Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc thiruvananthapuram Page 10 of about 1,664 results (0.164 seconds)

Feb 21 2014 (TRI)

The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellants were the opposite parties in CC.No.193/2011 in the CDRF, Ernakulam. The respondent was the sole complainant. He was a consumer of electricity supplied by the opposite parties under domestic tariff. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant owned a residential building and it was rented out for residential purpose. While so, the anti power theft squad of the first opposite party conducted inspection of the premises on 20.08.2007. Consequently the opposite parties issued penal bill for Rs.39,995/- alleging that the complainants premises was being used as a hostel, instead of domestic purpose. Aggrieved by the penal bill the complainant filed appeal before Deputy Chief Engineer, Perumbavoor. He forwarded the appeal to the second opposite party and he confirmed the penal bill issued. The opposite parties also changed the tariff to LT VII A. Against the said order appeal was preferred before the Deputy Chief Engineer by depositing 5...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2014 (TRI)

The Senior Manager (Commercial), Air India (National Aviation Company) ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC 124/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated January 12, 2012 directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation and a cost of Rs.2000/-. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant availed the services of opposite parties by booking tickets to Srinagar with his family consisting of four members through opposite parties authorized agent M/s.PL World ways through internet Sri.Madhu Kayaratt, Manager, collected an amount of Rs.1,87,229/- and delivered the tickets at the complainants house at Chittur Road, Palakkad on 24/5/2010. The trip was scheduled as Coimbatore-Delhi, Delhi-Srinagar and Srinagar “ Delhi in the opposite party Airlines and Delhi “ Coimbatore via spice jet. While returning from Srinagar to Delhi, at Srinagar Airport there was ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2014 (TRI)

Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sabil Moosakutty and Anothe ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Santhamma Thomas : Member Aggrieved by the order in CC No.254/2010 on the file of District Forum, Kannur, the opposite party œBajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.?(hereinafter referred as Appellants) preferred this appeal against order dated 29th day of March, 2012. 2. Brief facts the complainant in Lower Forum Shri. Sabil Moosakutty (hereinafter referred to as 1st respondent) contended that as induced by 2nd respondent (Shri. Vikas Babu), he deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- each on 18/03/2007, 28/03/2008 and 12.05.2009 with Appellant based on an offer of high dividend and interest over the deposit amount and promised he can withdraw as and when he wishes. Later on approaching the appellant and 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent understood there will be deducting of huge amount as service charge from his deposit and also expressed unwillingness in allowing the 1st respondent withdrawing his amount. 1st respondent after his unsuccessful several attempts in getting his money ba...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2014 (TRI)

The Managing Director, Sreedhareeyam Ayurvedic, Medicine (P)ltd, Naluk ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellants were respectively opposite parties 4 and 3 in CC.No.260/2010 in the CDRF, Idukki. The common first respondent was the complainant. He alleged in his complaint that attracted by the advertisements given by the opposite parties in leading newspapers and in TV channels about their product œ Sreedhareeyam Smartlean capsules, the daughter of the complainant purchased and used the said capsules as per direction given by the opposite parties. The daughter of the complainant was having weight of 84 kgms before using the tablets. But after consuming the capsules for one month the weight of the daughter of the complainant increased to 98 kgms. The matter was intimated to the Sreedhareeyam Hospital at Koothattukulam. As per their direction the daughter of the complainant approached the second opposite party there on 03.06.2010. After examining her the second opposite party, a doctor of the opposite parties referred her to a gynaecologist for ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2014 (TRI)

Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary and Other ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellants were the opposite parties in CC.No.253/2012 in the CDRF, Ernakulam. The respondent was the complainant. He was a consumer of electricity supplied by the opposite parties. He was running an SSI Unit manufacturing plastic carrier bags. The opposite parties issued bill dated 12.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.77,433/- alleging that the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant remained faulty from December 2004 to October 2005. The complainant alleged that the said bill was barred by limitation. Hence he wanted declaration that bill issued was null and void and direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection. 2. The opposite parties contended before the Forum that the records of the Electrical Section, Perumbavoor were audited by the Regional Audit Officer, KSEB as part of routine audit. It was found by the Audit Officer that the power meter in the premises of the complainant remained faulty for ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2014 (TRI)

Bajaj Allianez Insurance Co.Ltd, Moochikkal Vs. Paloli Abdurahiman, Ko ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkatha Li : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC 313/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated February 2, 2013 directing the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.14,559/- along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant was the holder of the insurance policy of Bajaj Alliance Fortune Plus plan under opposite party from October 2008 onwards. The premium of the policy was Rs.25,000/- per year for twenty years. After remitting three premiums of Rs.75,000/-, the complainant discontinued the policy. He was made to understand that after 3 years he can withdraw the entire amount. When he demanded the amount the opposite party paid only Rs.60,441/- . Though the complainant gave the cheque leaf and account nu...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2014 (TRI)

Orbit Financiers, Opp. Revenue Tower, Cheriyapalli Building Vs. N.M. N ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Santhamma Thomas: Member The Appeal No.93/13 arises out of the order dated 30/04/2012 passed in CC No.423/11 by the CDRF, Ernakulam (hereinafter to be referred to as District Forum. By the impugned judgment and order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on ex parte against the Appellant (Respondent in the Ld. Forum Below) in directing to close the loan amount and hand over the documents to the Respondent (Complainant in the Ld. Forum Below) along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The order should be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and hence falling which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annuam till payment. The Ld. Forum also directed the respondent to remit the balance amount in instalments due. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts the respondent on 07/02/2010 a loan of Rs. 34,000/- from the appellant for purchasing an autorikshaw. The loan amo...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2014 (TRI)

The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram and Othe ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

V.V. Jose : Member The opposite parties in CC No.208/11 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod are the appellants herein, who are aggrieved by the direction of the Forum to execute the sale deed in respect of flat E F 8 (a) 206 in favour of the complainant without collecting any additional amount within two months from the date of receipt of the order and cancelling the demand notice of Rs.1,89,718/- as per Ext. A(6) with future interest and penal interest. 2. The case of the complainant in the above CC is as follows. Opposite parties are claiming an additional cost of Rs.1,89,718/- vide demand notice dated 3/3/2011, alleging to be the outstanding dues (i.e. difference in cost) for the allotment of flat. Subsequent to the claim the opposite party is refusing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat allotted. The flat in dispute was allotted for a tentative price of Rs.2,41,000/- on 8/4/1992. He was asked to remit Rs.96,400/- as initial amount by way of final ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 2014 (TRI)

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. P.T. Saji

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Smt. A. Radha : Member Opposite parties in CC.No.72/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta are the appellants who preferred this appeal. The Forum Below allowed the complaint in part. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was the registered owner of Tata Sumo Victa LX vehicle having valid Insurance Policy with the opposite parties. The vehicle was stolen and lost and a crime was registered on 30/05/2011 under section 406 of IPC. Subsequently the penal Section was corrected and incorporated Section 379 and 381 of the IPC. The vehicle was insured for Rs.5,10,000/-. The vehicle was hypothecated with Tata Motors Finance Ltd and the complainant had to pay Rs.81,049/- due to the negligence of the opposite party and violation of policy condition. The complainant defaulted the instalments only after the date of theft. The opposite parties evaded the payment of full insured amount causing financial loss to the complainant. A demand notice issued to realize the damages caused by the oppos...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2014 (TRI)

The Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway,thycaud, Thiruvana ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties, Railways in CC.74/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha challenging the order of the Forum dated, June 22, 2012 directing the opposite parties to refund the ticket charge of Rs.291/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/- 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant reserved 3 seats in Guruvayur Chennai Express train bearing No.16128. The departure time of the train was on January 28, 2012 at 12.45 in the night. When the complainant along with his friends reached this railway station it was found that door of the D3 compartment wherein the seats were reserved found locked from inside. Complainant sought to help of the Railway Police Protection Force who didnt do anything. The complainant and his friends could not travel in that train and they could not attend the business meeting at Madhurai. Comp...

Tag this Judgment!


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