Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.393/2011 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party Federal Bank, Kallikkad Branch for plying a tourist taxi which was hypothecated to the bank. It is alleged that the complainant repaid an amount of Rs.1, 73,000/- during the period from 1997 to 2011. But CF test was essential for continuing taxi service. Hence the complainant approached the bank to return the registration certificate, insurance etc relating to the vehicle to enable him to appear for CF test but there was no response from the side of the opposite party. Hence the complainant could not take his vehicle for CF test on 07.12.2002. The original documents relating to the vehicle such as RC book certificate of insurance etc were under the custody of the bank. Complainant suffered heavy loss and injury as the bank failed to return the original documents relating to the vehicle. The complainant coul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Smt. A. Radha : Member On dismissal of complaint by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.306/10 the complainant preferred this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant purchased œBackhoe arm? loader from 2nd opposite party on 13/06/2008 for Rs.21,97,000/- for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The warranty was provided to the machine for one year or 2000 operating hours. The complainant availed a loan and he had to remit @ Rs.53,500/- each towards monthly instalments. The machine had to be taken to the workshop for repairs on 30 occasions within the warranty period. Due to recurring complaints the complainant could not generate any income by working machine and hence defaulted the repayment of the loan amount. It is stated in the complaint that the machine was repossessed by the financiers on account of non payment of loan amount and at the time of repossession the amount due to the financiers was Rs.27,15,932/-. The 2nd opposite party had collected...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is a Revision Petition filed by the complainant in CC.109/13 of CDRF, Kottayam challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 26, 2013 in I.A.70/13 dismissing the petition. 2. Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum against the Electricity Board cancelling the penal bill for Rs.6,30,323/- issued to the petitioner. The said bill was issued by the Board on the allegation that Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB detected theft in the electrical connection on inspection. I.A.70/13 was filed by the complainant for reconnection of the electric connection. 3. As the Forum found that complainant has approached the Honble High Court challenging the said bill where the High Court has directed the respondents for fresh inspection, the petition is not maintainable. Complainant has challenged the said order in this revision. 4. Admittedly complainant has filed Writ Petition No.1690/13 before the Honble High Court and by its order dated:17.01.2013 it was found thu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.157/2009 in the CDRF, Alappuzha. The respondent / complainant is the widow of Sri.C.P.Job, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 15.12.2007. It is alleged in the complaint that deceased Job was holding Janatha Personal Accident Policy from the opposite party by purchasing Dollars India Card No.190265. The sum assured in the policy is Rs.2 lakhs. The complainant is the nominee of this policy. The master policy agreement between the parties is valid for 10 years from 10.05.99 to 09.05.2009. Since the policy covers death due to accident only, the complainant is entitled to recover the insured amount. After the death of Mr.Job, the complainant approached the opposite party. But her claim was repudiated. The complainant asserted that deceased Job became the card holder of Dollars India Ltd only on the attraction of the insurance policy. The opposite party failed to pay the sum assured without any valid reason....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.307/2011 in the CFRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant / respondent in this appeal was a member of Unihealth Insurance Scheme of the United India Insurance Company (opposite party) from March 2000. He joined the scheme through the SBT Engineering College Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. The insured amount was Rs.1 lakh. The complainant alleged that he was admitted at the Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 12.07.2013 for surgery and was discharged from the hospital on 15.07.2013. Ananthapuri Hospital is a hospital approved under the scheme. The opposite party at the time of discharge of the complainant from the hospital had denied his claim and he was forced to remit the bill amount of Rs.32,780/-. The complainant took up the matter with the insurance company. He was told to submit fresh claim and accordingly he submitted a revised claim on 20.07.2011. On 20.08.2011 he received cheque for Rs.15,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Mrs. A. Radha : Member Appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.166/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, who preferred this appeal. The Forum Below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not taken steps for adducing any evidence and had not accepted the receipts as the authenticity for allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was a chittal in a 10 month chitty having Sala of Rs.50,000/- conducted by the opposite party. The 1st instalment of Rs.5,000/- was paid on 14/09/2011. The entire 10 instalments were paid and the last payment was on 10/07/2012. It is stated in the complaint that the pass book of the chitty was handed over to the opposite party for verification of the account and the complainant was advised to come on the very next day to collect the amount. When the complainant approached the opposite party the next day itself to collect the chitty amount, the opposite party was not ready to disburse the chitty amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
V.V. Jose : Member This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in CC.No.171/2012 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. 2. The case of the complainant in the above CC in brief is as follows. 3. The complaint was filed by Sri.Thomas Mathew as the power of attorney holder of Sri.Philip Mathew. On May 2011 complainant entrusted the interior work of his new building to the opposite parties, who carrying on business of interior decoration under the name and style œ Civic Interiors . In pursuance of the mutual agreement complainant paid an amount of Rs.25000/- to the opposite parties, on a promise to start the carpentry work by early November. They started the work on 27.11.2011. The workers were North Indians, who are not capable of doing carpentry work. Complainant provided free accommodation to the workers on the request of opposite parties. Complainant paid Rs.25000/- again on request of the opposite party. The work done was defective and negligent, as no supervision, resulted in wastage of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 in CC.75/10 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 30, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,29,000/- with interest and cost of Rs.7000/- being the chitty amount paid by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant joined 2 chitties conducted by the opposite parties 1 to 13. In one chitty he paid Rs.2,59,000/- and in another chitty he paid Rs.70,000/-. The opposite parties did not repay that amount. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint claiming that amount. 3. The first opposite party is Puthukkal Sree Vainingat Inswarante Kshethra Committee represented by its President. The second opposite party is Mr.C.V.Krishnan the treasurer of the Committee and third opposite party is Sri.Balachandran, the Secretary of the Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
V.V. Jose :Member This appeal is filed against the order in O.P. No.205/2004 dated 21.03.2005 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complainant in the above OP is the appellant here. The facts of the OP is brief in as follows. 2. The complainant had obtained a medi claim policy from the opposite parties for Rs.2,00,000/- from 09.07.02 to 08.07.03 and the policy was renewed from 09.07.03 to 08.07.04. On 19.06.03 the complainant availed treatment from Lakeshore hospital. That was for symptoms of renal decease and was discharged on 15.07.2003. The opposite party repudiated the claim submitted by the complainant for Rs.87348.25/- . According to the complainant, it is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint for directing the opposite party to reimburse the medical expenses and pay costs. 3. The opposite party filed its version contending that the said policy was taken for the complainant by his brother by fraud and suppression of material facts for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party, LIC of India, Thrissur Branch in OP.127/05 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, June 15, 2012 directing the appellant to pay the disability benefit under Ext.R3 policy with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is a holder of two policies having Nos.772907395 and 772907378. In one policy the sum assured is Rs.40,000/- and in another policy the benefit is Rs.50,000/-. In an accident that happened on September 22, 2001 the left hand of the complainant was amputated. The complainant claimed the disability benefit under the policy. But the opposite party repudiated the claim. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint claiming that amount. 3. The opposite party is LIC of India represented by its Manager, Thrissur branch. He in his version contended thus before...
Tag this Judgment!