Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments
General Manager and Another Vs. Shinob
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties, the dealer and the manufacturer respectively in CC.20/06 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.75,000/- and to pay cost of Rs.3000/- with interest at 10% starting from one month after the date of receipt of the order. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a RELPG-4 stroke autorikshaw for a sum of Rs.1,05,840/- with a loan of Rs.90,000/- availed from the Backward Classes Development Corporation. According to him immediately after purchase the vehicle was found having mechanical problems. The matter was reported at the Mananthavady branch of the dealer who directed the complainant to take the vehicle to the dealer at Kozhikkode. It was taken to Kozhikkode at the expense of the complainant. Subsequently also the complainant had to take the vehicle to Kozhikkode at 3 instances. The defects would not be rectified. The vehicle was also taken to Kottac...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Louis, Proprietor, Alangadan Finance and Another Vs. Prasannan an ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in appeal 842/11 is the opposite party in CC.630/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,93,857.50 and cost of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. The appellant in appeal 127/12 is the complainant in the above CC. He has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation ordered to be paid. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had pledged 486.950 gm gold at 10 instances in the year 2005 and received a sum of Rs.232250/-. According to him when he approached the opposite party for redeeming the pledged gold he was told that the ornaments were sold in auction. According to him some of the ornaments are having sentimental value so for as he was concerned. The ornaments pledged were collected from the friends and relatives. It is mentioned that the present market value(complaint was filed on 9.8.06) would work out to Rs.584,340/-. He has sought for the balance ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri.M.M.Paulose and Others Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Elect ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha in CC.No.2/08 dated 30.6.09 is under challenge in these appeals. The appellant in FA.722/11 was the complainant before the Forum below. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants in FA.830/11. 2. The complaint was filed on the allegation that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties ie, the Electricity Board, bearing consumer No.7956. The complainant was running a small scale production unit. As such he executed a minimum guarantee agreement incurring the liability to pay an amount of Rs.107940/- within a period of 7 years in monthly instalments. Contrary to the agreement the opposite parties collected amount in excess of the agreed amount. At the conclusion of 75 months, the complainant was allowed to adjust the excess amount collected in his energy bills. Still surplus amount is with the opposite parties. Several demands were made by the complainant to release the surplus...
Tag this Judgment!Anilkumar Vs. Kseb, Vyduthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Ano ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in CC.104/2010 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The complainant who is the consumer is running an SSI unit by name Amila Plastics, manufacturing polythene pipes. According to him on 7.4.2010 in the middle of night the APTS officials inspected the premises and alleged that the complainant is committing theft of electricity. The complainant was made to sign in the mahazar under coercion. A provisional bill for Rs.3,42,271/- has been issued and the supply disconnected. According to him the allegation of theft of energy is a false case. He has sought for reconnection of electricity and also a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. Opposite parties have filed version pointing out that on information received, the APTS squad inspected the premises along with the police officers of Thidanadu police station. The APTS has detected that the complainant has got open the service wire which was connecte...
Tag this Judgment!Har Auto Pvt.Ltd. Har Avenue, Kannothumchal, Kannur Vs. Seedhi and Ano ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party/dealer in CC 182/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- with interest at 12% from 31.7.10 and also a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant is that on 31.7.10 he entrusted his Maruti Wagon-R car with the opposite parties No.1, Sale Executive for exchanging the same and purchasing a new SWIFT car from the second opposite party outlet. The price of the Wagon-R car was fixed as Rs.1,62,000/- and the price of the SWIFT car as Rs.5,74,313/-. According to him, the opposite parties took possession of the original records of the Wagon-R car and promised to deliver the new car on 6.8.10 and agreed to receiving balance amount after delivery of the new car. On 6.8.10 when he approached the opposite parties they told that the stock is not available. Thereafter he approached the opposite parties on a number of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravikumaran Nair, Advocate and Notary Public, Pallam Road, Kasaragod V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENTThe appellant is the opposite party/Advocate who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ as compensation with interest at 9% from the date of the order and cost of Rs. 2,000/- 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had engaged the opposite party/Advocate to file a criminal complaint against one Ramesan Nambiar with respect to the cheque issued by him for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The cheque was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. The complaint was filed through the opposite party and numbered as C.C. 97/08 and as there was no representation for the complainant the matter was adjourned to 31.3.08 and as there was no representation the case was further adjourned to 8.04.2008 with notice to the complainants counsel ie the opposite party. On 8.4.2008 also there was no representation and the case was adjourned to 18.4.2008. On that day also there was no representation and the case was further adjourned to 24.4.2008. As there was no represen...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanan Nair Sruthi, Parathu Veedu Vs. Branch Manager, M/S.New India A ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-21-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.19/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the residential house owned by him and covered with the Standard Fire And Special Perils Policy of the opposite parties commencing from 25.7.02 having a coverage of Rs.2,50,000/- was damaged due to the heavy rain and flood in June/July 2007. The coverage is from 25.7.02 to 24.7.12. Severe damages such as cracks on the walls, roof and damages to the foundation and basement have taken place. The surveyor deputed by the opposite parties has only made a casual inspection. The claim has been repudiated. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- the sum insured and compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 3. The opposite parties have filed version admitting policy coverage but contending that the surveyor has noted that the cracks and other damages seen in the building is not due to any natural calamity but ...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Shikhavudeen Vs. the Kerala State Electricity Board, R/by Its Sec ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-21-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in OP.521/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is the occupier of the residential building having the particular consumer number. The connection was originally obtained by the landlord for the construction purposes and charged at the rate applicable to commercial tariff. After construction the building was occupied by the complainant for residential purpose. The bills raised from 7/98 by the opposite parties was under domestic tariff/LT - I. On 1.9.98 a bill was issued under commercial tariff (LT VII A) towards the alleged difference with respect to the amount charged under LT - I for the period from 9/97 to 5/98. It is his contention that he was using the electricity purely for domestic purposes and hence not liable to pay the bill issued under commercial tariff. It is stated that even after the issue of additional bill on 1.7.98 by-m...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Kottayam Municipality, Municipal Office Vs. K. Ramachan ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-21-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/Secretary, Kottayam Muncipality in CC.131/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. 2. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost and it is also directed that the opposite party shall conduct an internal inquiry and recover compensation and cost ordered from the employees who are found responsible for the deficiency. A copy of the order is also directed to be sent by the Secretary to the Local Self Government to conduct an enquiry with respect to the production of Ext.B3 document which was found to be fabricated. 3. The case of the complainant is that he had booked the Mamman Mappila Hall owned by the opposite party for conducting the marriage of his son to be held on 7.2.2010 and paid a sum of Rs.31,060/- for the same. Both his son and the proposed bride are employed in the United States. Some of the relatives of the petitioner are also residing abroad. It is on...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Tata Motors, Bombay and Another Vs. Sri.V.A.Ani ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 the manufacturer and dealer respectively in CC 126/07 in the file of CDRF, Alleppey. The appellants are under orders to replace the complainants vehicle with a brand new model or if the similar brand is not available to refund the cost of the car and also to pay 15000/- as compensation. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Tata Safari Dicor LX vehicle purchased by him on 15.9.06 was having so many defects ie, the remote/central locking not functioning properly, AC fan not working properly, sun control film not properly fixed, plat form mat was not found , fog lamp complaint, rear seat damaged, a bent on the rear portion of the body, park light not properly working , broken net below the rear seat and emblem on rear portion damaged. The car was delivered at the residence of the complainant on 16.9.06. Besides the leather seat cover which was offered was also not found. Only the park lights were ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »