Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc thiruvananthapuram Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.021 seconds)

Feb 08 2012 (TRI)

District Registrar, Registrar Office and Another Vs. K.K. Velappakutty

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Feb-08-2012

justice shri. k.r. udayabhanu : president the appellants are the opposite parties/the district registrar and sub registrar respectively in op.638/01 who are under orders to pay a sum of rs.5000/- as compensation and rs.500/- as costs. 2. it is the case of the complainant that he had executed a purchase deed of 4 cents of property before the 2nd opposite party vide registration 1232/01. the original registered document was not handed over to him within the stipulated period. he wanted the document to raise funds for the marriage of his niece by availing loan from the district co-operative bank. he could not effect the mutation or remit the land tax. he has sought for a compensation of rs.25,000/-. 3. the 1st opposite party/district registrar remained exparte. 4. the 2nd opposite party is filed version mentioning that he was of opinion that the property was under valued and hence the document has been sent to the district registrar as per order dated:25.5.2001 and that as per section 45(b)(1) of the statute the document has to be sent to the district registrar. 5. the evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of pw1, exts.p1 and p2 and r1. 6. the forum has noted that under section 45(b)(1) of the kerala stamp act only the copy of the document need be forwarded to the district registrar and hence there is no justification for not returning the original document to the executant. the only contention in the appeal is that the same has been done in good faith and that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2012 (TRI)

K. Ramesh and Another Vs. M/S Sai Homes and Resorts and Others

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Aug-02-2012

sri.k.chandradas nadar : judicial member these are complaints filed under section 17 of the consumer protection act, 1986. the complainants are brothers. they were working abroad. the identical allegations in these complaints after amendment are that the 1st opposite party represented by the 2nd opposite party is specialised in construction of flats and condominiums. the 3rd opposite party is the wife of the 2nd opposite party and is the land owner of the property on which the condominiums were proposed to be constructed. when the complainants came to india in march 1994 the 2nd opposite party approached them with the brochure, sketch etc of the flats and condominiums they were constructing in different places in south india. the complainants agreed to purchase two condominiums each from those proposed to be constructed in ooty (ootacamund). each of the complainants paid a total amount of rs.10,50,000/- towards price of the condominiums and the last payment was made on 6.11.95. an articles of agreement was executed between the parties on 29.2.96 incorporating the terms and conditions of the purchase. a sale deed was executed by the 3rd opposite party in respect of the undivided and indivisible fractional property right on 1.8.96 in favour of the complainants. the sale deed was executed at the sub registrars office at kottaram in kanyakumari district in the complainants absence. two condominiums each were agreed to be constructed on the said property. an agreement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2012 (TRI)

The Proprietor, Mtm Hospital, Madan Nada and Another Vs. A. Jayakumari ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jan-24-2012

justice sri. k.r. udayabhanu : president the appellants are the opposite parties the hospital and the doctor respectively who are under orders to pay compensation of rs.4,00,000/- and cost of rs.10000/- with interest at 12% in op.304/04 in the file of cdrf, kollam. 2. the case of the complainants/wife and husband is that the 1st complainant aged 42 and having 2 children consulted the 2nd opposite party doctor who is also the family doctor on 16.7.02 as outpatient she felt weakness of the body and that he advised her to get admitted on the following day ie on 17.7.02.. on the above date she was admitted as inpatient and after blood test etc it was advised to arrange o+ve blood for transfusion. on the next day that is on 18.7.02 a close relative of the 1st complainant one sunil with the same blood group donated blood. at about 11am blood transfusion started under the supervision of the 2nd opposite party. after sometime the patient had shivering and headache. the sister of the complainant informed the same to the duty doctor and the transfusion was stopped. after one or 2 hours transfusion was again started. thereafter also the complainant had shivering and headache. again the transfusion was stopped at about 2pm . thereafter she felt that her left eye sight is diminishing and the same was communicated to the 2nd opposite party. the doctor told that it is only due to weakness of the body and lack of blood. before 5pm again the blood transfusion was started and again she had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2012 (TRI)

The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Gloria Benil

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Mar-08-2012

justice shri.k.r.udayabhanu : presidentthe appellants are the opposite parties /new india assurance company ltd., in c.c. 245/10 in the file of cdrf, idukki. the appellants are under orders to pay a sum of rs. 1,00,285/- with interest at 12% and cost of rs. 2,000/- it is the case of the complainant that she purchased the wagon r car from one krishnamoorthy on 4.12.2009. from the next day itself she had applied to the r.t.o. irinjalakuda for transferring the r.c. in her name. the change of ownership was recorded and the r.c. returned only on 08.01.2010 . on 26.12.2009 the vehicle while in motion skidded and overturned. the vehicle was totally damaged. for repairs a sum of rs. 1,80,668/- is required. he has claimed the same with interest as well as compensation of rs. 20,000/- it is denied by the opposite parties that the transfer of the vehicle was intimated as required by law and the policy got transferred in the name of the complainant. it is also pointed out that the surveyor has reported that the actual loss comes to rs. 1,00,285/- only. the evidence adduced consisted of exts.p1 to p6, r1 and r2. the accident as such was not disputed. ext. p3 is the g.d. entry of ponkunnam police station dated 26.12.2009 in this regard. ext. p6 is the estimate of repairs as stated by the complainant. ext. p4 is the repudiation letter. ext. p1 is the copy of the r.c. of the vehicle which would show that the r.c. was transferred in the name of the complainant with effect from 18.12.2009. ext .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2012 (TRI)

