Kerala Court August 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mrf Limited Vs. P.K. Vijayan and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC No. 33/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants/second opposite party manufacturer are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- towards costs. The respondent was present in person. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased two tyres for a sum of Rs. 3,300/- from the first opposite party dealer. One of the tyres cracked on sidewalls at three places. The tyre had run only 545 kms and the damage occurred within the warranty period. As the first opposite party informed that warranty will be honoured only by the manufacturer he sent the tyre to the second opposite party. The second opposite party issued a rejection advise stating that there was no manufacturing defect and denied the request for replacement. The first opposite party was absent in the proceedings before the Forum. The second opposite party contended that there was no manufacturing defect....
F.V. AlbIn and Another Vs. the Assistant General Manager and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal 115/10 is the complainant and the appellant in Appeal 389/10 is the opposite party in CC.294/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complainant has filed the appeal contending that the denial of interest applicable to FD deposits up to the period of releasing the amount of fixed deposit and restricting the same up to October 1999 is liable to be set aside. According to him he is entitled for interest applicable to Fixed Deposits up to the date of releasing of the amount by the opposite party. The opposite party has filed the appeal pointing out that the interest with respect to the fixed deposit was being credited in the SB account of the complainant and the same were being withdrawn by the complainant periodically. The above aspect was omitted to be pointed out before the Forum. It is contended that it would not be possible to pay further interest for the same period. 2. We find that the matter is with respe...
M/S Palghat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. L.R. Muraly, S/O L.Ramaiah and An ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT Delay condonation petition, I.A.702/2010 is dismissed Hence appeal is also dismissed....
The Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Section (Kseb), Kottayam and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the order dated:30-5-2009 in CC.145/08 of CDRF, Kottayam 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. By the impugned order the Forum below has cancelled the bill dated:28/5/2008 for Rs.4494/-. The complainant was ordered to apply for electric connection by complying of the legal formalities for getting the electric connection for the purpose of functioning offices they desire and the 1st opposite party is directed to fix the tariff of the petitioner as per the schedule of tariff and conditions of supply within one month from the receipt of the order. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was a consumer of the opposite parties and the connection was given in the year 2005 and that on 28/5/2008 the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.4494/- for the period from 6/06 to 5/08. According to the complainant...
Secretary, Kseb, Vydhuudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Anot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in CC.37/07 of CDRF, Idukki. By the impugned order dated:28/10/2008 they are under directions to cancel Ext.P3 bill and to pay Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which they were liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till payment. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had an electric connection to his residence where himself and his family were residing and on 5/2/2007, the 2nd opposite party issued a bill for Rs.5,103/- after changing the tariff to LT-VII-A. Though the complainant had approached the opposite party by a complaint on 17/2/2007, no reply was given to him and it is his further case that the KSEB Staff Association approached him to give an advertisement which he had refused. The complaint was filed praying for canceling the bill and for changing the tariff of the electric connect...
The Managing Director, the Pharmaceutical Corporation (im) Kerala Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-07-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Managing Director, Oushadhi in OP No. 71/2005 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The Forum has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,560/- with interest at 12% towards the amount of purchase of medicines and also a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation. 2.It is the case of the complainant who is a retired Headmistress that she had purchased medicines from the second opposite party, the retail outlet of the first opposite party as per bills dated 26-04-2003, 06-05-2003, 16-05-2003 and 26-05-2003 for a total sum of Rs. 3,560/-. In the above bills, the name of the complainant was written as Kanakamma instead of Kamalamma, the name of the complainant. When the mistake was brought to the notice of the second opposite party, he corrected the same. When the bills were submitted for medical reimbursement, the same were rejected, as there were corrections in the names. The complainant requested the second opposit...
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kottayam Vs. K.K. Araham an ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-07-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Review petitioners are the opposite parties in OP.383/03 and appellants in Appeal-608/05 of this Commission. The contention of the Review Petitioner is that the order of this Commission is defective as the contention of the appellants that the deposits are not individual deposits have not been considered. We find that this commission is not having the power to review as no such power has been conferred under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence this Review Petition is dismissed....
Dr. M.K. Deepak and Others Vs. Chittappankandi Mohanan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-07-2010
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 02-08-2004 in OP No. 523/1999 of CDRF, Kannur is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation together with litigation expense of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The complainant, who is the father of the deceased child having 4 years of age, has approached the Forum submitting that he had taken his daughter to the 4th opposite party/hospital in January 1998 as the child was having infection in the throat. The second opposite party examined the child and was referred to the first opposite party and after examining the child, the complainant was asked to bring the child for further treatment after sometime and after two weeks the child was again brought to the first opposite party and on examination the complainant was told that a minor operation was required for the child. The complainant was assure...
The Secretary, Kollam Development Authority and Another Vs. K. Sugatha ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC181/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 35,471/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% and also a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation and costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a housing loan from the first opposite party under MIG scheme. The total amount of loan of Rs.60,000/- only a sum of Rs.29,889/- was provided in 2 installments. The third installment was delayed and hence he could not receive the same. Subsequently, in the RR proceedings initiated by the opposite parties a sum of Rs.80,661/- was paid in complete on 11.12.03 and he applied for the return of the title deeds deposited as security. At the time he was also made to pay another sum of Rs.31,475/-. It is the contention that the above amount is the excess amount collected. It is also contended that the opposite party collected an excess amount ...
The District Officer, Ground Water Department Vs. N.C. Mathew, Naduvil ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC No. 25/2006 in the file of CDRF. Kazaragod. The opposite parties/District Officer, Ground Water Department is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 17,712/- to the complainant for the expenses that he incurred for digging a bore well and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs. 2.The case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite party for getting his property surveyed for ascertaining the place where water could be available as there was shortage of drinking water in the area. The officials of the opposite parties inspected the site and marked the place where bore well is to be dug. It was also assured that at a depth of 90 meters, water will be available. Hence he entrusted Malabar Bore Well and Geological Surveyors, a private group to dig the bore well at the place where the opposite parties marked. He paid at the rate of Rs. 60/- per feet. They dug the bore well up to a depth of 115 meters, as wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »