Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi rent control act 1958 repealed section 52 protection of action taken in good faith Sorted by: old Court: kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc thiruvananthapuram

Jul 14 2011 (TRI)

Sophy Thomas and Others Vs. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. Represented by ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appeal No. 454/2010 is filed by the complainants and Appeal No. 524/2010 is filed by the first and second opposite parties dealers in CC No. 144/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The Forum has allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to return the vehicle repaired in perfect running condition without collecting costs of the replaced ECM and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the delay in returning the vehicle after repair and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainants who are the wife/RC owner and her husband respectively have filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new model car or to refund the price of the vehicle ie, Rs. 7,77,668/- with interest at 18% per annum and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is the case of the complainants that the Maruti Suzuki SX4 ZXI car purchased by the first complainant from the first opposite party d...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2011 (TRI)

P.D. Joseph Vs. Dr. N.D. Mohandas Asst. Professor, Psychiatry, Medical ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER The appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the CDRF Kottayam in O.P. No.124/2004 dated 17-1-2006. The respondents are the opposite parties in the above mentioned case. The appellant prefers this appeal under the order of the dismissal of the complainant. Which filed by the complainant before the forum below. 2. In short, the complainant have the case that he and his wife Sucy, Alias, Latha mole were residing together as husband and wife for 23 years and in the relationship they have 2 children named Vinod and Vineeth aged 22 years and 20 years respectively. The appellant is doing various types of business including financial business. While so his wife Sucy developed some Psychartic problem and she took her house of the 1st opposite party on 9-2-2003. He told the problems of Sucy to the 1st opposite party doctor and paid for @ . 200/- as consultation fee. The 1st opposite party after medical examination of Sucy, pre...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //