Latest news with #SCDRC
New Indian Express
27-05-2025
- New Indian Express
Fuse wire helps man win case against KSEB
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has held the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) liable for a fire that occurred at a printing press in Idukki. The KSEB was asked to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the owner. The order came on an appeal petition filed by the KSEB against the Idukki district commission's order in favour of the press owner. The latter, in his petition, said that he suffered losses to the tune of Rs 8 lakh due to the fire that occurred on the night of March 4, 2015. He alleged that the cause of fire was a short circuit in the service wire. The board had neglected his repeated requests to replace the wire which was 30 years old. The KSEB argued that the accident occurred due to a short circuit in the installation of the customer and not from the service wire. The SCDRC bench comprising its president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member D Ajith Kumar and member K R Radhakrishnan heard the case. The commission relied on the KSEB's site mahazar to hold it accountable for the fire. According to the mahazar, the fuse wire fixed in the main switch was intact. 'This is a clear indication that the short circuit had taken place from a point outside the main switch. So the version given by the complainant that the fire occurred on account of the short circuit arose from the service wire fixed on the premises of the complainant, as the service wire was not maintained by the opposite parties after the installation which took place 30 years back, appears to be probable,' its order said. The commission found deficiency in service on the part of the KSEB which did not take steps for proper maintenance of the service wire.
New Indian Express
25-05-2025
- Automotive
- New Indian Express
Kerala vehicle dealer fined for selling defective car with hidden history
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A vehicle dealer who duped a man by concealing the actual manufacturing date of a Tata Safari car has been asked to pay compensation by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). The customer had also accused the dealer of concealing the fact that the chassis number was earlier issued in the name of another person. Earlier, the Pathanamthitta District Commission had issued an order in favour of the customer and the state commission's order came on an appeal petition filed by the Tata Motors. The customer, Abhilash hailing from Pathanamthitta, bought the car on 09.05.2011 from a dealer having branches at Vadavathoor in Kottayam and Santhosh Junction in Pathanamthitta. The dealer had informed him that the car was a brand new one manufactured in March 2011. The complainant paid Rs 11.76 lakh for the purchase. According to the customer, the vehicle had several defects, mechanical and electrical, and had to be repaired frequently. While trying for an exchange, the customer learnt that the vehicle was manufactured in July 2010. Later, he found that the vehicle's chassis number stood in the name of the managing director as on 28.09.2010 and thereafter in the name of a person named Molly Salas as on 30.10.2010. The customer preferred a complaint with the district commission after four years of purchase and by time the vehicle covered 24,155 km. The opposite parties were the manufacturer and the two branches of the dealer. The dealer attributed certain technical problems in the delay in rectifying records. At the SCDRC, the case was considered by a bench comprising its president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member D Ajith Kumar and member K R Radhakrishnan. The customer was represented by advocates Sreevaraham N G Mahesh and Sheeba Sadasivan. The commission found unfair trade practice on the part of the three opposite parties. It upheld the district commission's order directing them to pay Rs 3 lakh for the mental agony and Rs 10,000 as compensation and costs.
New Indian Express
12-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Panel directs builder firm to refund customer who didn't get promised flat
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a builder company to give full refund and compensation to a customer who did not get the promised apartment. The commission rejected the company's argument citing insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The complainant, a Thiruvananthapuram native, had booked a 3-bedroom apartment in a project proposed at Karakulam village in the district. The total cost was Rs 55,17,277. As per the agreement, construction had to be completed within 18 months from the date of agreement i.e., March 18, 2017. Though the complainant paid Rs 43,00,123, the work was not carried out by the builder. The builder also did not respond to the communications sent by him. The complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs 41 lakh at 8.5 per cent rate of interest from the Punjab National Bank Housing Finance. The former managing director of the company filed an affidavit before the SCDRC along with the order passed by the NCLT Kochi branch. He cited that the NCLT has appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional and they are incapacitated in participating in the proceedings of the company. The SCDRC bench comprising its president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D and member KR Radhakrishnan heard the case. Advocates Ponnan Alex and Sreevaraham NG Mahesh appeared for the petitioner. The commission, however, observed that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, stipulates that an aggrieved consumer can approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in addition to the existing remedies. Proceedings pending before the NCLT is not a bar for the complainant to approach the commission for redressal of grievances, it said. The commission found deficiency in service on the part of the builder. It directed the company to refund Rs 43 lakh with 9 per cent interest besides Rs 3 lakh as compensation and Rs 20,000 for litigation costs. Case file Apartment project at Karakulam in Thiruvananthapuram Consumer paid Rs 43 lakh He availed a housing loan for Rs 41 lakh @ 8.5 pc interest Builder failed to deliver apartment Commission's direction to builder firm Refund Rs 43 lakh at 9 per cent interest Rs 3 lakh compensation Rs 20,000 as litigation costs
