Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc thiruvananthapuram Page 11 of about 1,664 results (0.133 seconds)

Feb 07 2014 (TRI)

Bismi Appliances, Pallimukku, Kollam Vs. Shahul Hameed, Rafeeq Manzil, ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the second opposite party in CC.No.29/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order dated 24th June, 2013 directing the second opposite party to pay Rs.1,17,000/- with interest and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. 2. The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 on the ground that the TV supplied by the opposite party is defective. First opposite party is the manufacturer and the second opposite party is a dealer. At the request of the complainant, the name of first opposite party (manufacturer) has been deleted from the party array by the Forum. The second opposite party (dealer) remained absent and was set exparte by the Forum below. Therefore, the Forum allowed the complaint after marking Ext.P1 and P2. 3. In this appeal, the appellant / second opposite party contended that he did not receive any notice from the Forum. He ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V.V. Guruvayurappan

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This Revision Petition filed is by the opposite party in CC 342/13 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. Challenging the order of the Forum dated 16/11/2013 in IA No.1037/13 dismissing the Petition to set aside the order setting him exparte. 2. The complainant has filed the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in supplying a defective car. When the case was posted on 24/09/13 opposite party remained absent and opposite party was set exparte by the Forum. They filed IA 1037/13, to setaside the order setting him exparte which was also rejected by the Forum by the impuned order. 3. Specific case of the opposite parties is that his counsel reached the Forum belatedly and by that time he was set exparte. 4. Heard. The CC is still pending before the Forum. The counsel for Revision Petitioner contended that due to traffic block the Counsel reached the Forum very late and by that time he was set exparte. Taking into a...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2014 (TRI)

The Nileswaram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the Manager Lic of I ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC 130/2009 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated October 31, 2011 dismissing the complaint. Complainant is the Nileshwar Service Co-op Bank represented by its Secretary. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complaint is filed by the Secretary on behalf of Sri.Kunhambu C, who died on 31/08/2008. He was working as the Asst. Secretary in the Bank at the time of his death. The complainant Bank and the opposite party entered into an agreement of LIC of India Group Gratuity Life Assurance as per Master Policy No.3826. The complainant bank was regularly paying the premium. Deceased Kunhambu was a subscriber of that policy. As per terms and conditions in the agreement, the entire liability of the bank for payment of gratuity to its employees has be...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2014 (TRI)

P. Semith Vs. Muhammed Ashraf

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.No.05/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kannur challenging the order of the Forum dated 9th July 2013. 2. Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum for a direction to the opposite party to complete the construction work of the house of the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, for the delay caused to complete the construction. Notice issued to the opposite party was returned unclaimed. Therefore he was set exparte before the Forum. 3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay compensation of RS.50,000/- and the cost of Rs.1000/-. Opposite party has came up in appeal challenging the said appeal of the Forum. 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant / opposite party that address shown in the complaint was not the same address shown in Ext.A1 agreement and therefore he did not re...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

T.K. Binod Vs. M/S. Telco Constructions Equipment Co. Ltd. and Another

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Smt. A. Radha : Member On dismissal of complaint by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.306/10 the complainant preferred this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant purchased œBackhoe arm? loader from 2nd opposite party on 13/06/2008 for Rs.21,97,000/- for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The warranty was provided to the machine for one year or 2000 operating hours. The complainant availed a loan and he had to remit @ Rs.53,500/- each towards monthly instalments. The machine had to be taken to the workshop for repairs on 30 occasions within the warranty period. Due to recurring complaints the complainant could not generate any income by working machine and hence defaulted the repayment of the loan amount. It is stated in the complaint that the machine was repossessed by the financiers on account of non payment of loan amount and at the time of repossession the amount due to the financiers was Rs.27,15,932/-. The 2nd opposite party had collected...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

The Branch Manager, Lic of India Vs. T.P. Jagadeesan

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party, LIC of India, Thrissur Branch in OP.127/05 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, June 15, 2012 directing the appellant to pay the disability benefit under Ext.R3 policy with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is a holder of two policies having Nos.772907395 and 772907378. In one policy the sum assured is Rs.40,000/- and in another policy the benefit is Rs.50,000/-. In an accident that happened on September 22, 2001 the left hand of the complainant was amputated. The complainant claimed the disability benefit under the policy. But the opposite party repudiated the claim. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint claiming that amount. 3. The opposite party is LIC of India represented by its Manager, Thrissur branch. He in his version contended thus before...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

Pradeep Kumar and Others Vs. T.V. Sudhakaran and Others

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkathali: President Both these appeals arise out of a common order in CC.28/09 and CC.29/09 dated, December 19, 2012 of CDRF, Kasaragod. As both these appeals arise out a common order these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In both these appeals, opposite parties 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 are the appellants. Appeal No.276/13 is directed against order in CC.28/09 and Appeal.277/13 is directed against the order in CC.29/09. First respondent in both these appeals are the complainant. Respondents 2 to 8 are the other opposite parties before the Forum. 3. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant in both these cases and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- He joined in a chitty conducted by opposite parties 1 to 15. Total chitty amount of maturity was Rs.1,05,000/- in each case. He joined in the chitty on June 2006 and paid 10 monthly instalments of Rs.5000/- each totaling to Rs.50,000/- in both these chitties. Subsequently the c...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

V. Subramanyan and Others Vs. H.V. Ramachandra and Others

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 in CC.75/10 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 30, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,29,000/- with interest and cost of Rs.7000/- being the chitty amount paid by the complainant. 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 joined 2 chitties conducted by the opposite parties 1 to 13. In one chitty he paid Rs.2,59,000/- and in another chitty he paid Rs.70,000/-. The opposite parties did not repay that amount. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint claiming that amount. 3. The first opposite party is Puthukkal Sree Vainingat Inswarante Kshethra Committee represented by its President. The second opposite party is Mr.C.V.Krishnan the treasurer of the Committee and third opposite party is Sri.Balachandran, the Secretary of the Committe...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

John Chandy Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, R/by Its Secretary, Vy ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

P.Q. Barkathali: President This is a Revision Petition filed by the complainant in CC.109/13 of CDRF, Kottayam challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 26, 2013 in I.A.70/13 dismissing the petition. 2. Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum against the Electricity Board cancelling the penal bill for Rs.6,30,323/- issued to the petitioner. The said bill was issued by the Board on the allegation that Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB detected theft in the electrical connection on inspection. I.A.70/13 was filed by the complainant for reconnection of the electric connection. 3. As the Forum found that complainant has approached the Honble High Court challenging the said bill where the High Court has directed the respondents for fresh inspection, the petition is not maintainable. Complainant has challenged the said order in this revision. 4. Admittedly complainant has filed Writ Petition No.1690/13 before the Honble High Court and by its order dated:17.01.2013 it was found thu...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (TRI)

C.L. Stanly Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

V.V. Jose :Member This appeal is filed against the order in O.P. No.205/2004 dated 21.03.2005 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complainant in the above OP is the appellant here. The facts of the OP is brief in as follows. 2. The complainant had obtained a medi claim policy from the opposite parties for Rs.2,00,000/- from 09.07.02 to 08.07.03 and the policy was renewed from 09.07.03 to 08.07.04. On 19.06.03 the complainant availed treatment from Lakeshore hospital. That was for symptoms of renal decease and was discharged on 15.07.2003. The opposite party repudiated the claim submitted by the complainant for Rs.87348.25/- . According to the complainant, it is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint for directing the opposite party to reimburse the medical expenses and pay costs. 3. The opposite party filed its version contending that the said policy was taken for the complainant by his brother by fraud and suppression of material facts for th...

Tag this Judgment!


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