Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection amendment act. the complainant was having a case that he was having cataract in her left eye consulted the first opposite party, doctor who in turn advised surgery. after ..... indirectly connected with the treatment of the complainant and the forum below fixed the liability against the hospital/opposite party. it is illegal and against provisions of law. the forum below have no jurisdiction to fix the liability against a stranger, who did not involved in the matter. he submitted that the order passed ..... here the principle of tortuous liability is applicable. if the servant committed any negligence or carelessness, his master is also liable. it is a basic principle of law of tort. if the second opposite party is vicariously liable for the negligence committed by his employee, doctor. the counsel for the appellant /hospital filed a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... fact that the warranty service is also a service as referred to under sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the consumer protection act, 1986. it is also to be borne in mind that before the commencement of the amended act 62/02 which came into effect on 15..3..2003 service availed for commercial purpose was also brought under the purview of ..... present at the site and that he acknowledged satisfactory performance of the crusher on 27..10..99. it is also admitted that the aforesaid rajendran is the brother in law of the managing director. the managing director of the complainant has been examined before this commission as pw1. the cross-examination of pw1 would also show that the managing ..... ..1999 and the complainant had acknowledged satisfaction on 27..10..1999. the satisfaction was expressed by mr.rajendran who is in charge who happened to be the brother in law of the managing director. the allegation that due to the development of crack the unit had to be shut down from 17..12..99 is false and misleading. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... for the appellants has stressed the contention that the forum is not having jurisdiction as vide section 13(1)(a)i and section 15 of the railways claims tribunal act, 1987. the exclusive jurisdiction in this regard is vested as the railways claims tribunal. evidently as per the above provisions in the railways claims tribunal is having the ..... of the consignment and the individual value was not declared. in case of declaration of the value transportation charges on percentage basis vide section 103(2) of the railways act, 1989 and rules thereon had to be paid. it is further contended that the complaint is not maintainable vide section 13(1)(a)i and section 15 of ..... the railway claims tribunal act. 1987. if at all the complainant is entitled for compensation vide sec. 103 of the railways act, 1989 read with rule 3(1)iii of railways (extent of monitory liability) and prescription of percentage charge) amendment rules 2009 only @ rs. 50/kg is liable to be paid .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... a similar case the tamil nadu state commission set aside the order passed by the forum below. the object of this provision added in the consumer protection act (amendment act 03) is to filtrate the genuine complainants from the frivalous and vexatious complainants. in this case, the complainants except pw1 had spoken anything about the ..... the appellants. this is not legally sustainable as per the ever so many decisions of the apex court in national commission. this is a settled position of law. the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service suffered by the dw1. even though, it was partially admitted by the appellants/opposite parties including the ..... below has fully appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides and discussed each and every points in detail and passed the order in accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. it is legally sustainable and acceptable. the appeal prefers by the appellant from this order is nothing but an experimental. he prays to dismiss .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... 75,00,000/- under various heads. 3. the 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed written version contending as follows: the compliant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. the complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute as contemplated. the complainant is not having any specific allegation against the ..... compensatory cost of rs.10,000/-. 6. the points that arise for consideration are:- (1) whether the complainant is a consumer coming under purview of the consumer protection act, 1986? (2) whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder/ mis-joinder of necessary parties? (3) whether the 1st opposite party can be held vicariously liable ..... 18/6/02 the 2nd opposite party removed the stent but the torrent pain continued. the complainant was suffering pain and inconvenience only because of the negligent act of the opposite parties. the complainant took a scan of the affected portion of the body from ittyavira scan and genetic research and that the report revealed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... the complainant can be considered as a consumer coming within the ambit of the definition consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the aforesaid averment in the complaint would make it clear that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the explanation attached to or added to section 2 ..... purchased the peeling machine for commercial purpose and so he cannot be termed as a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer protection act. but, the first opposite party omitted to note the pleading in the complaint that complainant is conducting peeling unit by name national peeling unit and the income getting ..... purchased would come under the purview of the consumer protection act, 1986. it is true that the position has been changed after the introduction of the amendment of section 2 (1) (d) (2) by amended act62/2002 which came into effect on 15.3.03. after the said amendment, a person who availed services for commercial purpose has been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... /7/1998. the aforesaid p1 and p3 agreements were executed prior to the amendment of section 2(1)d(ii) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the aforesaid amendment was made by act 62/02 with effect from 15/3/2003. prior to the said amendment by act 62/02, service availed for commercial purpose was also included within the purview ..... the remedy sought for is a civil remedy. it is further contended that the disputes cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceedings as contemplated in the consumer protection act as the disputes require elaborate and voluminous evidence including the intervention of engineering experts. it is to be noted that in every consumer disputes there will be ..... follows: the joint written version was filed by the opposite parties through their power of attorney holder yousuf ali:- the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. the complainant is not a consumer. the disputes involved in the complaint are not covered by the provisions of the consumer protection .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... been referred to in the impugned order. more over, the impugned order has been passed under section-27 of the consumer protection act 1986. the aforesaid procedure was followed by invoking the jurisdiction and authority of judicial magistrate of first class. as far as the ..... to award such term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. so, the default sentence passed by the forum below while acting as the judicial magistrate of first class can be upheld. there is no illegality or irregularity in passing such a default sentence. ..... imposing imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of rs.1000/- was passed without following the procedures envisaged under law. the aforesaid order has been set aside by the honble high court vide order dated:9/10/2007 in criminal mc:1865/05. ..... thus, in the eye of law there is no such order in existence. there is no legal bar in imposing fresh penalty of imprisonment for a period of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... supreme court has also considered the plain and literal meaning of the words introduced by the aforesaid amendment of section 11(2) and 17(2) of the cp act, 1986. it is observed by the apex court that no doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of section 17(2 ..... a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the consumer forum or state commission. but, the honble supreme court had occasion to consider the aforesaid amendment introduced to section 11(2) and 17(2) of the cp act, 1986 and it has been held that the expression branch office would mean branch office where the cause of action has arisen. the honble ..... to issue b1 letter stating utter falsehood. the character and conduct of pw2 would show that he is an unworthy witness and he cannot be believed by a court of law. pw2 had gone to such an extent for the purpose of getting the insurance claim infavour of his uncle m.m. sulaiman. so, the case of pw2 that he was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... b2 documents. the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the assessment was done by the opposite parties as per the section 126(5) (6) of electricity amendment act 2007 an assessment at the rate equal to two times the tariff applicable for a period of 12 months immediately proceeding the date of inspection must be imposed. ..... mere argument. another point we are seeing that the appellant submitted that the ext. b1 mahazar prepared by the opposite parties not accordance with the provisions of law and witnesses cited by the opposite parties are not independent witnesses. witnesses are employees who were employed in the tenants institution. we are not seeing that the ..... we are seeing that the order passed by the forum below is without considering and examine the documents carefully and passed the order without follow the provisions of law and principles. we decided to interfere in the impugned order passed by the forum below. there is an apparent error in the order passed by the forum .....
Tag this Judgment!