Kerala Court December 2013 Judgments
P. Sankarankutty Vs. Adv. K.V. Purushothaman, Irinjalakkuda and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-31-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.548/08 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 22, 2012 dismissing the complaint. 2. The appellant/complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging professional negligence against deceased first opposite party who is a lawyer in conducting his case OS.1363/03 on the file of Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. During the pendency of the complaint opposite party died. His wife and children were impleaded as additional opposite parties 2 and 3. Forum dismissed the complaint, finding that liability of deceased first opposite party to pay damages for his personal negligence cannot be extended his legal heirs. Complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum. 3. Notice issued to respondents 1 and 2 returned stating that they expired. No steps were taken by the appellant for impleading the legal heirs of 2nd respondent. 4. Heard the appellant who is p...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Pranavam, Mele Pat ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-31-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.206/09 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 28, 2011 directing the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.3,24,472/- being the repair charge of the vehicle to the complainant with interest and a cost of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW2 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10/V-5198 and was earning his livelihood by running it has a taxi. It was insured with the opposite party by valid insurance policy as per Ext.A6 for the period from June 07, 2006 to June 06, 2007. The vehicle met with an accident on August 07, 2006. Complainant has to spent Rs.3,92,000/- for repairing the vehicle from M/s T.V. Sundaran Iyyengar and Sons Limited, Thrissur. Opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant without any sufficient re...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Wintech Infosys Vs. Mary Paul
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.607/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, April 30, 2012 directing the opposite party to refund to the complainant the value of defective computer supplied by the opposite party. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant purchased a computer from the opposite party, M/s Wintek Infosys, Angamaly on December 17, 2009 for Rs.23,850/- with one year warranty. Within 6 months from the date purchase the computer showed some defects which was repaired. The mother board of the computer was replaced on August 30, 2010. Subsequently on several occasions ie on February 5, 2011, February 24, 2011 and June 06, 2011 the computer was repaired. The complainant claimed for refund of the price of the computer with interest and compensation. 3. The opposite party, M/s Wintek Infosys through its proprietor filed a version co...
Tag this Judgment!The Proprietor, Jacob and Jacob Company, Kottarakkara, Kollam Vs. Supr ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in CC.96/10 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, December 31, 2012 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,500/- as the price of the Fridge entrusted by the complainant with first opposite party for repair and also to return Rs.2000/- received by the first opposite party and to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and a cost of Rs.1500/-. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- As advised by the 2nd opposite party complainant entrusted her fridge with the first opposite party for servicing and painting. The fridge was returned on July 17, 2009 after painting. Some holes were found in the inner lower part of the fridge. The first opposite party first demanded Rs.5000/- to rectify that defect. Complainant paid only Rs.1000/-. The first opposite party did not either return the fridge or repair the...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narayanan Vs. Suresh, Proprietor
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.424/12 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 18, 2012 dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as revealed from the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- He entrusted his ceiling fan to the opposite party for repair. The opposite party did not return the same. When he asked for the fan opposite party abused to him therefore complainant prayed for return of the fan alternatively claimed the price of the fan and compensation. 3. The Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant has extracted in the complaint the abusive words used by the opposite party. In our view the Forum is not justified in dismissing the complaint. Complainant only extracted the abusive words used by the opposite party. 4. That apart the averments in the complaint clearly shows that complainant is a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Pro...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Appuââandsbquo;¬âandbdq ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 251/2010 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated 29/02/2012 directing the opposite party Insurance company to pay Rs.2,08,814/- with interest towards the loss sustained by the complainant on account of fire in her factory. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant and as detailed in the complainant before the Forum in brief is this: 3. Complainant is the proprietrix of M/S. Appus Plywood Industries, Iringole, Perumbavoor and is engaged in making plywood. In 2007 complainant availed 2 Insurance policies from the opposite party company. The first policy was a œBoiler and Pressure Plant Insurance? policy under which Thermotec make Oil Boiler with Oil and Thermotec make steam Boilers (3 Nos.) were insured for Rs.13,00,000. Second policy was œStandard Fire and Special Peril Policy? un...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Idukki an ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
Mrs. A. Radha : Member Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants who preferred this appeal against the Order in C.C.No.237/12 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. The Forum Below directed the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to consider the loan application of the complainant. 2. The 1st complainant is the son-in-law of 2nd complainant who applied for a loan for Rs.20 Lakhs through the 3rd respondent under the PMEGP scheme for industrial purpose. The complainant was selected for the test and personal interview conducted by the 3rd opposite party and accepted the proposal of the applicant for the scheme under the Prime Ministers Fund to avail more job opportunity for rural people. The application form was submitted to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in order to start coconut oil producing unit allowed by the 3rd opposite party. It is alleged that the loan was deliberately delayed and rejected by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The complainant sustained heavy loss and injury due to the act of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Dipu Chandran Vs. Panjos Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali: President This is an appeal filed by the complaint in C.C.No.309/12 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the Order of the Fourm dated October 11, 2011 dismissing the complaint for default. 2. The case of the complainant was that he entered into an agreement with 1st opposite party for the construction of an apartment for a total consideration of Rs.34,33,722/-. But he did not complete the construction. Complainant filed the complaint seeking direction directing the opposite parties to complete the construction and handover the apartment and also claimed the compensation. When the complainant came up for hearing on October 11, 2011 complainant remained absent. Therefore, the Forum dismissed the complaint. Complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum. 3. In this appeal respondent 1 and 2 remained absent taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions raised by the complainant we feel that an ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Sugathan Vs. PhotoIndia International
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.503/12 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 18, 2012 dismissing the complaint. 2. Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging that he purchased a steam car wash for Rs.4,22,622/- from the opposite party for his car service station which was subsequently damaged which the opposite party did not repair. Complainant claimed refund of the cost of the damaged steam car wash and claimed a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. 3. The Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant purchased the steam car wash for business purpose and that therefore he cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant. Notice issued to the respondent/opposite party returned unclaimed. 5. The only question w...
Tag this Judgment!Postmaster, Shajahan Road, Upsc Compound, New Delhi and Another Vs. Ar ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-30-2013
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.112/10 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 10, 2012 directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the loss caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service on the part of the appellants. Respondent/complainant, Arun Geo Thomas is a minor represented by his father. Appellants/opposite parties are the Postal Department. The case of the complainant as testified by PW1, the father of the complainant and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant sent an application for National Defence Academy and Navel Academy Examination by post from Kottarakkara post office on November 3, 2009 to the Secretary, UPSC, New Delhi. The UPSC conducted their examination on April 18, 2009. The complainant received the hall ticket only on May 11, 2010. On verification it was found that hall ticket was despatched from the offic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »