Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc thiruvananthapuram Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.015 seconds)

Oct 30 2010 (TRI)

P.K. Baby, S/O Kuriakose Vs. Prince

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Oct-30-2010

..... but to pw5 appears totally false as none of the witnesses have got such a case. dr. perman who allegedly examined the cow at the instance of the mediators was not examined. the opposite party has not taken any steps in this regard. the certificate of examination by dr. preman was also not produced. evidently, the ..... cow had delivered about 10 to 15 days earlier. he has stated that the person who sold the cow was also called at the police station and that the mediators had directed the above person to pay rs. 3,000/- to biju (pw5). opw2, manoj is the person who sold the cow to the opposite party. ..... sold to pw5). according to him at the time of purchase the cow had the symptoms of advanced pregnancy and was about to deliver. he has admitted the mediation talks that took place in the police station. he has stated that dr. preman had examined the cow in the presence of himself and others. according to ..... told him that the cow did not deliver and that it is having fibrosis. he was also present at the police station. at the instance of the mediators the cow was examined by dr. preman. he was also present when the doctor examined the cow and the doctor after examination told that the cow has not ..... complainant the opposite party and manoj, who sold the cow to the opposite party went to the pulpally police station and that there was a mediation talk involving the president of the bock panchayath. the cow was also examined by the veterinary surgeon of padichira hospital, on the suggestion of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2010 (TRI)

Gopidasan Vs. Ramakrishnan

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Sep-27-2010

..... addition. while removing the soil the rings stipped down and settled on the sloppy rock. the complainant became violent and directed the opposite party to leave the place. thereafter, a mediation was conducted and complainant agreed to pay rs.6,000/- for completing the work. but the complainant did not allow him to complete the work. 4. the evidence adduced consisted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 2010 (TRI)

T. Moidu Vs. Alambath Meethal Fousiya and Another

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jun-28-2010

..... grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. he relied on the testimony of pw1 and argued for the position that the appellant/second opposite party acted as a mediator and he had no role in executing the construction work. it is further submitted that the appellant/second opposite party did not receive any consideration from the complainant and so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2010 (TRI)

T.C. Mathai R/by a Power of Attorney- Major.K. Mathews and Another Vs. ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Aug-12-2010

justice shri.k.r. udayabhanu : president as per the order of the national commission in first appeal-297/02, the matter has been remitted back to the state commission for deciding the limited issue with regard to the payment of the balance amount of rs.4.25.lakhs by the respondents and interest if any payable thereon to the complainants and also the joint and several liabilities of the respondents. this commission as per order dated:11/4/2008 had allowed the op in part directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of rs.4.25.lakhs and rs.1.25 lakhs as evidenced by ext.p12 cheque and ext.p13 promissory note (remembered as ext.p13 and p14) and directed that the complainants would be entitled to realize the amounts from the assets of the deceased 1st opposite party vested with the 2nd opposite party if any and also held that the complainants will be entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint on rs.1.25.lakhs. the claim with respect to the other sum of rs.4.25lakhs was negatived as the condition mentioned in ext.p14 (remembered as ext.p15) agreement that soon after the payment of the final instalment of rs.4.25lakhs the property shall be re-transferred to the 1st opposite party has not been undertaken to be fulfilled. it was in the absence of such an undertaking or explanation with respect to the above clause in the agreement that the above claim was disallowed. the national commission has noted that this commission has upheld the case of the complainants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2010 (TRI)

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd; Chemmattumattom Junction, ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Mar-29-2010

justice shri.k.r.udayabhanu: president the appellant is the opposite party/insurance company in cc.13/08 in the file of cdrf, idukki under orders to pay a sum of rs.31,205/- and rs.2000/- as costs. 2. it is the case of the complainant that his tata 909 ex lorry met with an accident at madurai on 18.5.05 and the vehicle sustained severe damages. the opposite party repudiated the claim. 3. the opposite party has filed version pointing out that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was driven by one mani who was having only license to drive light motor vehicles. the vehicle involved is a medium goods vehicle. the driver was not holding any effective driving license to drive the particular vehicle. hence the claim was repudiated. 4. the evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of pws 1 and 2, p1 to p5 and exts.r1 to r6 5. i find that the forum has held that the opposite party has not proved that the driver was not a duly licensed driver. the forum has also relied on the decision of the high court of kerala in purushothaman k.m vs. remesh prabhu and ors. 2008 (4) khc 243. i find that it is an admitted case in the complaint itself that the driver at the time of the accident was one mani. the opposite parties have produced ext.r2 the photocopy of the license of the above mani. ext.r2 shows that the driver is only empowered to drive light motor vehicles. he is not empowered to drive medium goods vehicles. evidently, the vehicle involved was a commercial one. i find that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 2010 (TRI)

