Kerala Court April 2014 Judgments
M/S. Vgp Agro Farms Private Limited and Another Vs. R. Latha Lakshmi
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
V.V. Jose : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in C.C.No.332/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam dated 16/08/2010. The case in nutshell of the above C.C is as follows. The complainant purchased one unit of VGP Victoria Garden in Bangalore of opposite parties. 22 cents of land was offered for one unit. The entire value was paid by instalments, even then the opposite parties failed to register the land as offered for one unit. The entire value was paid by instalments, even then the opposite parties failed to register the land as offered. Complainant issued lawyer notice, as the opposite parties conveyed their intention to register a different property, to register the property or to return the money paid or in the alternative to register another property. The notice was returned with endorsement addressee left the place. Hence this complaint. 2. The version filed by the 1st opposite party contented that the complaint is not maintainable as it has no jurisdiction to ent...
Tag this Judgment!The Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited - Represented by Its S ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.84/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission the counsel for the appellant submitted that opposite party is a Service Co-operative Bank and had introduced a fixed deposit scheme wherein the respondent deposited Rs.1,000/- on 29/12/1992 for a period of 240 months. The maturity date fixed was on 29/12/2012 and the maturity value is Rs.20,000/-. It is submitted that the fixed deposit scheme was introduced by the then office bearers without the sanction of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The new Board Directors took a decision to repay the amount with interest was not amenable to the complainant and filed this complaint. The Forum Below allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant and ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- with 9% interest along with cost of the proceedings. Aggrieved by this order the appellants preferred this a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.G. Vijay Vs. Mansoor Hussian, M/S. M.G. Gallery, Interior Design ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member This appeal is for enhancing the amount ordered in judgment dated 30.08.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram in CC.No.36/2013 filed on 07.02.2013 .Order is the following. 2. œ Even though there is prayer in the complaint to appoint a commission to asses the defects of the interior work of opposite party, but the complainant did not take any steps to appoint an expert commission. So we can not assess the defects of opposite partys work or incompletion of the work. In these circumstances we can not pass blank ex-parte order in favour of the complainant. Complainant demanded an exaggerated amount as compensation for the interest of Justice and it can not allowed to him . 3. So we direct the opposite party to rectify all of the defects of the interior designing of complainants house and settle of account between the complainant and opposite party, and opposite party shall given an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost?. 4. During the cond...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd. Skyline Gateway Apartments Vs. T.V. Vincent
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC 341/2011 u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 31, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for supplying 2010 model vehicle instead of 2011 model vehicle. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant booked a Tata Indigo CLS White car with the opposite party by paying an advance of Rs.2,000/-. Opposite party has also offered to give a gold coin and seat cover. The car was delivered to PW1 on 09/04/2011 on payment of Rs.5,05,933/-. Instead of white car the opposite party supplied a red one on receipt of R.C. It was found that it was a 2010 model vehicle. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. The appellant/opposite party is M/s.R.F.Motors, Kochi represented by its Manager who in...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas K. Thomas, Anandamadham Vs. M/S. Ferro Technologies, Aysha Arca ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali, President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.134/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking modification of the order of the Forum dated, June 24, 2013. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is a retired Engineer. Complainant entrusted the construction of his residential building with the opposite party under agreement Ext.A1 dated, December 09, 2011. The agreement was to construct the house using Ferro Technology and construction has to be completed within 6 months. The total plinth area was 1846 Sq.Ft. and the total cost of construction agreed was Rs.17,54,100/-. Complainant paid Rs.12. lakhs to the opposite party. Opposite party completed only 35% of the work, he has collected an excess amount of Rs.8,03,581/- from the complainant. There are so many defects noticed in the construction. Sun shades and A...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode Vs. Abdul Razak
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The polic...
Tag this Judgment!Moothodi Ayathar Vs. the Commissioner, the Kerala Fishermenâandeuro;a ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainants in CC.41/08 on the file of CDRF, Ksaragod under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, February 22, 2013 dismissing their complaint. 2. The case of the complainants as stated in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainants are the parents and dependants of one Kishore who died on February 14, 2007 at about 18.16 hours in a railway accident. The deceased was a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Fishermen Welfare Board which is affiliated with the opposite party No.1, the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board with membership No.1000. He was also a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Matsya Thozhilali Kshema Vikasana Sahakarana Sangham affiliated with opposite party No.2, Matsyafed with membership No.1518. The death of Kishore was due to accident caused by external violent means and that therefore opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the claimants by paying Rs.1,50...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Pookoya Th ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 48/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,94,638/- with interest and a cost of Rs.1000/- being the insurance claim of the complainant for the damage caused to his Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555 in an accident. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant is the owner of the Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555. On May 30,2011 it met with an accident by dashing against a lorry. PW1, the complainant spent about Rs.3,06,715/- for repairing the car. The car was insured with the opposite party Reliance General Insurance Company by a valid policy during the relevant period. The claim put forwarded by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite par...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sankarankutty, Porakkattu House, Thalavanikkara Vs. Kerala Circle M ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.542/09 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 15, 2013 dismissing the complaint. 2. The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging that he has recharged his mobile phone having No.9846653872 on September 06, 2006 for Rs.777/- from the opposite party who did not provide him with the promised talk time. 3. First opposite party is Kerala Circle Manager, Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited, Kochi, 2nd opposite party is its Nodal Officer and 3rd opposite party is Branch Manager at Thrissur. They raised the maintainability of the complaint by filing I.A.921/11. The Forum dismissed the complaint as not maintainable in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Varma Vs. Idea Cellular Limited and Another 2011 CTJ 494 SC and also in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Another in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004. The Delhi High Court in Writ Petition N...
Tag this Judgment!P. Gadadharan Vs. Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.500/09 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 30, 2012 directing the opposite party/Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as stated in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant is an Advocate practicing at Kozhikkode Bar. He had submitted an article titled Infraction of Law and Violation of Human Rights to Amnesty International. He got the E-mail from the Amnesty International stating that Nigerian Senate has accepted his article and he is entitled for Rs.10.5 Million US dollars as grant on condition that the complainant deposits Rs.6000/- in their account. Complainant approached the opposite party, HDFC Bank, Calicut and submitted the relevant records and also entrusted to Rs.6000/- with the Manager by way of cheque on October 03, 2008. But the account was activated o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »