Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc thiruvananthapuram Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.023 seconds)

Feb 28 2014 (TRI)

K. Pramodkumar, Chartered Engineer and Valuer, Proprietor of M/S. Desi ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Feb-28-2014

..... he has received rs.5,50,000/- from the complainant. the opposite party contended that he had completed the entire work. but the complainant examined pws 2 and 3 who mediated the matter. it is proved by their evidence that the opposite party did not complete the work and that in their presence pw4 the building consultant estimated the cost of ..... opposite party had completed the work by spending rs.6,81,000/-. the complainant did not pay the balance amount to him. it is not correct to say that any mediation took place. opposite party never agreed to pay rs.3,45,476/- to the complainant. 4. pws 1 to 4 were examined and exts.a1 to a16 were marked on ..... ,50,000/-. in the presence of mediators opposite party agreed to pay rs.3,04,109/- to the complainant which he failed to do. therefore complainant filed the complaint for refund of that amount. 3. the opposite ..... a total amount of rs.6,50,000/-. complainant paid total amount of rs.5,50,000/- but the opposite party did not complete the work within the stipulated period. mediators interfered and fixed the cost of the work done by the opposite party as rs.3,45,476/-. second complainant was compelled to complete the work by spending rs.2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2014 (TRI)

G. Bhagavat Singh Vs. K.L. Francis and Another

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Apr-08-2014

..... . on july 16, 2011 the first opposite party requested to release rs.2 lakhs, but the complainant paid only rs.20,000/-. thereafter opposite parties stopped the work. on the mediation of sub inspector of police, ernakulam north police station, the matter was settled, the work done by the opposite parties is quantified as rs.94,420/- and the opposite parties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2014 (TRI)

G.P. Maheswari Vs. Skyline Builders, Thiruvananthapuram

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Mar-21-2014

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 complainant accepted from the opposite parties an interest free refundable deposit of rs.7, 00,000/-. based on the agreement and power of attorney the opposite parties constructed a multi storied residential apartment complex in the property and named it as skyline fairmont apartments?. there are 38 residential apartments and that much number of covered car parking area in the complex. as per the agreement dated 10.11.2004 and power of attorney the complainant authorized the opposite parties to sell .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2014 (TRI)

The Manager, Muthoot FIn Corp Ltd, Muttam, Muttam P.O, Thodupuzha, Idu ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jan-27-2014

p.q. barkath ali : president this is an appeal filed by the opposite party in cc 13/2013 challenging the order of the forum dated feb 28, 2013 directing the opposite party to return to release to the complainant pledged gold ornaments and to pay compensation of rs.2,000/- and a cost of rs.1000/- with interest. 2. the case of the respondent/complainant as detailed in the complaint before the forum in brief is this: the complainant is an aged lady. she had an aide by name sasidharan k.k. about one and a half years back she sustained fracture of her shoulder bone. through the said sasidharan she pledged her two gold bangles weighing 8 grams each with the opposite party and took rs.16,000/- for each bangle for treatment expenses. complainant was made a nominee and the token was kept by sri. sasidharan. after a few months sasidharan absconded. on knowing about the fact that sasidharn pledged the gold bangles with the opposite party, she approached them and they promised that if the complainant pays rs.43,919/- they will return the bangles. therefore she paid that amount on 27/09/2012 but the opposite party did not return the gold bangle. therefore she filed the complaint before the forum for getting back those ornaments. 3. the appellant/ opposite party is m/s muthoot fin corp, muttam, idukki district represented by its branch manager. he in his version contented before the forum that complainant did not produced the authorization and the token and therefore opposite party was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2014 (TRI)

The Postmaster, Irinjalakuda Head Office Vs. C.V. John

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Apr-30-2014

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 proceedings shall lie against any officer of government of indian in respect of anything done in good faith. the honble national commission also has held that even if the old rate and date of maturity value is not corrected the complainant is eligible only for revised maturity value. here in this case a clear rubber stamp impression indicating the revised maturity period. hence sought for a dismissal. evidence consist only ext.p1 the kissan vikas pathra. 3. according to the forum complainant has .....

Tag this Judgment!


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