Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Sorted by: old Court: kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc thiruvananthapuram Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.049 seconds)

Jun 22 2011 (TRI)

The Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jun-22-2011

..... is the real owner of the vehicle vide the sale of goods act and indian contract act. the cp act does not annihilate his rights under the civil law vide sec. 3 of the cp act. it is also pointed out that the motor vehicle act does not prohibit sale by virtue of the provisions of the sale ..... ) 1 scc 221] that the insured will not be entitled to compensation from the insurer for damage to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract with the insurer covering the risk for the damage to the vehicle. 7. the counsel for the respondent/complainant has stressed the fact that the opposite ..... no. 17 of india motor tariff. the tariff advisory committee is a statutory body and its regulations are binding and statutory in nature. the privity of contract is only between m/s friends global travels, new delhi and bajaj alliance insurance company. the complainant has no insurable interest over the vehicle. it is ..... damages through its surveyor. but the opposite party repudiated the claim by letter dated 31-05-2007 for the reason that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. the fact of the transfer of the vehicle has been intimated by the prior owner at the time of ..... of goods act and deny title to the person who has purchased the goods .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 2011 (TRI)

The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General(Aande), Kozhi ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Aug-20-2011

..... parties. it is submitted by the learned counsel that the honble supreme court has held that services rendered ??free of charge ? or under a contract of personal service would be excluded from the purview of the consumer protection act. inviting our attention to the decision of the honble supreme court in ??state of orissa vs. divisional manager,lic and another ? (1996 (8 ..... the honble national commission in the case cited has clearly stated that gpf amounts, if not paid, cannot be subject matter for adjudication under the provisions of the consumer protection act. in the instant case also we find that the said decision is very much applicable. we find that the order of the forum below is without any jurisdiction and hence ..... . the 1st opposite party contended that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties as envisaged under the consumer protection act. however the details of the provident fund account and other relevant details were also furnished by the opposite parties in their version. 4. the evidence consisted of the oral testimony .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2011 (TRI)

O. Sivanandan Vs. C.K. Kumaran

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Sep-22-2011

..... of necessary party. 7. the appellant/opposite party contended that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer under the consumer protection act. 1986. admittedly, the complainant entrusted the contract work with the opposite party in the year 2002 and the said work was completed on 10.06.2002. the appellant/opposite ..... water proof work done has nothing to do with earning of profit. the complainant availed the service of the opposite party for doing the contract work of water proofing inorder to prevent leakage of water in the complainants house. the said service availed by the complainant can not be ..... the appellant/opposite party has also undertaken the work of plastering. it is further to be noted that a1 certificate would also show that the contract of chemical leak proofing work was undertaken by the opposite party without the consent or convince of the manufacturer, roofit mix water proof plaster s ..... concluded that the complainant who availed the service of the opposite party is a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act, 1986. hence these points are found against the appellant/opposite party. 11. points 3 and 4 :- respondent/complainant availed the service of the ..... version denying the alleged deficiency in service. he took the contention that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of consumer protection act and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the manufacturer of ??roofit mix water proof plaster s.p. 506 ? that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Asian Paints Limited Vs. K.A. Abootty Haji Crescent Traders

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Oct-01-2011

..... complainant/borrower for realization of the loan amount due from him. the counsel for the appellant has also relied on section 132 of the indian contract act to support the case of the appellant that the appellant is empowered to proceed against the respondent/ complainant. it was also argued that there ..... contra evidence. thus, the forum below can be justified in finding that the complainant is a consumer coming within the ambit of the consumer protection act, 1986. 10. the forum below has directed the appellant/opposite party to return the colour world machine which was taken from the complainant for ..... complaint in cc.21/08. the appellant/opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant is not a consumer under the consumer protection act as he purchased the machine for commercial purpose. it is to be noted that the complainant has categorically averred that he purchased the colour world ..... was no deficiency of service and that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the consumer protection act. thus, the appellant/opposite party prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below and for dismissal of the complaint in cc ..... thereby the machine was repossessed by the opposite party and that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the consumer protection act, 1986. it is also contended that the opposite party entered into re-purchase agreement with the citi bank and thereby came into the shoes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2011 (TRI)

Anil Ravindran Vs. Bank of Indian, Thuravoor Branch

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Nov-14-2011

..... . according to the complainant the above cheques were also encashed but not credited in his account and when the final cheque after the execution of the contract works was sent to the bank and when the complainant approached the bank to collect the balance outstanding he was told that his account has become non ..... account. it is the case that as per the power of attorney executed in favour of the opposite party bank, the cochin port trust for whom contracts works were executed by the complainant were to forward the cheques to the opposite party bank and the opposite party bank is to get it encashed ..... credited the account would not have become npa. the bank in the meantime proceeded against him under the sarfeasi act. the matter is now pending before the debt recovery tribunal (drt). the complaint is filed seeking compensation. 3. in cc.5/10 the matter in dispute ..... performing assets (npa) from 31.3.99. on application filed under the right to information act the complainant came to know that the above cheques were infact encashed by the opposite party bank but not credited in the cash credit account. if so ..... received by him on 2.8.2008 in response to his application under the right to information act. subsequently he moved the payee bank and as per ext.a4 letter in response to the petition under the rti act he came to know that the above cheques were encashed by the bank and that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2011 (TRI)

