Kerala Court October 2012 Judgments
Asst.Executive Engineer Electrical Section, Kseb Kottackal, Malappuram ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite parties in CC.114/07 in the CDRF, Malappuram are the appellants in FA.100/10. The complainant is the appellant in FA.145/11. The complainant is running an ice-plant and he is a consumer of the electricity supplied by the opposite parties. It is alleged that the opposite parties served a short assessment bill for Rs.70,289/- on the complainant on 13.9.06. On 1.9.06, two officials of the opposite party conducted a surprise inspection at the ice-plant. The complainant was directed to contact the office of the opposite parties later. On 13.9.06, short assessment bills referred to was served with the copy of site mahazer prepared by the officials. According to the complainant, the amount demanded has no nexus with the energy consumed by the complainant. On an earlier occasion, the opposite parties had issued penal bill alleging theft of electricity. The complainant approached the forum and the forum cancelled the penal...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. E.A. Rahim ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, PRESIDENT This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in CC No.21/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated: 29th August 2011. 2. The appellant/2nd opposite party is the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager Kothamangalam. The second respondent/1st opposite party is Medi Assist TPA Rt Limited, Kochi. 3. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief of this: The complainant-PW1 availed a medi-claim policy from the 2nd opposite party through the appellant in 2010. The coverage was for Rs.50,000/-. It was enhanced Rs. 2,00,000/- on 10th July 2009. On 18th May 2010, the PW1 suffered a severe heart attack and under went treatment at Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam were he had undergone angioplasty for which had to spent Rs.1,75,709/-. When he claimed the amount the appellant/insurance comp...
Tag this Judgment!Benny George, Proprietor Vs. Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Patt ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
SMT. A. RADHA, MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the complainant on dismissal of the complaint by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 263/2011. 2. The complainant was issued with a penal bill dated 9.05.2011 for an amount of Rs.15,688/- alleging unauthorized connected load to the tune of 2Kw. The penal bill was inclusive of Rs. 2,400/- towards penal fixed charge and Rs.13,288/- towards penal current charges. The complainant was conducting a cold storage for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The electricity connection was under LT VII A tariff with the consumer No.18053. The demand for Rs.13,288/- is illegal and without any basis. The complainant is liable to pay only penal fixed charge of Rs. 2,400/- since the entire energy consumed in the consumer number recorded by energy meter was paid by him promptly. The complainant prayed for cancellation of the bill for Rs. 13,288/- towards penal current charges. 3. The opposite parties in their version contended that the audit wi...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Mathai @ Sunny and Another Vs. M.T. John
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA, MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP No. 37/97 dated : 06.06.2001. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant. The appeal appellants prefers this appeal under the direction that; the Forum below directed to the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the financial loss caused to the petitioner and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 3 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 2. This dispute raised from the construction of a residential building belongs to the complainant and which constructed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are the proprietary concern and proprietor of M/s Vathusilpa Consultants and Contractor. The appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement for construction of a building in the respondents pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Vs. the Branch Manager, Canara Bank Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA, MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in CC No.90/2011 dated: 31.10.2011. The complainant is the appellant and the opposite parties are the respondents. This appeal preferred by the appellant that the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.11,280/- as the insured amount to the complainant both opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation or mental agony and ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost. But in appeal 67/12 the appellant is the 1st opposite party and the respondents are the complainant and the 2nd opposite party respectively. This appellant also prefers this appeal from the very same order. The 1st appeal preferred by the appellant for the enhancement of the amount ordered by the Forum below and other appellant in appeal 67/12. The appellant prefers this appeal from the very same order for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Force Motors Ltd. Vs. K.R. Divine and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
