Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The revision petitioners are the opposite parties/KSEB in IA.189/09 in CC 94/09 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Forum as per the impugned order has directed the opposite parties to reconnect supply to the complainant within 5 days. The dispute in the complaint filed was with respect to the additional bill issued for Rs. 14,256/-. As per the order of Forum the complainant has remitted the above amount. 3. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that on 16.5.09 theft of electricity was detected in the premises of the complainant and the criminal case has also been filed and an additional bill for Rs.44000/- has been issued. According to the revision petitioner the above fact was suppressed in the complaint filed. 4. The counsel for the respondent/complainant has suggested that he shall remit the above amount of Rs.44000/- also and that the revision petitioner may be directed to reconnect the supply immediately. It is submit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The above 4 appeals are preferred from the common order dated 19th May 2003 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.Nos 758/98 and 899/99. The appellants in appeal 649/03 were opposite parties 1 and 2 and respondents 1 and 2 were the complainants 1 and 2 in OP No.758/98. The appellant in appeal 650/03 was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in OP 899/99. The appellants in appeal 656/03 were the complainants 1 and 2 and the respondents 1 and 2 were the opposite parties 1 and 2 in OP 758/98. The appellant in appeal 657/03 was the complainant and the respondent was the opposite party in OP No.899/99. The aforesaid consumer complaints in OP Nos.758/98 and 899/99 were filed before the CDRF, Ernakulam alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party M/s Skyline Builders in providing amenities and common facilities to the plots and the villas thereon constructed by the opposite party M/s Skyline Builders. The main grievance of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC:37/2008 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The Forum has directed to reduce the re- assessment period to 6 months and the provisional invoice was reduced to half and directed the rest of the amount remitted to be adjusted in future bills. The complaint was partly allowed. 2. The matter relates to the alleged misuse of electricity in the premises of the complainant. It is the case that the complainant engaged in Textile business is dumping goods in the car porch of his house. Hence he has been assessed for commercial tariff and back assessed for one year. The Forum has noted that there is nothing to show that he was conducting business in the car porch for whole for the period of one year and has reduced the quantum of the bill to half. We find that there is no proper evidence as to the consumption of electricity in the car porch. 3. In the circumstances we find that there is no patent illegality in the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party in OP:326/08 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant has been set exparte before the Forum. 2. It is the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that they were not served with notice and that they did not receive the claim form. Hence it is prayed that an opportunity may be given for contesting the matter. 3. It is seen that the Forum has noted that the opposite parties have entered appearance and that even though sufficient opportunities were given, they failed to file version and adduce evidence. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not receive notice and the appellant did not appear also and that it might be the 1st opposite party that has entered appearance. From the order it is not possible to ascertain as to what was the type of policy and how the complainant is entitled for the amount etc. 4. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside, the matter i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Federal Bank in CC No.47/07 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards expenses for taking a duplicate copy and Rs.2,000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the title deed of his property submitted by him towards security for the loan availed was not returned by the opposite parties, even after the loan amount was realized. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that the loan was disbursed in the year 1990, and that the matter was settled only in the year 2005. The opposite party had filed a suit before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha for realizing the loan amount. Even after the suit was decreed the amount was not paid and hence EP was filed. During the pendency of the E.P the counsel who was appearing ie; Mr. Jacob Philip died. Thereafter the opposite parties could not trace out the title deed. Complainant had...
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, Ernakulam in the file of CC:63/2007 dated:17/4/2007. The appellant is the opposite party under the orders to direct the opposite party to repay to the complainant Rs.745/- and pay her Rs.500/- towards cost within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In short the complaint is unconcerned with the dispute regarding the purchase of two sets of salvar materials, one at a cost of Rs.715/- and the other at a cost of Rs.1490/- from the opposite party. As regards the materials worth Rs.750/- there is no complaint. The complainant got the salvar materials of Rs.1490/- stitched for a ceremony on 21/2/2007. She wore the salvar and while traveling it found that the multi colours on the top started spreading wherever she seated. The salvar was taken to the opposite party and even though they promised to exchange the same, nothing has been done so far. Alleging deficiency of service the cos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.210/08 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1750/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The matter relates to the damage sustained to the Saree entrusted with opposite parties Drycleaners. The Forum has noted that the Saree in question was produced before the Forum. It is noted that it is seen a small portion of 50 cm. was found darned using a piece of cloth from the same saree cut from its bottom side and the place from where this piece was cut was seen hastily patch worked using some ordinary cloth. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1 and Exts.A1 to A4. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that as per Ext.A1 photocopy of bill issued by appellant the declared value of the saree is only Rs.1750/- and as per the terms printed in the bill it is mentioned that for tear etc. of the dress the only liability is to get it rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA, MEMBER This appeal preferred from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP:418/02 dated:5/12/2003. The appellant is the complainant who under the orders of the dismissal of the complaint filed before the CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. According to the complainant he filed a complaint within allegation that opposite parties received Rs.15,590/- on 4/11/2001 from him, offering to make deliver a chain weighing 36 gms of 22 karat gold to the complainant by 4/1/2002. On the other hand he will return the amount by the date. Since the opposite party failed to render the service offered by him. The complainant was filed return of the money with 12% interest and compensation for mental agony caused due to the failure of the opposite party to render the service offered by him. But in the version the opposite party contended that the claim in the complaint is nothing but a civil nature by the CDRF has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He admitted that he has any servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant herein was the 1st opposite party and the respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and 2nd opposite party in OP.157/01 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint in OP.157/01 was filed by the complainant therein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in giving the BPL mobile connection to the complainant for running a public call office at Kolakuth. The complainant alleged that the 1st opposite party received a total of Rs.38,320 from the complainant with the assurance that the complainants place is feasible for running a public booth with BPL mobile connection and that 1st opposite party assured feasibility of getting signal for BPL mobile connection at the complainants premises at Kolakuth. But the complainant found it difficult to run a public call office with BPL mobile connection because the said connection was not getting the signals for running the public call office. The complainant also request...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(2)KLJ668
ORDERK. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The common question that arises for consideration in these revisions is:Whether the availability of another vacant plot of land in the ownership and possession of the landlord would attract the prohibition or the bar contained in the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 19652. R.C.R. Nos. 439/05, 440/05 & 441/2005 arises from a common order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery while R.C.R. No. 206/2009 is filed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery in rent control proceedings that relate to a totally different premises where the parties are also different. However, all the revisions are considered together for the reason that, the question of law that has been raised for consideration is common to all the revisions. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the landlord and tenant.3. R.C.R. No. 439/2005, 440/2005 & 441/2005 are three revisions...
Tag this Judgment!