese for filing MACT claim. The complainant was reluctant. He was also forced to sign on various pape...
Tag this Judgment!