SHRI. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the 1st opposite party in CC.13/09 in the CDRF, Palakkad. Respondents 1 to 5 were the complainants. They were RC owners of one Minidor autorickshaw each manufactured by the 1st opposite party and distributed by the 2nd opposite party valued at Rs.1,68,000/-. These autorikshaws were purchased during July to October 2007. It is alleged by the complainants that they approached the 2nd opposite party after the purchase of the vehicle when various defects in engine developed which could not be rectified despite repeated overhaul of the engine and replacement of accessories. Even during the warranty period vehicles became constantly unserviceable resulting in huge loss to the complainants. The 2nd opposite party had promised a mileage of 35 Kms per litre of diesel for the vehicles. But the vehicles never gave the mileage of even 18 Kms per litre. The major defects noticed in the engines are heavy oil consumption and leakage. The 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!Sheela Philip Vs. V.G. Ashokan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC No.231/2011 in the CDRF, Idukki. The respondent was the sole complainant. He alleged that he obtained on lease the building of the appellant for a period of one year. At the time of executing the lease agreement he paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as security. The monthly rent fixed was Rs.3,000/-. In addition the complainant had to pay electricity and water charges. It is alleged that without showing the electricity bill the appellant was receiving Rs.300/- towards electricity charges as against the agreed Rs.200/-. Subsequently the amount was reduced to Rs.80/-. On 1.8.2011, the complainant vacated the premises and the matter was informed to the appellant. He requested refund of the security deposit. But the appellant failed to refund the security deposit. Hence the complaint seeking refund of the security deposit of Rs.10,000/- and compensation alleging deficiency in service. 2. The appellant filed v...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Prakash Nayar, Orthopaedic Surgeon and Others Vs. Arathi and Ot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-20-2012
SHRI. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER These appeals are directed against the order of the CDRF, Palakkad in CC.128/05 dated 22.10.2010. Appeal 686/10 is filed by the 1st opposite party, Appeal 76/11 is filed by the 2nd opposite party and appeal 515/11 is filed by the complainant. The complainant was a minor girl aged 7 years represented by her father as the guardian. She approached the Forum alleging medical negligence against the opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant suffered a fall from the wardrobe step having a height of about 3 feet, on 16.4.2005 and sustained fracture of the left fore arm. She was immediately brought to the 2nd opposite party hospital represented by the Managing director and was admitted there. She was attended by the 1st opposite party, the doctor attached to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was taken to the operation theatre and plaster cast was applied for the reason that she had sustained fracture shaft of ulna. By night complainant...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Sasi Vs. the Director, Handj Infomark, Industrial Estate and Othe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the dismissal order of the CDRF, Kannur in CC No.39/2008. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant who planted 227 rubber plants in 1 acre of land were dried and perished on application of Well Coat. The rubber plants were about to reach for tapping and to give yield within 2 or 3 years. The definite case of the complainant is that he purchased from the 3rd opposite party 8 kg Well Coat bottles of 1 kg each @ Rs.55/- per kg. Well coat is manufactured by the 1st opposite party, marketed by 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party is the distributor. The complainant was made to believe that Well Coat is one of the best pesticides of rubber plant as per the instructions of opposite parties. The complainant applied Well Coat to the entire plants in his plantation, after a week the entire trees were dried up and perished. The matter was reported to the opposite parties and to the Rubber Board. The authorit...
Tag this Judgment!A.L. Johny Vs. K.S.E.B, Trivandrum, Rep. by Secretary and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Dissatisfied by the order of dismissal of complaint, the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal in OP No. 1013/04 passed by the CDRF, Thrissur. 2. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having consumer No.3650. On 26/06/2004 the opposite parties issued a bill showing an arrear of Rs.8,685/-. It is the case of the complainant that the area code shown in the bill was A1 29 instead of the previous bills area code A1 22. The complainant alleged that the bill is defective, further the bill does not mention the date of disconnection. It is stated in the complaint that the meter of the complainant was changed to electronic meter on 24.04.03. After the installation of electronic meter it showed increase in the consumption of electricity by the complainant. The subsequent 3 meter readings were shown as 1263, 790 and 970 units. The opposite parties found out that the complainant consumed more electricity prior to change of meter and issued an additional b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »