Kerala Court March 2014 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.
M/S. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd., Madakkathanam and Another Vs. Maniyamma
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 144/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated April 28/2012. The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: PW1 purchased a Tata Indica Vista Car from the first opposite party who is the agent of the second opposite party company. Even from the first day onwards the car showed defects. The tyres showed excessive wear and tear. It was got repaired with first opposite party. After running 10,000 kms again the same defect occurred, and the first opposite party changed back tyres to front. After covering 1000 kms the tyre got worn out. After 17000 kms the clutch and brake system also became defective and the glass channels were rusted. The first opposite party redelivered the vehicle stating that all the defects were cured. But after running 30000 kms...
K.C. Devan Vs. P.A. Vincent
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
A. Radha : Member Appellant is the 2nd opposite party in C.C.No.347/09 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The Forum Below partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay as per P2 receipt with interest @ 12% interest along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is under challenge before this Commission. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant deposited Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 05/04/2011 and on 07/07/2006 respectively with the 1st opposite party. It was assured 14% interest per annum. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party to return the fixed deposit amount and inturn the 1st opposite party prolonged and has not disbursed the amount so far. In the month of March and April 2009 the complainant personally requested the 2nd opposite party at the 1st opposite party firm to disburse the fixed deposit which was not carried out by the opposite party. The complaint is filed to disburse the amount of Rs.3,20,625/- on the fixed deposit of Rs.1,50,000...
A.P. Kesavadev Vs. Ambika Jayaraman
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.109/10 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated, February 25, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,17,000/- being the cost of curing the defects in the house constructed by the opposite party with interest and a cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by her as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant entrusted the construction of her house with the opposite party and entered into an agreement Ext.A1 dated, November 03, 2007. The rate fixed was Rs.675/- per sq.ft and the agreement was that opposite party should complete the construction within 6 months. It is specifically provided in the agreement that only qualitative materials should be used for the construction and only well qualified workmen and masons should be engaged for work. Opposite party did not complete the work as prom...
The Co-ordinator, It @ School Project, Scert Buiding, Poojappura, Thir ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 in CC.10/13 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 30, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.17,700/- with 10% interest being the value of the defective laptop supplied by them to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is a school teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Edappal. He has placed an order for Chirage Branded Lap top/Net book under the œLap tops and Net books for the teacher Scheme? co-ordinated by the IT @ School project. He purchased the same for Rs.17,700/-. Opposite parties have ensured that the lap tops supplied to him under the said scheme covered 3 years on site warranty. The response time for solving an issue with lap tops would be a minimum of 2 working days failing which an amount of Rs.100/- will be levie...
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and Another V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
V.V. Jose : Member Both these appeals were preferred by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties against the order in CC.No.175/2011 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. 2. The case in short is as follows. The complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party Kerala Water Authority (Consumer No.311 BN 2001). The remittance of water charge was done upto October 2011 by the complainant. However, the supply of water was detached due to renovation work of the road. Even though the opposite party was collecting charges, they have not provided with water. Opposite party did not restore supply even after the written request of the consumer, which is a deficiency in service. The second opposite party entrusted the renovation work, which resulted in detachment. Hence this complaint for a direction to reinstate water supply along with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. First opposite party in their version contended the renovation work in Beenachi Kakkadamkunnu road through where the pipe line was drawn, was d...
The Regional Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Chakkorathukulam, K ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkathali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in OP.283/02 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.28,958 being cross subsidy amount, Rs.5684/- being the excess amount collected from the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as compensation. 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:- Opposite parties are the Kerala State Housing Board. The plot with building No.PWB E5-230 under the Medical College Scheme initiated by the opposite parties was originally allotted to Sri.M.B.Babu who has transferred the same to the complainant with the consent of the opposite parties. The entire cost of the building was remitted by the complainant as a pre condition for the transfer. The complainant was entitled to cross subsidy of 15% of the total amount paid, as per the decision of the Board ...
The Divisional Manager, M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Common Judgment: P.Q. Barkath Ali : President All these appeals are disposed of by a common order. Appeal No.37/12 is filed by the 4th opposite party in CC.207/10 on the file of CDRF, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 28, 2011. Appeal No.50/12 is filed by the first opposite party, United India Insurance Company challenging the same order. Appeal No.38/12 is filed by the 4th opposite party, National Insurance Company challenging the order of the Forum in CC.208/10 of CDRF, Idukki dated, March 28, 2011. Appeal No.51/12 is filed by the first opposite party challenging the same order of the Forum. As opposite parties in these appeals are the same and as common questions are involved all these appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. The case of the complainants in both the complaints as testified by them as PW1 and PW3 respectively before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant in CC.207/10, Sri.N.P.Chacko, PW1 is the owner of the building No.K/II-199 of...
The Managing Director, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.K. Gireesh K ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order under challenge is dated 20/04/2013 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad in CC No.18/2013 by the complaint. 2. On 03/12/2011 the Respondent (Complainant in the Lower Forum) had taken loan by pledging gold with the Appellants (opposite parties in the Lower Forum) for Rs.1,49,000/- under loan A/c No.665 and Rs.21,600/- under loan A/c No.666. The interest rates were fixed at 18% per annuam for a period till 01/12/2013. The respondent was issued a notice on 24/12/2012 to repay the amount or pay interest and/or the appellant will auction the said gold for recovering their amount with interest and other charges. On approaching the appellants, respondent found that he will have to pay 36% in order to close his loan and get the gold back. Respondent approached the Circle Inspector of Police, Nenmara and made a complaint. After summoning the Appellan...
M/S. Buildmate Builders Pvt. Limited Vs. E.P. Parameswarn Bhattathirip ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.144/12 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, December 17, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,54,876/- being the cost of the balance work to be done in the house of the complainant with interest and Rs.12,000/- being the repair charge of the doors of the building of the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Opposite party is a building contractor. Complainant entrusted with the opposite party the construction of 890 sq.ft.in the first floor of the complainants house by agreement dated, January 01, 2011. The rate fixed was Rs.1,200/- per sq.ft. and the agreement was to complete the construction within 9 months. As on December 30, 2011 complainant paid Rs.9,60,368/- to the opposite party. But the opposite party abandoned the wor...
A.K. Shareefa Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE28H DAY OF MARCH20147TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. N.A. SHAREEFA, 24/203, W/O. LATE KADER PILLA, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33.2. A.K. NAZER, 24/201B, S/O.KADER PILLA, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33.3. NOUSHAD. A.K., S/O.KADER PILLA, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33.4. SHIMITHA, W/O. NOUSHAD, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33. BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA), SRI.BEPIN PAUL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001.2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, O/O. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, PIN:695 033.3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COC...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »