Kerala Court October 2010 Judgments

Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. Rep by Authorized Signatory Marikar Engineer ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.178/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund the repair charges amounting to Rs.21,202/- and pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Skoda Car purchased by him on 12.11.09 had to be repaired for defect in clutch with fly wheel assembly on 26. 26.5.10 ie; within the warranty period. After repairs the car was returned only on 26.6.10. Further a sum of Rs.21,201/- was charged for repairs although, the repairs were effected with the warranty period. He had to engage a private vehicle as the car was returned after a long time. 3. The appellants were ex-parte before the Forum. 4. We find that the Forum has passed a considered order and has found that within a short period of purchase, the mechanism became defective and further it is after about one month that the vehicle was returned after repairs. It is further stat...

P.K. Baby, S/O Kuriakose Vs. Prince

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP No. 222/2003 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant is that he purchased a pregnant cow for a sum of Rs. 29,000/- on 30-07-2003 from the opposite party who represented that the cow is in the advanced stage of pregnancy and would deliver within 15 days and that it would yield 25 liters of milk everyday. It is his case that the cow did now deliver and that the same was not pregnant. So he got the cow examined by a Veterinary Surgeon on 30-08-2003 it was found that it was not conceiving at all. It is alleged that he has incurred an expense of Rs. 17,500/- for maintaining the cow till the date of complaint. Although a lawyer notice was sent on 06-09-2003 no reply was received. The complainant has sought for refund of Rs. 29,000/- with interest at 18% and also for a sum of Rs. 17,500/-, the amount spent for maintaining the cow. 3. The opposite party has...

The Branch Manager, M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ranny. Reptd. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.136/06 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to pay sum of Rs.2,78,975/- with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint and also to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant/Perinadu Grama Panchayat that the vehicle under Insurance Coverage with the opposite party met with an accident and that the vehicle/Jeep sustained heavy damages on 6.10.05. The vehicle was examined by the surveyor and thereafter the vehicle was taken to the workshop of TVS and Sons Ltd; Kottayam and that they prepared an estimate for Rs.1,93,975/- for replacing spare parts and Rs.85,000/- towards labour charges. It is alleged that the opposite parties have not paid the above amount, or given direction to the TVS and Company for repairing the vehicle. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that there was no defic...

Unnikrishnan Vs. M.O. Shabu and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP No. 68/2002 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands dismissed with the cost of Rs. 1,500/- to the opposite party. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted with the opposite party the laying of marbles and polishing of the same in his newly constructed house. The agreement was also executed on 29-04-2000. It was agreed that the opposite party would supply marble slabs and that at the time of unloading he shall pay the cost of marbles at the rate of Rs. 44/- per sq.ft. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 57,200/- was paid for laying and polishing. It was agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 22/- per sq.ft/. It was also agreed that the labourers will be paid daily at the rate of Rs. 150/- out of the agreed amount. It was also agreed that within 30-10-2000 the work will be over. The complainant as per the agreement provided the necessary materials and facilities. But, the opposite parties failed to ...

Secretary, Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur-1 Vs. Prof.Santha Gopinath, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/Thrissur Corporation. The order appealed against is the one issued in IA.790/06 in CC.702/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. 2. The order is with respect to the maintainability of the complainant. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service as the portions of the road in front of the house of the complainant has been left untarred by the 2nd respondent/contractor allegedly at the direction of the 1st respondent/appellant. 3. On the other hand the 1st respondent/appellant had contended that the complaint is not maintainable. It is also contended that the matter is pending before the Corporation Council. It is pointed out that the width of the road in front of the house of the complainant is only 3 meters whereas the width of the rest of the road is 5 meters. It is also pointed out that the people of the locality has formed an Action Council and resisted the tarring of the disputed portion of the road as i...

K.M. Ismail Vs. T.H. Associates, Kovilavattom Road and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP No. 355/2003 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. Although the complaint was allowed, the complainant is not satisfied with the reliefs provided. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased 705 numbers of wall tiles on 01-03-2003 from the first opposite party. The tiles were supplied in sealed packets. On opening the cartoons it was found that majority of the tiles had manufacturing defects. Most of the tiles were found broken and had cracks. Although the matter was intimated and a physical examination was carried out by the agent of the first opposite party, no replacements were provided. He could not complete the construction of the house so far. He has sought for a direction to replace the defective tiles and pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties had contended that the complainant opted for low cost tiles of Rs. 5.60 per tile. The tiles were taken by the opposite party in an...

K.Sudhakaran Keerthanam, Swamy Oil Mill Road Vs. Gnana Sekhar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant and respondent was the opposite party in CC.44/09 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as an auditor of the partnership firm where the complainant is also a partner. It is also alleged that the audit report for the year 2004-2005 was filed by stating and furnishing false information and that the said audit report was a false report and thereby the complainant being the partner of the firm, M/s Sankar and Moorthy Chartered Accountants suffered loss and inconvenience. The opposite party entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the very status of the complainant as partner of the firm M/s Sankar and Moorthy. It was also contended that the CDRF, Kollam is not having any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC.44/09 as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdi...

William David @ Bijo Vs. Linu Mary George

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker737

1. Was the Family Court correct in accepting the evidence of the claimant/wife ignoring Ext.B1? This is the specific question that arises for consideration.          A larger question arises as to whether the Courts would be justified in issuing directions, which will effectively do justice to the parties when it comes to a claim for return of movable articles. 2. The appellants in this appeal assail the impugned direction to them to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments (or its monetary value of Rs.3,60,000/-), an amount of Rs.3 lakhs  and a washing machine to the respondent herein. 3. To the crucial and vital facts first. Marriage between the first appellant/husband and the respondent took place on 14.5.2001. No issues were born in the wedlock. Subsequently the marriage has been dissolved. The wife claimed return of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments, an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and a washing machine which was left in the possession of the...

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd., Appolo Baundar, Mumb ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC 51/2010 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants/opposite parties are under orders not collect any further amounts towards liability of the vehicle loan agreement and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs.2.7 lakhs on the security of his vehicle in July 2004, from the opposite parties. The loan was to be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs.6230/- within a period of five years. The complainant paid the loan instalments regularly for 1 years. As his business collapsed he surrendered his vehicle on 30.9.06 and the opposite party had fixed the market value of the vehicle at Rs.2,69,000/- although the vehicle had a market value of Rs.2,75,000/-. It was assured that the balance amount would be refunded. Subsequently complainant received the notice intimating that the vehicle was sold for Rs.1,25,000/- and sum of Rs.91,262...

The Secretary, K.S.E. Board, Vydyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapur ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 07-08-2009 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC No. 11/2008 is assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext. A1 and A2 bills and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay interest also at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the order till payment. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was served with a bill for Rs. 10,914/- alleged to be the excess consumption from 02/99 to 09/00. On a complaint made by the complainant before the Forum the said bill was set aside and on appeal also the same order was confirmed, though the payment of compensation and costs were set aside. The complainant alleges that after the disposal of the appeal, the opposite parties issued a new bill for Rs. 10,914/- itself on 17-01-2008 in the place o...