Sheela and Others Vs. Lic of India, Rep. by the Zonal Manager and Othe ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Nov-24-2011

..... committee rejected the complaint and the same was communicated on 11.12.2004. it is contended that the assured was an educated man capable of forming a contract. the opposite parties are not liable to honour such a claim. 8. the 5th opposite party /development officer has filed separate version denying the allegations in ..... recommending lives for insurance. in the letter issued by the divisional manager dtd. 20.1.2005, it has been held that the development officer has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the corporation. it is pointed out that he should have made all reasonable enquiries with regard to the ..... accepting the proposal. 7. the l.i.c. is entitled to repudiate the claim and declare the policy void as per section 45 of the insurance act, 1932. the complainant had taken up the matter with divisional manager, chennai and the matter was considered by the claim review committee consisting of a retired ..... caused to him on 6.3.2002. the assured died by drowning due to an accident. 3. the complainants are in very poor circumstances. the act of the opposite parties repudiating the claim is illegal. it is further alleged that the opposite parties 5 and 6/development officer and agent respectively are the ..... in the form for joining in the policy. the 6th opposite party/agent was fully aware of the above fact. he brought a proposal form and acting as the agent of the l.i.c. enquired and collected the details and asked the deceased to put his signatures where ??x marks are put .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 2011 (TRI)

The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B.A. Abdulla Kunhi and An ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Nov-26-2011

..... the vehicle after 2 weeks and thereafter the 2nd opposite party absconded along with the vehicle. we find that there is no scope for treating the above transaction as a contract as there is no consideration and hence the contention that on claim arose out of contractual liability cannot be sustained. 8. as per ext.b3 policy the company has undertaken ..... to indemnify the insurer against loss or damage of the vehicle by burglary, house breaking or theft etc. and by malicious act vide section 1(vii) of policy. evidently the act that involved comes within the amplitude of ??malicious act ? . hence the above contention of the appellant is liable to be rejected . it is seen from ext.a9 rc book that vehicle ..... the insured against loss or damage of the vehicle by burglary, house breaking or theft, by accidental external means and by malicious acts etc. the action of 2nd opposite party in the instant case is nothing but a malicious act and hence it was held that the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the complainant. 6. the counsel for the appellants has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 2011 (TRI)

Baburajan P.M., Managing Director and Others Vs. M.T. James, Director, ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Dec-29-2011

..... opposite parties to redress the grievances of the complainant, but they have not promptly discharged their liability to the complainant. instead of discharging their contractional application, opposite parties are targeting each other for the generator set for escaping from their legal liabilities. another question of law raised by the ..... 1st opposite party that the hotel is a limited company established under the companies act and the complainant is an individual and he is not anyway have the legal right to file this complaint on behalf of the complainant. ..... to the fault of the machine or due to these opposite parties. the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant, since no act of these opposite parties have caused any trouble or mental agony, or financial loss or hardship to the complainant. the opposite parties have done ..... received by the 1st opposite party directly from the hotel of the complainant and the complainant is a consumer as defined in the consumer protection act. the opposite parties claim regarding sound level etc. is false. the complainant denies the allegation of mishandling of the generator set. the forum ..... to the fault of the machine or due to these opposite parties. the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant, since no acts of these opposite parties have caused any trouble or mental agony, or financial loss or hardship to the complainant. there is no deficiency of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Singsons Electronics (Defunt) Represented by Its Ex-manager D. Su ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Dec-30-2011

..... contract between the opposite party and the complainant in the matter. hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. the forum below heard both parties and perused the entire ..... endorsement in the bill is as per the scheme envisaged and announced by the manufacturer. the opposite party who stands in the capacity of agent is not liable for the acts of the principal, that it was a direct transaction between the consumer and the manufacturer and the cheque was also issued by the manufacturer and the opposite party is in ..... any alleged deficiency in service, that complainant failed to proceed against additional opposite parties who had drawn and issue cheque to the complainant under sec. 138 of the negotiable instruments acts or by filing civil suit, that complainant has no cause of action for the dishonor of the cheque as against opposite party, that there is no privity of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Singsons Electronics (Defunt) Represented by Its Ex-manager D. Su ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Dec-30-2011

..... misleading advertisement the aggrieved consumer. taking into consideration of the totality of circumstance the forum below fixed liability against all opposite parties as per the settled position of law of contract all are jointly and severally liable for the negligence and carelessness done by any of the parties. 6. the opposite party prefers this appeal under this direction it argued on ..... contract between the opposite party and the complainant in the matter. hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. the forum below heard both parties and perused the entire ..... endorsement in the bill is as per the scheme envisaged and announced by the manufacturer. the opposite party who stands in the capacity of agent is not liable for the acts of the principal, that it was a direct transaction between the consumer and the manufacturer and the cheque was also issued by the manufacturer and the opposite party is in ..... any alleged deficiency in service, that complainant failed to proceed against additional opposite parties who had drawn and issue cheque to the complainant under sec. 138 of the negotiable instruments acts or by filing civil suit, that complainant has no cause of action for the dishonor of the cheque as against opposite party, that there is no privity of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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