Kerala Court October 2012 Judgments
Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Perintal ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order dtd. 27.10.2011 in C.C. No. 395/2001 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. 2. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he was running a commercial establishment in the shop room owned by Smt. Aysha. The electric connection stands in her name and the complainant was a beneficiary of the electric supply. A bill dated 12.11.2001 was issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,78,870/- for unauthorized connected load. The bill was issued consequent to the inspection of special squad of the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that no inspection was carried out by the opposite party and the bill issued is to set aside. The complainant asserted that he was regularly paying the electricity charges without default. It is his case that he intended to install equipments for his bakery purpose. This was informed to the opposite party and the opposite parties directed him to complete elect...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Praveen C. Jose ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.61/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complainant therein is the respondent. The complainant was the owner of one ESCORTS JCB bearing Reg. No.KL-36/4951. It is alleged that the said JCB was insured with the opposite party under miscellaneous class D vehicles package policy. The complainant had also availed a special contingency Insurance Policy remitting a premium of Rs.10,102/-, covering all the mechanical problems of the vehicle. The vehicle developed mechanical problem which was got repaired at a recognized workshop on 29.4.09. The surveyor of the Insurance Company was convinced of the mechanical problem of the vehicle. The complainant paid Rs.69,297/- to the work shop in order to clear their bill after repair. The complainant claimed the bill amount from the opposite party, but they approved only part of the claim that is Rs.11,800/- . The complainant refused to accept the said amount. According t...
Tag this Judgment!Master Gokul Krishnan Vs. the Managing Director, Al Salama Eye Hospita ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER A minor boy aged 7 years at the time of filing CC.87/08 in the CDRF, Malappuram represented by his father was the complainant and is the appellant herein. He approached the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The boy was complaining of diminishing vision when he approached the 1st opposite party hospital for treatment. The disease was diagnosed as Lamellar Cataract to both eyes. He was advised to undergo cataract surgery in both eyes. It is alleged by the complainant that the doctors attached to the opposite party hospital assured 100% success if operation was done. Believing the assurance the complainant decided to undergo cataract surgery and was admitted on 27.4.06. The surgery named vitrectomy was done to his right eye. Even though the patient was taken for surgery at 9.am he was detained in the operation theatre till late night. The doctors attached to the opposite party hospital availed the advice fro...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Birla Paper Product Machines Vs. Vidyasagar Panicker
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.121/11 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The respondent was the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had placed an order for paper napkin making machine with the opposite party on 31.8.10 with the intention of starting a Paper Napkin Manufacturing business. An advance amount of Rs.1 lakh as Demand Draft from State Bank of Travancore was given along with the order in the name of paper product machines. The fund for the business was raised by way of loan from the State Bank of Travancore, Kollenkode Branch. The construction of the building and other facilities was started on 5.9.10. But the construction was delayed due to increase in the price of construction materials. The complainant could not complete the construction of the building to house the business within the time limit of 19.2.11. The bank demanded repayment of the loan instalments from 19.2.11 as per the repayment sc...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanathan Balakrishnan Vs. the Manager, Icici Bank Credit Card Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.129/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The respondents were opposite parties. The complainant alleged that he was the holder of credit card issued by the opposite party bank and on 3.5.09 he went to Malabar Gold Jewellery shop for purchasing gold ornaments. He purchased gold ornaments for Rs.1,12,000/-. But the shop declined to accept the credit card. Immediately, the complainant contacted the customer care. They informed that the card was rejected due to security reasons. The complainant immediately requested the opposite party to install the existing credit limit of Rs.1,15,000/-. The complainant can purchase goods worth Rs.1,15,000/- by using credit card. The complainant waited there for two hours, anticipating that the first opposite party would install the credit facility. But they did not do so and the complainant returned from the Jewellery after giving back, the purchased gold. The complainant is...
Tag this Judgment!Subaida Shah Vs. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The appellant is the complainant dissatisfied by the order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No.81/06 came up in this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the wife of late Anil shah, who owned a new vehicle Toyota Qualis insured with the opposite party and had a valid policy from 4.4.01 to 3.4.02. The vehicle met with an accident and the insured died. The assessed value of the vehicle was Rs.4,50,000/- and the reckoning salvage value was Rs.1,30,000/-. The opposite party assured to pay an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant was informed that due to the violation of policy condition an amount of Rs.2,17,500/- was only sanctioned against Rs.3,20,000/- which was calculated on non-standard basis. The offered amount was accepted by the complainant as full and final settlement. It is also asserted by the complainant that the complainant received only Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA, MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP 442/05 filed on 27.4.05. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in the above OP. 2. In brief, the appellant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that to set aside the arrear bills of Rs.21,000/- under order that set aside the amount claim by the appellant/opposite party. 3. The opposite parties filed this appeal from the above appeal and it is the fact of the case is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party filed the complaint to set aside the arrear bills of Rs.21,000/- for a period from 4/96 to 2/2001. The electricity connection was issued to the vide consumer No.10865. On the event of initiation of further proceedings the complainant had approached the Lower Forum to set aside the arrear bill. 4. On other side, the opposite parties filed their version and contended that the electricity connection vide consumer ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sudesan Vs. D. Kuttappan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the opposite party aggrieved by the order passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in C.C. No. 143/09. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased 25000 wire cut bricks from the opposite party on payment of Rs. 1,18,750/- The opposite party supplied the bricks at the complainants building site. It is the case of the complainant that the bricks were of low quality and could not use for construction works. The matter was informed to the opposite party which was not responded. This resulted in the obstruction to the construction work. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the complainant a legal notice was issued on 20/7/2009 and even after the receipt of the letter the opposite party did not turn to solve the problem. Hence filed the complaint for realization of Rs. 1,18,750/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 3. The opposite party was ex-parte and the case was disposed of by the Forum below. 4...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sivasankaran Nair Vs. the Railway Divisional Manager, Public Grieva ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
SMT. A. RADHA, MEMBER Aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No.91/2010, the complainant preferred this appeal. 2. The grievance highlighted by the complainant is that the complaint is filed with a petition for condoning the delay of 894 days in filing the complaint. The reason stated in the petition to condone the delay is that the complainant is a chronic cardiac patient and he could not file the complaint in time. The complainant had not produced any medical certificate in support of the reason for delay in filing the complaint. The Forum below dismissed the complaint as the complainant had failed to explain the delay of 894 days satisfactorily. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant highlighted his grievance that he was a cardiac patient. It is his case that the complainant and his family while travelling from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram by Kerala Express on 4.10.05, there had no supply of water in taps and in the toilets of the trai...
Tag this Judgment!Dtdc Courier and Cargo Ltd. and Another Vs. High Tech Services, Reptd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA, MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.No.76/10 dated.30.8.11. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant/company. The appellant prefers this appeal from the direction of the forum below that (i) opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the lost goods along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the complainant till realization. (ii) The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.20,000 to the complainant towards compensation towards compensation for loss of work and mental agony suffered. (iii) Opposite parties shall pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation. 2. In short, the complainant booked 4 cameras of wheel alignment to be delivered to M/s. Precision Testing Machine Pvt. Ltd; New Delhi. Unfortunately it never reached its destination. When the consignee informed the consignor that they had no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »