Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
A. Radha : Member Aggrieved by the Order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in C.C.No.312/2005 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The Forum Below allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings. 2. Complainant is the father of deceased who insured his life with the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. The 1st premium remitted on 28/03/2002 till his death ie. on 31/03/2004. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the deceased withheld the correct information regarding health condition and had suppressed the motor vehicle accident occurred on 26/08/2001 and the subsequent treatment taken by the complainant till 07/09/2001. It is stated in the complaint that the entries in the proposal form were filled by the agent of the opposite party after obtaining the signature of the life assured in the proposal form. It is also stated in the complaint that the prior accident and the treat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member This is a complaint filed Under Section 17 Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party, Apple A Day Properties Pvt.Ltd represented by its Managing Director is a builder. The allegations in the complaint are that, believing the promises and assurances in the advertisements and also the personal promises and assurances of the Managing Director of the opposite party, the complainants booked apartment nos.D135 and D 137 in the Apple Suite Project of the opposite party. The complainants entered into agreement with the opposite party for purchasing the said flats and authorizing the opposite parties to effect construction on their behalf. Till the date of complaint the complainants had paid an amount of Rs.13,22,689/- towards the value of the apartments and the undivided share in the property. The opposite party assured that the apartments would be completed and handed over to the complainants on or before 30.03.2010. The payments were made believing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party in C.C.No.90/2012 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The respondents are the complainant and 2nd opposite party. The Forum Below directed the 1st opposite party to refund Rs.15,887/- along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings. 2. The complainant took a policy from the 1st opposite party induced by the 2nd opposite party by remitting Rs.25,000/-. It was not a single premium policy and after remitting the amount the complainant realised that he had to pay equal premium of Rs.25,000/- each for 3 years and extended to 5 years, accordingly paid Rs.1,25,278/- within 5 years. On 14/02/2012 the opposite party closed the policy unilaterally without informing the complainant and issued a cheque for Rs.1,02,687/-. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The act of the opposite party caused loss to the complainant for an amount of Rs.65,48...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainants in CC.153/10 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 16, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2500/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by the complainant as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- Second complainant is the minor daughter of the first complainant. For admission in Nellisserri Technical High Secondary School, first complainant sent an application to the second complainant through the opposite party the Professional Couriers, Ponnani. On May 12, 2005 as the school authorities wanted one more document he sent the same on May 13, 2012. The last date for receiving the application was May 22, 2010 but the opposite party delivered the application form only on May 28, 2010. Therefore first complainant compelled to admit his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
A. Radha : Member 1. This appeal is preferred by opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.218/2011 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he availed a loan for Rs.1,00,000/- to purchase a Jeep from the opposite party and entrusted the RC book of the vehicle with two signed blank cheque leaves drawn in favour of the Union Bank. The complainant paid Rs.21,000/- by D.D and cash through 2nd opposite party whereas no receipt was issued for the same. The complainant paid another Rs.7,000/- to the 1st opposite party for which also no receipt has been issued. The complainant paid another Rs.1,71,200/- to the opposite party for which the receipt was issued. Thus a total amount of Rs.2,07,200/- has been paid to the opposite party. While so, the 1st opposite party demanded Rs.15,400/- towards the closing of the loan account. On 22/02/2011 the opposite party again demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in order to return the documents. The complainant was not able to ply the ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member This is a complaint filed Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegations in the complaint are that the complainant was the owner in possession of an extent of 40.5 cents of property comprised in survey nos.341/B, 342 and 343/1-3 of Thycaudu village. She obtained the property as per settlement deed No.735/1975.The extent of property conveyed as per the settlement deed is 36.512 cents. The first opposite party is a partnership firm and opposite parties 2 and 3 are the partners. They are engaged in the business of development of properties by constructing multi-storied buildings and apartments. On 10.11.2004 the complainant and opposite parties entered into an agreement to develop the property scheduled in the complaint by constructing multi-storied building. Pursuant to the agreement the complainant executed power of attorney in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3. As security for the prompt performance of the agreement, the 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 complainant in CC 200/2011 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 22, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by her as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant is having a share trading account with 1st opposite party M/S. JRG Securities Limited, Kochi has account number KTRN 4009 dated 11/7/2006. The above account was operated through the 2nd opposite party in Palakkad who is the franchisee of the 1st opposite party when the complainant left for Bangalore in September 2006, the 2nd opposite party was given Power of Attorney to deal with the shares of the complainant. When the complainant received a final summary dated 7/8/09 from the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party it has came to know that 1000 shares of M/S.Bellary Steels and Alloy which were held by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Santhamma Thomas : Member Aggrieved by the order in CC No.80/2012 on the file of District Forum, Idukki, the Respondents in the Lower Forum œThe Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board? the 1st Appellant, œThe Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB? the 2nd Appellant and K.R.Dileep, Sub Engineer, KSEB? the 3rd Appellant (hereinafter together shall be referred as Appellants) preferred this appeal against order dated 27th day of August, 2012 against complainant in the Lower Forum œSiva Sankaran Nair? the respondent. 2. The respondent being a consumer of the appellants under consumer No. 1462 and the appellants are used to issuing spot bill for the respondent. The respondent had a faulty meter on which an average bill of 66 units was issued on recurring base and the respondent made sure that he was not using 66 units. Every time the respondent had to end up paying Rs.102/- based on the 66 units. On multiple requests in changing the faulty meter the appellants dir...
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 2 and 3 in OP.141/12 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, February 12, 2013 directing opposite parties 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant Rs.7.lakhs being the insurance policy amount and a cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is the wife and legal heir of deceased Radhakrishnan. He was a teacher in B.M.A.J.B School , Palakkad. On February 25, 2009 he was admitted in District Hospital, Palakkad due to snake bite. From there he was taken to Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur. He died on 28.02.2009. First opposite party, the State of Kerala is represented by District Collector, Palakkad who introduced an insurance scheme of State Government Employees and Teachers including part time-contingent employees. Deceased Radhakrishnan paid Rs.50/...
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 OP.408/03 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 31, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is the proprietor of School or Arts, Thrissur. He has electric connection with consumer No.880. Respondents are Thrissur Corporation. Respondents issued a bill dated, April 01, 2003 to pay Rs.23,798/- as arrears of electricity charges up to January 2001. Earlier, the respondents issued a bill dated, October 24, 2000 for Rs.40,190/- for the period up to September 2000. Challenging that bill complainant filed OP.1187/2000 before the Forum. The Forum by order dated, September 27, 2001 directed the respondents to test the current meter and refix the current charge. But without complying that order respondents issued present bill E...
Tag this Judgment!