Kerala Court May 2011 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.
Shriram City Union Finance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Shiju James an ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-12-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR - MEMBER The above appeal is filed by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties in CC.No.05/2010 before the CDRF, Waynad who have assailed the directions of the forum to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order failing which they are also under directions to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till payment. 2. The complainants case bereft of unnecessary details is that he had purchased a Hero Honda Bike from the 1st Opposite party by availing a loan from the 3rd and 4th Opposite parties through the 1st opposite party and that though he had cleared the loan liability on 09.12.2008, the 3rd and 4th Opposite parties failed to return the original R C and that the refusal amounts to deficiency in service. Claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-, the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite parties to pay the amount with cost. 3. The 1st Opposite party file version sta...
Zenon C.Thomas Vs. Sijo Thomas
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-12-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.165/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that on 2/5/2007 he had entrusted the Tata Indigo car owned by him with the opposite party, workshop owner for changing the oil. When he returned for taking the vehicle at about 1.pm on the same day the opposite party told him that the timing belt to be immediately changed failing which the vehicle will develop serious complications and that a sum around Rs.30,000/- would have to be spent for repairs in the above eventuality. He agreed to replace the timing belt and return the vehicle by about 5 pm on the same day. When he returned at 5 pm he was told that the head gasket, water pump and connecting rod also should be replaced. As he had to go to Paravur he availed a taxi for the same. On 8/5/2007 he purchased the materials as directed by the opposite party. On 11/5/2007 the vehicle was returned to him. H...
C.Jayachandran Vs. M/S Sbi Cards and Payments Services Pvt.Ltd. and An ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-11-2011
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT Revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.242/07 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents are ex-parte before this Commission. 2. The matter is with respect to the payment due as per the credit card facility provided by the respondent. The Forum has directed the complainant to pay Rs.40250/- to the opposite parties and the opposite parties are under direction to close entire transaction on receipt of the above payment and the time limit prescribed is one month failing which opposite parties would be entitled to collect the agreed rate interest from the complainant. The Forum has also ordered the opposite parties to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant. 3. Revision petitioner has sought for adjusting the amount of compensation and cost towards the amount due to the opposite parties. It is submitted that it would be difficult for the complainant to raise that much of amount to pay to the opposite...
Thankamma Vs. the Manager, Sml Finance Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-10-2011
SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Revision Petitioner is the complainant in CC.18/2010 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The Revision petition is filed over the order in I.A.99/2010 filed to restore the complaint which was dismissed as the delay of 4 months and 14 days stands not properly explained. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner/complainant was not aware of the fact of dismissal of the complaint which was posted for settlement. The complaint happened to be dismissed for non appearance on the date posted for settlement. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the delay is not inordinate and the dispute has not been adjudicated the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to treat the delay as condoned and restore the original petition and dispose of the same on merits. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 25/6/2011. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
Saji Vs. the Manager, Sml Finance Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-10-2011
SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Revision Petitioner is the complainant in CC.17/2010 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The Revision petition is filed over the order in I.A.98/2010 filed to restore the complaint which was dismissed as the delay of 5 months and 4 days stands not properly explained. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner/complainant was not aware of the fact of dismissal of the complaint which was posted for settlement. The complaint happened to be dismissed for non appearance on the date posted for settlement. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the delay is not inordinate and the dispute has not been adjudicated the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to treat the delay as condoned and restore the original petition and dispose of the same on merits. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 25/6/2011. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
The Manager, Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Livingston and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-10-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the 2nd opposite party bank in OP.75/2010 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to return the original RC of the vehicle to the complainant or to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- and also to pay cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that after remitting the entire loan amount, the opposite party/appellant failed to return the RC which was handed over as security. A lawyer notice was sent and there was no reply. Hence the complaint for direction to return the RC or to pay Rs.4000/- for getting a duplicate to the RC and also to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 3. It is the case of the opposite party/appellants that they had not retained the RC. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, OPW1, OPW2, Exts.A1 to A8 and B1. 4. The Forum on appreciation of the evidence adduced has particularly noted that the opposite parties did not reply to the lawyer notice. Nor have they produced any do...
Ramachandran, Deputy Manager (Lpg-sales) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2011
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN - MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.5.2010 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No. 203/09. The appellant is the 1st opposite party who is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.950 along with Rs. 2000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 05.02.2009 the Gas Cylinder owned by him was stolen and he filed a complaint before the police and informed the matter to the opposite party along with an application for another cylinder with all the documents demanded by the opposite parties. The opposite parties charged Rs.2000/- from the complainant for allowing another cylinder. At the time of receiving the amount of Rs.2000/- the opposite party assured that on production of the U N report they will refund the excess amount charged from the complainant. The opposite parties charged only Rs.1250/-, when he purchased another additional cylinder on 07.09.2009. Though the complainant produced U N...
integrated Finance Co.Ltd., and Others Vs. T.L. Jose
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2011
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.69/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to refund amounts depositedo in FD ie Rs.48000/- with interest at 14% from the date of deposit and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged lapse in refunding the FD amounts. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 and P2. 4. It is the case of the appellants that the SLP filed before the Supreme Court over the order of the Division Bench of Madras High Court with respect to the Company petition is pending. It is seen from the pleadings that the High Court of Madras has disallowed the prayer of the appellants vide order dated 19.8.06. Hence in the absence of any existing order from the apex court we find that the complainants cannot be expected to wait indefinitely. We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. The deposit and non refund of amounts deposited with interest is not disput...
M/S Premier Automobiles Ltd., Repd. by Its Manager Vs. Nissar V.K. and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-06-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioners are the 2nd opposite party/manufacturers in CC.169/08 to 172/08 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The revision petitions are filed over the orders in the interim applications filed. The Forum has ordered the revision petitioner/manufacturer to take the vehicles/pick up autorikshaws to their factory at Pune at their expense and rectify the complaints and remodel the same and deliver the vehicles to the complainants at Calicut in good and roadworthy condition with a fresh one year warranty. 2. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the vehicles were purchased in the year 2005/2006 and that the complaints have been filed only in 2008. It is submitted that the revision petitioners have not agreed before the Forum to rectify the defects of the vehicles. It is their contention that there was no manufacturing defects and that the defects if any are on account of the nature of the user of the vehicle for a long tim...
The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pra ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-06-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSRTC authorities in CC.205/10 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. 2. The appellants are under orders to provide concession to the complainant and also to pay cost of Rs.2000/- with interest at 12%. 3. The matter is with respect to the alleged deficiency in not providing concession to the complainant in the carriages plied by the opposite parties/appellants. 4. It is the case of the opposite parties/appellants that the complainant is not a consumer and that it is not practical to issue concession tickets as there are only few services in the particular rout. 5. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P3. 6. The respondent/complainant was called absent. 7. Counsel for the appellant has produced the notification of the Government dated:6/3/2010 which was not produced before the Forum. According to the appellant as per the above notification, the complainant is not entitled to get concession. The opposite parties/...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »