Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
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!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
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!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
V.V. Jose : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in CC.No.490/08 dated 03.01.2013 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The case of the complainant is as follows. Complainant purchased a Kissan Vikas Pathra from the respondent on 27.04.2002 with a promise of doubling the amount after 5 years. The respondents denied payment in double after the promised 5 years and told that the period of maturity was changed to 8 years for doubling the amount. The reduction of interest and extension of maturity period was not intimated to the complainant and hence this complaint. 2. The version filed by the respondents admitted the purchase of Kissan Vikas Pathra on 27.04.02 and issued the Certificate No.10906. The amount will be doubled only on 27.12.09 as the revised maturity fixed by the Government of India with effect from 01.03.2002. This was noted in the reverse page of the Kissan Vikas Pathra by a rubber stamp. As per Section 11 of Savings Certificate Act 1959 no suit or legal procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.237/2013 in the CDRF, Thrissur. His complaint was rejected by the Consumer Forum at the stage of admission holding that the complaint was barred by limitation in view of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The allegations on which the complaint was founded in brief were the following. The complainant was the owner of Tata Sumo Car bearing Reg.No.KL-8-KA-1809 and the vehicle was insured with the second opposite party. On 25.03.2002 three unidentified persons hired the car saying that they were going to Kottayam Medical College. One Suresh Babu, was the driver of the vehicle and the vehicle was hired from the taxi stand near the KSRTC bus stand, Thrissur. It appears that nothing was heard of the vehicle and the driver subsequently and hence the brother of the driver namely one Mohanan approached the Thrissur East Police Station and lodged complaint. Based on his complaint Crime No.125/2002 was regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
A. Radha, Member Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.463/11 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of opposite party cable service and the subscription was paid on annual basis. The service has to be provided till 30th September 2011. While so, the cable service was stopped on 10th July 2011 and was not rectified even on several requests made by the complainant. The channels were provided by Analog Mode. The complaint is filed to revive the cable T.V connection and for other reliefs. 3. The opposite parties admitted the stoppage of transmission to the complainants residence. The reason for stoppage was due to the conversion of analog mode of transmission to digitalized mode. The digitalization of cable transmission was in lieu of the direction by the TRAI. It is stated that the complainant had not furnished the address proof and ID proof as pre-requisites for the installation of set top box, free...
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 in CC 415/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated July 31, 2013. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for getting admission to +1 regular course for his son. On the instruction of the 1st opposite party, 2nd opposite party collected Rs.5,000/- from the complainant towards admission charge. After completing the admission when enquired it was found out that it is not a regular course, but a parallel course. Therefore complainant claimed refund of Rs.5,000/- paid by him at the time of admission, but 2nd opposite party refused and stated that complainant is entitled to the refund of caution deposit of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
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!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
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!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
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!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
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!