Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated:25-01-2007 in OP.349/03 of the CDRF, Kollam. By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions to cancel the bill dated:22-05-2003 for Rs.19,131/- and to refund the sum of Rs.4883/- remitted by the complainant or to adjust the same in the future bills of the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The Forum has given liberty to the opposite parties to recover the amount of compensation and costs from their delinquent employees. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties having two electric connections, one for agricultural purpose and other for domestic purpose. It is his case that on 22-05-2003, the 4th opposite party issued a bill for Rs.19,131-/ to be remitted on or before 9-6-2003. Though an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Chief Engineer, the 2nd opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP No. 222/2005 dated 4th September 2008. The appellant is the opposite party. Inshort, the complainant who was a worker under the first opposite party retired from the factory on 31-12-2000 due to super annuation at the age of 58 years. The complainant was born in the year 1942 for which them is valid in documentary evidence. The complainant had entered into service on 1969 under the Karuna Cashew Factory having account no. KR1268/206. She joined in Employees Provident Fund on 1969. After the first opposite party became the owner of the cashew factory in the year 1991 when the complainant was employed her account number has been changed. The complainants Provident Fund accumulation is not settled after her retired as KR 1268/1529. The second opposite party rejected the benefit of the pension on the plea that she had only a total service less than 10 years and she had attained 58 years on 01...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in OP No. 411/2002 dated 06-12-2004. The appellants are the opposite parties. The complainant who was the consumer of the first opposite party with consumer No. 1302 was constructed a new building in the year 1990 and electricity was being used in the building by drawn electric line from the old building with the consent of the first opposite party. On 19-09-2002 the first opposite party without any prior information disconnected the electric connection and issued a penal bill for Rs. 9,600/- by registered post. She filed an application before the opposite parties for shifting the meter but it was pending. According to the complainant the disconnection done by the opposite parties is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence she prayed for cancellation of the bill and to refunded of Rs. 9,853/-, restoration of the electric connection and compensation with costs. 2. The opposite parties filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP No. 170/2000 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint and Rs. 15,000/- as expenses incurred for treatment and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. 2. The complaint has been filed by the guardian/father on behalf of his minor son then aged 9 years claiming compensation against the opposite party doctor alleging negligence in treating the boy who had sustained a fracture on the left forearm while playing on the school ground on 09-03-1999. Immediately he was taken to the house of the opposite party who directed X-ray to be taken and after examining the X-ray POP cast was applied from the open veranda of his house in a haphazard manner with the aid of an errand boy. Medicines were also prescribed. On the next day the boy experienced severe pain on the left wrist portion and was rushed to the opposite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/ LIC of India in CC.114/06 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to pay of sum of Rs.15,554/- and Rs.28,126/- each with respect to the 2 policies. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had taken 3 LIC policies which had covered accident benefit in case of permanent disability caused in any accident. It is the case of the complainant that during the period of policy coverage he met with an accident on 13.10.2003 and sustained compound fracture to the right leg. He underwent treatment at Elite Mission hospital, Thrissur and subsequently that complainant was taken to Ganga hospital, Coimbatore and thereon his right leg was amputated below knee. Since he sustained permanent disability he applied for the benefits. It is submitted that since the date of the accident he was hospitalised and underwent inpatient treatment for various periods upto 29.1.2004. Thereafter also he continued treatme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER By the order dated 31.12.2002 in OP.74/95 the CDRF, Kottayam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A5 bill and to pay cost of Rs.750/- to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. 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 and that on 19.1.95 he was served with a bill dated 18.1.95 for a sum of Rs.45279/- by the 2nd opposite party. The reason stated was that he had not installed capacitor and it was found out during the inspection of the Electrical Inspector during last week of October and that one phase of the meter was not recording consumption. It is his case that on 2.1.95 the Sub Engineer of the opposite parties had taken reading and he did not say anythi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 30-07-2004 in OP No. 330/2002 of CDRF, Alappuzha is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.A1 and A2 bills. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum submitting that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite parties. It is his case that on 05-11-2001, the second opposite party sent a report stating that the complainant has damaged the electric meter and that there was unauthorized additional load and a bill for Rs. 20,187/- was served on him. On appeal the amount was reduced to Rs. 9,702/- and it is his grievance that he is not liable to pay even that amount. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the bills the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to quash the illegal additional bills. 3. Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties filed version ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER The order dated 31.12.2002 of CDRF, Kottayam in OP 75/95 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.A1 bill dated 18.1.95 for Rs.91368/- with cost of Rs.750/- 2. The brief facts leading to the complaint before the Forum are that complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties who was conducting a rubber mixing mill by using one 60 HP motor. It is his case that on 22.11.94 the petitioner applied for permission to use 117 HP motor also for installing one hydraulic press and that he had erected one hydraulic press on 2.1.95. The wiring was also completed and while he was waiting for sanction the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.91,368/- to be paid by the complainant. On enquiry it was made known to him that he had not installed capacitor. The petitioner submitted before the Forum that the capacitor was there ever since the unit started functioning and the issuance of the bill by the opposite parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.1065/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is the son of the aggrieved ie, mother aged 100 had five fixed deposits in the opposite party Bank and when the complainant went to the bank for renewal of the deposits it was told a sum of Rs.687/- has been already deducted towards TDS. It is submitted that the only income of the mother having is the interest from the deposits. In the amount of interest only below a taxable amount. The mother of the complainant was not liable to pay income tax. Hence the deduction of Rs.687/- towards income tax without intimating the mother of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. She has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that deducting TDS is statutory obligation and that there is direction that persons who are receiving Rs.50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The order dated 26.10.09 in CC.558/06 of CDRF; Thrissur is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 11% per annum from the date of fixed deposit till realization with cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that he had deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 12.6.2000 with the opposite party being the auctioned amount in the kuri subscribed by him and the rate of interest was 14% and as the rate was reduced to 12% an OP was filed before the Forum and the Forum below directed the opposite party to give 14% interest itself till the termination of the kuri. The complainant has alleged that from the date of termination, he was entitled to 11% per annum on the deposited amount and he had sent money orders also in connection with the balance installments of the kuri subscribed by him. The further case is that as the opposit...
Tag this Judgment!