The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others V ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Oct-22-2010

shri. m.v. viswanathan: judicial member the appeal preferred from the order dated 30th march 2009 of the cdrf, alappuzha in cc no. 27/2008. 2.the appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in cc no. 27/2008 on the file of cdrf, alappuzha. the above complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant with respect to the insured vehicle (mercedes benz car) bearing reg. no. kl 5 t 5555. the complainant claimed a sum of rs. 13,97,654.25 towards the repair charge including labour charge and cost of spare parts with respect to the insured vehicle, which was damaged in a road traffic accident. the complainant has also claimed compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 3.the opposite parties entered appearance before the forum below and filed version denying the alleged deficiency of service. they justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. they also contended that the forum below is not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in cc no. 27/08 as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the cdrf, alappuzha. it is also contended that the complainant suppressed and misrepresented material facts regarding the place of accident and the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident; that the complainant filed a claim form stating false case regarding the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2010 (TRI)

Manager, Central Bank of India, Mavelloor Branch and Others Vs. Selvar ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jul-20-2010

common judgment sri.m.v.viswanathan,judicial member the above 3 appeals are preferred from the order dated 1st february 2007 passed by cdrf alappuzha in op.a.67/2003. the complaint therein was filed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service on their part in handling cheque no.bc 637/102 which was presented by the complainant for encashment before the first opposite party, cherthala co-operative urban bank ltd. the second opposite party lord krishna bank ltd; cherthala was the collecting bank of the first opposite party bank. the aforesaid cheque was drawn by p.c.binu as drawer and that the third opposite party, central bank of india, mavelloor branh is the drawee bank. the complainant sri.selvaraj did not get the said cheque encashed. he also did not get the said cheque returned. the complainant alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in handling the aforesaid cheque which was presented before the first opposite party/bank for encashment on 9.10.02. thus, the complainant claimed a sum of rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for the financial loss mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him. 2. the first opposite party, the manager, cherthala co-operative urban bank ltd, filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. it was contended that the cheque presented on 9.10.02 was forwarded for collection through the second opposite party, lord krishna bank ltd. and that the first opposite .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2010 (TRI)

M/S.impex Elias Reptd. by Ots Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Veroni.X. ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jul-16-2010

sri.m.k.abdulla sona,member this appeal prefers from the order passed by cdrf, ernakulam in op.no.273/04 dated 17th june 2005. this case related with a purchase of a car ultima xr tyres for rs.10,400/-. the complainant is the purchaser of the above said tyres and opposite party is the dealer of the above mentioned tyres. the appellants are the complainant who prefers this order from the dismissal of the complaint by the forum below. according to the complainant, the tyres and tools were fitted to the vehicle that there was a sound humming while the vehicle was in motion. the opposite party said that the above sound will stop after the vehicle runs above 500 kms. the technicians of honda city confirmed that the tyres were not fit for the said car. the same opinion was given bythe representatives of jk tyres. the complainant therefore purchased 4 other tyres and tubes from another party. while this petition to give a direction to the opposite party to take back the tyres and tools and refund rs.7,200/- with interest at the rate of 18% and costs. 2. the opposite party entered appearance and filed a version contending as follows: the complaint is not maintainable, the purchase of the tyres and tubes were for commercial purpose and that the complainant is not a consumer under the consumer protection act. ultima xr tyres were sold on the specific demand made by the complainant. the opposite party had not mislead the complainant. the opposite party sold the tyres demanded by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 2010 (TRI)

Dr. Fakrudheen, (Asst. Surgeon, Taluk Hospital, Nilambur) Vs. Jamsheed ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jul-30-2010

justice shri. k.r. udayabhanu: president the appellant is the opposite party in op no. 170/2000 in the file of cdrf, malappuram. the appellant is under orders to pay a sum of rs. 25,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint and rs. 15,000/- as expenses incurred for treatment and rs. 2,000/- as costs. 2. the complaint has been filed by the guardian/father on behalf of his minor son then aged 9 years claiming compensation against the opposite party doctor alleging negligence in treating the boy who had sustained a fracture on the left forearm while playing on the school ground on 09-03-1999. immediately he was taken to the house of the opposite party who directed x-ray to be taken and after examining the x-ray pop cast was applied from the open veranda of his house in a haphazard manner with the aid of an errand boy. medicines were also prescribed. on the next day the boy experienced severe pain on the left wrist portion and was rushed to the opposite party who again prescribed certain medicines. on 12-03-1999 he felt excruciating pain and was unable to flex the fingers on account of the inflammation. he was again taken to the doctor who again prescribed medicines. on 13-03-1999 some erruptions/ruptures were noticed at the injury site. he was again taken to the doctor who made a small opening on the pop cast and sent him home. the same ordeal repeated on 14-03-1999 also. the opposite party received rs. 400/- towards fee. on 16-03-1999 the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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