The Managing Director, Tata Motors, Bombay and Another Vs. Sri.V.A.Ani ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Apr-20-2012

justice sri.k.r.udayabhanu : president the appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 the manufacturer and dealer respectively in cc 126/07 in the file of cdrf, alleppey. the appellants are under orders to replace the complainants vehicle with a brand new model or if the similar brand is not available to refund the cost of the car and also to pay 15000/- as compensation. 2. the case of the complainant is that the tata safari dicor lx vehicle purchased by him on 15.9.06 was having so many defects ie, the remote/central locking not functioning properly, ac fan not working properly, sun control film not properly fixed, plat form mat was not found , fog lamp complaint, rear seat damaged, a bent on the rear portion of the body, park light not properly working , broken net below the rear seat and emblem on rear portion damaged. the car was delivered at the residence of the complainant on 16.9.06. besides the leather seat cover which was offered was also not found. only the park lights were repaired by the 2nd opposite party. the rest of the complaints remained unattended. later an unusual sound developed on the rear side of the car. all requests for repairs were turned futile. complainant issued a lawyer notice on 24.10.06 for which a reply has been received containing untenable contentions. the defects are still persisting. it was the 3rd opposite party is a neighbor who persuaded the complainant to purchase the above car. the complainant has sought for replacement of the car .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2012 (TRI)

The Assistant Engineer Section Office, Electrical Section, Kuthiathodu ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Jul-31-2012

smt. a. radha : member challenging the sustainability of the order passed by the cdrf, alappuzha in cc no.37/2008 the opposite parties filed this appeal. 2. the case of the complainant is that the complainant was having consumer no.935 and he was issued with a demand notice of rs.26,553/- alleging unauthorized load fixed charge on 7.03.07. the opposite parties on the alleged inspection report issued a notice demanding rs.1,350/- which was paid by the complainant. the complainant was constrained to remit the amount on 16.03.2007 on protest in order to avoid disconnection of the electric connection. the allegation of the opposite party was that the complainant was using unauthorized extension from the service connection through underground cable to the prawn peeling shed. the complainant had two connections one is domestic and other one is commercial. the bill was issued to the domestic connection as he was using the electric connection illegally. the complainant was issued a notice dated: 11.02.2008 demanding rs.26,553/- stating that it is the penalization bill as per the audit report regarding unauthorized extension from the service connection using underground cable during the period from 08/2006 to 02/2008. it is his very case that the notice was illegal and unsustainable. hence filed the complaint to quash the notice issued by the opposite parties and also to repay the amount paid as per notice dated: 7.03.2007 with 12% interest. the complainant also prayed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2012 (TRI)

Dr. S. Prakash Nayar, Orthopaedic Surgeon and Others Vs. Arathi and Ot ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Oct-20-2012

shri. k.chandradas nadar, judicial member these appeals are directed against the order of the cdrf, palakkad in cc.128/05 dated 22.10.2010. appeal 686/10 is filed by the 1st opposite party, appeal 76/11 is filed by the 2nd opposite party and appeal 515/11 is filed by the complainant. the complainant was a minor girl aged 7 years represented by her father as the guardian. she approached the forum alleging medical negligence against the opposite parties. it is alleged that the complainant suffered a fall from the wardrobe step having a height of about 3 feet, on 16.4.2005 and sustained fracture of the left fore arm. she was immediately brought to the 2nd opposite party hospital represented by the managing director and was admitted there. she was attended by the 1st opposite party, the doctor attached to the 2nd opposite party. the complainant was taken to the operation theatre and plaster cast was applied for the reason that she had sustained fracture shaft of ulna. by night complainant was not able to move her left fingers, her hand became slightly bluish in colour and the warmth of the left arm was minimum. on 17.4.05 the 1st opposite party doctor was not available. hence the duty doctor examined the complainant and advised some exercises. on the next day 1st opposite party cut and removed part of the plaster cast re-applied plaster cast and discharged the patient with advice to consult on 15th day. on 19.4.05 and 20.4.05 the fingers of the complainant developed swelling. on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 2012 (TRI)

Ramco Industries Ltd; Reptd. by ManagIn Director Sales Depot Vs. Sr.Ro ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided on : Nov-02-2012

justice shri p.q barkath ali, president this revision petition is filed against the order of the consumer disputes redressal forum, thrissur in ia.647/06 in op.677/03 dated 21.6.12. 2. revision petitioner is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in the op before the forum. complaint is filed alleging defect of asbestos sheets supplied to complainant school by the revision petitioner. there were two commission reports. revision petitioner filed the petition to set aside the commission reports which was dismissed by the district forum by the impugned order. the revision petitioner wanted to take out an expert commissioner to examine the alleged manufacturing defect of the asbestos sheets. the district forum has observed that the application filed by the appellant to appoint an expert commissioner shall be considered later at the time of evidence. we find no material irregularity in the said order. consequently we find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. at the time of taking evidence if the district forum feels that an expert commissioner has to be issued the forum is free to do so. with the above observation, revision petition is dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!


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