Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is a Revision Petition filed by the complainants in an unnumbered complaint on the file of CDRF, Kollam against the order dated, April 08, 2014 returning the complaint as not maintainable. 2. The complainants filed the complaint before the Forum stating that they have availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the opposite parties, bank that they have paid the entire 84 instalments and still then bank is demanding further amount. Complainants prayed for a direction that opposite parties are not entitled to claim any further amount and claimed a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. The Forum found that this is a dispute that requires settlement of accounts for which complainants have to file a Civil Suit and returned the complaint for presentation before the proper Forum. 4. In this revision petition the complainants alleged that the only question to be decided is whether even after payment of 84 instalments, the bank is justified in claiming further amount which is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.236/10 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, April, 09, 2012 directing the opposite party to write off the balance amount due under the loan in the name of the complainant treating it as an agricultural loan. 2. The case of the complainants as testified by the first complainant as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainants are father and son. They availed two agricultural loans from the opposite party bank for Rs.50,000/- each and executed bond and deposited Rs.1000/- as share. There is balance of Rs.76743/- to be paid to the bank. As per circular NB(Kerala)No.CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-09, the balance due under the loan has to be written off. Now the opposite party is taking steps to recover the balance amount due. Therefore complainants filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to write off the balance amount due from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.374/11 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 15, 2011 dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant deposited Rs.75,000/- with the Vazhuthacaud branch of the Trading Member-Vertex Securities Ltd., on October 14, 2000 in Account No.7025 for trading in shares and obtained receipt. Sri.V.Sudhev, the employee of opposite parties 1 and 2 informed the complainant that said amount of Rs.75,000/- has to be remitted being the market value of shares. The first opposite party is M/s Vertex Securities Limited, Kochi, the 2nd opposite party is its Head Office at Mumbai. Opposite parties 1 and 2 fails to deposit the said amount share trading. Though the complainant approached the first opposite party they did not returned the amount....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party in CC.69/12, on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 29, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The case of the complainant is that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,55,000/- in the form of bond with the opposite parties Integrated Finance Company on 18.02.2010. Opposite parties have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of taking the bonds. The deposit matured on 26.10.2011. Ext.A1 to A13 are copy of the said bond. Even after the date of maturity the opposite parties did not repay the amount. Therefore complainant has filed this complaint. 3. Opposite party is the M/s Integrated Finance Company Limited, Chennai represented by its Managing Director. He in his version contended thus: The complaint is not maintainable. Complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in CC.No.199/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode on the Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act. Challenging the order of the Forum dated: 22.01.2014 directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this. 3. Complainant is having a safe deposit locker in State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kozhikode, opposite party no.2, for the past 22 years. On 04.05.2013, the complainant approached the second opposite party to deposit valuables in the locker. The Bank Officer in charge obtained his signature in the register and the complainant was asked to proceed to the strong room where locker is situated. The Manager of the Bank stopped the complainant stating that he did not pay the rent of the locker. The Manager humiliated the complainant in the presence of the staffs and customers. Therefore the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Santhamma Thomas : Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 30/10/2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint filed on 03/02/2012 of complainant 1, œShri. Tiju Mathew? (now respondent No.1) and directed the opposite parties (now appellants) to pay Rs.2,12,950/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve thousand nine hundred and fifty only) along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of judgment till the realization of the whole amounts till its actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that 1st respondent purchased a Toyota Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL.03M-3006 from the 2nd respondent œShri. Harish.P.G.? (Complainant 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali: President This is an appeal filed by the first opposite party in CC.27/04 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 16, 2012 directing the first opposite party to pay Rs.33,350/- with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. Complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Mani Menon who was the original complainant. The case of the deceased complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The car of the complainant was insured with the first opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company for the period from August 29, 2002 to August 28, 2003. The car met with an accident on August 17, 2003 and was heavily damaged. Complainant has spent Rs.61784/- to repair the vehicle. The claim put forward by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that driving license of the driver was fake. Therefore deceased complainant filed the complaint before the Forum claiming the repair charges...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.575/10 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 28, 2013 allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant and his wife arranged a European Tour to the countries including Rom, Italy, Vatican and France conducted by the respondent Tour Company. Rs.50,000/- was paid on 10.3.2010 and balance amount of Rs.1,48,000/- on 13.5.2010. On the previous day of the proposed tour he was informed that they could not make the tour. Opposite party returned only Rs.1,82,000/- and retained Rs.16,000/-. Complainant filed the complaint for realizing that amount. 3. Though notice was received by the opposite party they remained absent before the Forum. Therefore complainant filed the proof affidavit which was accepted by the Forum and marked Exts.P1 and P2 and allowed the complaint. Opposite party has come u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q Barkath Ali, President This is a complaint filed by the complainantunder section16 of Consumer ProtectionAct for recoveryof Rs.45 Lakhs from the opposite partiesbeing the amountpaidby him to the opposite partiesfor the construction of the Villa and compensation.The material averments in the complaint in brief is this.The complainant entered in toanagreement for sale of plotand construction of a Villa with the opposite parties on June 18 of 2009 for a costof Rs. 25 lakhs.The agreement was to register 3 centsof land in the Guruvayoor Projectto the complainantandto construct and hand over theVilla on or before May 2010.The complainantpaid an advance amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on the date of agreementit.The 3rd opposite party on behalf of otheropposite parties executedthe registered sale deed in respect of 3cents sense ofproperty on June 19,2009 by saledeed No. 1505/2009, S.R.O, Kunnamkulam.The complainant paid Rs. 5 lakhs on September 8, 2009, Rs. 3 lakhs on May 11,2010 Rs. 7 lakhs on Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in CC.251/11 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, June 20, 2012 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.22,380/- with interest. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant had joined in a medi claim policy issued by the opposite parties, Reliance General Insurance Company. The policy amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and the premium was Rs.6,139/-. The complainant met with a motor accident on January 02, 2011 and was under going treatment in Carithas Hospital, Kottayam till January 07, 2011. The claim put forward by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that there was delay of 93 days in submitting the claim. Therefore complainant filed the complaint for recovery of Rs.22,380/- being the treatment expenses incurred by him. 3. First ...
Tag this Judgment!