Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants/opposite parties are the Financiers in OP.43/05 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.9000/- with interest at 10.5% per annum from 8.11.01 and also to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had deposited a sum of Rs.9000/- on 8.11.01 vide Shreyus Certificates with interest offered at 10.5% per annum. On getting information of unfair trade practices by the opposite parties, the complainant demanded refund of the amount deposited which was declined. 3. In the version filed, it is contended that the maturity date of the service are only on 8.11.06. Hence, the complaint filed is premature and liable to be dismissed. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5. 5. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 to A3 FD certificates and copy of the lawyer notice issued to the opposite parties. It is seen that no r...
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, Thrissur in OP.56/2004 dated:8-02-2006. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant respectively. The appellant under the order of the Forum below, directed the opposite parties to cancel the impugned disconnection notice dated:20/9/2003, the adjustment invoice No.59644 for Rs.9000/- dated:22/9/2003 and the revised adjustment invoice of Rs.13,500/- dated:8/12/2003 and to pay cost of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant. 2. As per the appellant the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the complainant alleged that the bill for Rs.9,000/- dated:22/9/2003, which was revised to Rs.13,500/- on 8/12/2003 as the electricity for the agricultural purpose was misused for domestic purpose was illegal and to be cancelled. 3. The opposite parties contended in their version that a surprise inspection was conducted at the premises getting an anonimous information on 20/9/2...
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 OP.186/04 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The opposite parties/Financiers are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.15,680/- collected as preclosure charges from the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a housing loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite parties in the month of August 2002 which is to be repaid in 144 instalments of Rs.4,036/- each with a floating rate of 12% interest. He was making payments. He was informed that as on 1.4.2004 the outstanding balance due is Rs.2,89,640/-. He repaid the entire loan amount on 29.7.04. A sum of Rs.3,01,437/- was collected by the opposite parties. It is his case that amounts collected are in excess and at any rate he is not bound to repay the pre-closure charges. 3. Only the first opposite party the Branch Manager entered appearance and filed version. It is contended that preclosure charges at the rate of 5% was collected as per the conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.232/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint stands dismissed. It is the case of the complainant that he has having a cash credit account with the opposite party bank. It is his case that a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is seen withdrawn from the account without his knowledge. The complainant came to know from the medias that the then Branch Manager, one Mr.Thomas committed forgery in the accounts of various persons. The bank has issued a lawyer notice alleging that a sum of Rs.4,59,575/- is due from him with 14% interest. He has sought for getting the accounts corrected accordingly and also permit him to operate the cash credit account which has been stopped by the opposite parties as well as compensation. The opposite parties have contended that a civil suit has been filed against the complainant in Sub Court, Kattappana as O.S.16/09 with regard to the amounts over drawn and due to be paid in the cash credit ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.217/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed. The complaint is filed for refund of an amount of Rs.31,397/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost. The opposite parties are builders who had constructed the residential house of the complainant. According to the complainant the opposite parties demanded additional amount of Rs.6,917/- which was disputed by the complainant. It is alleged that the opposite parties stopped the words abruptly. According to him in fact the amount of Rs.31,397/- is due to the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that only when the balance amount of Rs.6917/- was claimed the complainant has filed the complaint. According to the opposite parties they have completed the entire construction of the building. It is also pointed out that periodically the statement of accounts were given to the complainant and the same duly sign...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appeal-282/10 is filed over the order in CC.51/09 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellant is under orders to pay sum of Rs.90, 537/- with compensation of Rs.3000/-. 2. The Appeal-268/10 is over the order in the execution proceedings. The appellant was exparte before the Forum in CC.51/09. The counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the complainant has no objection in allowing the appeal. 3. In the circumstances both the appeals are allowed. The order of the Forum in EA.9/10 is set aside. The order of the Forum in CC.51/09 is also set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to permit the opposite parties to file version and contest the case. Both sides are allowed to adduce evidence. It is submitted that the complainant is an aged person. Hence the Forum is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest. The case stands posted before the Forum on 30/9/2010. The office w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioner is the complainant in OP.315/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The order sought to be revised is the observation of the Forum that the issue of maintainability will be considered along with final hearing after taking evidence of the opposite parties. The Forum has posted the matter for evidence of the opposite parties. 2. It is the contention of the Revision Petitioner/complainant that in fact the opposite parties had not filed version and that the opposite parties somehow managed to place the version in the case bundle surreptitiously. The Revision Petitioner has also produced copy of the proceedings paper. It is admitted by the Revision Petitioner that the complainant was cross-examined by the opposite parties. In the order sought to be revised the Forum has mentioned that version is seen in the case bundle. We find that the Revision Petitioner/complainant ought not to have permitted the opposite party to cros...
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.236/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The bill issued by the appellant/opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1800/- stands cancelled. 2. The petitioner has been issued the penal bill alleging that the out house of the complainant has been let on rent with effect from October 2008 and that the complainant had applied for separate electric connection only on 10.2.09. We find that at best the difference of duration of the period for which the out house was occupied by another family is less than 4 months. There can be no justification for issuing a bill amounting to Rs.1,08,000/-. We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. The office is directed to forward the copy of this judgment to the Forum urgently....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.23/2008 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The bills issued by the opposite parties stands cancelled. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties issued a bill dated 21.6.05 for Rs.47,841/- and another bill dated 9.8.05 for Rs.1,37,351/-. It is the contention that in the bill 9.8.05, it is stated that it is for the period from 1/03 to 11/03 and from 9/04 to 12/04, as per the audit report. It is the contention that the bills issued are illegal. 3. The opposite party/appellant had contended that on 14.11.03, the APTS found that the meter was faulty and the same was replaced. At the time no back assessment was issued. Subsequently, the bill was issued on 2.8.05 as per the audit inspection report. Meanwhile, on 17.6.05 another inspection was conducted by APTS and found that phase B of the meter was not working and hence the meter was not recording 1/3rd of the consumption. A site mahaz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC 213/08 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to pay the assured amount of Rs.29,060/- to the complainant with interest at 6% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The matter relates to theft of a motorcycle insured with the opposite party/appellant. The main contention is that there was a delay of one year in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the opposite parties. It is also contended that the complainant has not produced the relevant documents including the duplicate RC of the vehicle. It is also contended in the appeal memorandum that the complainant had obtained finance and it is possible that the vehicle might have been assessed by the financier. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective parties and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B3. 4. We find that the contention with respect to the possibility of the ...
Tag this Judgment!