Kerala Court May 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.
Prameela Vs. the Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance and Anothe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-09-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is a Revision Petition filed by the complainant in CC.148/11 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum in I.A.62/13 dated, April 17, 2013 dismissing their complaint as not maintainable. 2. The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum contending thus:- Complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-AQ-4546. It was covered by a valid policy from 23.06.2008 to 22.06.2009 with the opposite party, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. The husband of the complainant entrusted the vehicle with one Mr.Fazil for transporting and supplying of Ayurvedic medicines he did not return the same. On enquiry it was revealed that he had pledged the vehicle with some other person. The husband of the complainant filed the complaint before the Kallambalam Police Station. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that it is not a case of theft. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming ...
The Principal, Sree Raghavendra College of Nursing Vs. Jasmine and Oth ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the 3rd opposite party in CC.229/05 on the file of CDRF, Idukki under section 15 of the Consumer Protection act challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 30, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by the complainant as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant joined in the 3rd opposite party institution, Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Thodupuzha for BSc Nursing, after successfully completing Plus 2 VHSC course from the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Thodupuzha. She paid Rs.1,19,250/- towards fees to the 3rd opposite party. But she did not get hall ticket. She was informed by the 3rd opposite party that the VHSC course was not recognized by the 4th opposite party, Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore and therefore she was not eligible for doing BSc Nursing course and for appearing in the exam. Complainant demanded the money b...
M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., R/by Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-05-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.156/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 22, 2012 directing the opposite party/Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment expenses incurred by him. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant was a holder of Nagarik Suraksha Policy, Ext.B1 issued by the opposite party, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Under the conditions of the policy complainant is eligible for Rs.1,00,000/- towards hospital expenses. Complainant met with a motor accident on August 01, 2010 while he was riding his motor cycle. He underwent treatment at Carmal Hospital Aluva, Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam and Sree Sudheendra Hospital, Ernakulam and spent about Rs.3.lakhs for treatment expenses. His claim was repudiated by the opposite party/Insurance Company stating that he was under the influence...
Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Through Authorized Signatory Vs ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-03-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in CC.218/09 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 30, 2011 directing the first opposite party to revive Exts.A1 and A2 insurance policies accepting the premium and to refund the entire amount received by the complainant in excess of the premium. 2. The case of the complainants as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- On 17.03.2003 complainant availed a life insurance policy from the first opposite party and on 12.03.2003 the wife of the complainant availed another policy. Both the policies were for the period of 10 years with 6% guarantee return. Complainant and his wife paid six years premium regularly. The complainant and his wife agreed to switch over the said policies to a new scheme as suggested by 3rd and 4th opposite parties. On 8.8.2008 complainant had sig...
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.P. Josep ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-03-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in CC.296/12 on the file of CDRF, Idukki under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, April 29, 2013. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in his complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant was a member of Ksheera Karshaka Suraksha Padhathi and his son is a member of 2nd opposite party Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam, Thodupuzha. The 2nd opposite party and the Apex Society jointly launched an Insurance Scheme in which complainant was a beneficiary. As per the insurance scheme the first opposite party agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- for one person towards treatment expenses. Complainant was treated for urine block from September 12, 2011 to September 20, 2011 in MOSC Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry. The treatment expenses came to Rs.19,541/-. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the first opposite party stating that complainant develope...
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd. Vs. Haneesh T. Ram and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-02-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in OP.95/03 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 25, 2004 directing the opposite parties to repair the two wheeler of the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this: The complainant purchased a TVS Victor Motor Bike bearing Registration No.KL.11.P-9795 from the 1st opposite party on August 02, 2002 for Rs.40,818/-. On that day itself the vehicle had starting trouble and was skidding while applying break. On 13.08.2002 itself he approached first opposite party is service centre and got it repaired. Thereafter on several times it showed defects and was getting only 50 to 55 kmpl as mileage. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. First opposite party is the Manager, Gem Motors, Kozhikkode and 2nd opposite party is its Managing Dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›