Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Andhra Pradesh ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The insurance company/ opposite parties 1 and 2, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, has preferred this appeal. 2. The 1st respondent/ complainant/ claimant, is the owner of the vehicle (Lorry), bearing Regn. No.ATA 6487. He insured the said vehicle, with the appellants/ opposite parties on 4.3.1998, under policy No.051601/31/021/11/04587/1997, and the period covered is between 27.3.98 to 26.3.99. 3. On 21.9.1998, the vehicle was running near Krishnagiri. On the way from Rayapur to Namakkal, when the driver and the cleaner after taking food, took rest, some unknown person committed highway robbery, they took the vehicle also alongwith the driver and cleaner. On the way, committing murder of the driver, they have thrown the lorry driver as well as the cleaner, as if the cleaner also dead. Later, the matter was informed to the owner, who rushed to the spot, but unable to locate the lorry. Complaint to the police, as well as to the ins...

N. Pushpa Vs. the Secretary to Government, Law Department

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1072

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This writ petition arose out of O.A. No. 2260 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 34558 of 2006.3. The petitioner sought for the calling of the records in respect of the G.O.Ms. No. 45, dated 4.2.1991 and letter No. 7872/Sa (Aa.Mo.P)98, dated 12.3.98 of the respondent and to quash the same and to assign proper seniority to the applicant and forthwith promote him as an Assistant Secretary in Law (O.L.W) Department.4. The petitioner was working as a Special Grade Translator in the Law Department at the Government Secretariat. She filed OA No. 2260 of 1998, seeking to challenge the order of the Government, dated 4.2.91 made in G.O.Ms. No. 45, Law Department.5. By the said impugned order, the Government introduced amendments to adhoc rules for the post of Assistant Secretary, State Official Language (L...

Prakash Freight Movers Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ch ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

On 17.7.2006, one export container bearing No.GESU2883167 wherein the consignment was declared as ‘Natural Slate’ and booked in the name of M/s.Stone Field (India) (SFI, for short) and consigned to Malaysia was offloaded on intelligence that Red Sander logs, a prohibited item, were being smuggled out. The customs seal on the containers was found to be tampered with and on opening the container, Red Sander logs were found. Statements of Sankaran, Balaji, employees of the CHA, M/s.Prakash Freight Movers Ltd. (PFML, for short) who filed relevant shipping bills were recorded. Statement of Thiagarajan @ Ravichandran, brother of Balaji was also recorded. On 19.7.06, the DIU received information from the steamer agent that they had received back their container GESU2894114 in trailer No.TN28 C 2872; the vehicle was searched by the officers and one registration number plate bearing No.TMV 1459, sticker sheet with numbers for pasting as container number, paint brush, paint container...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Fourrts (i) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of P and P medicaments were availing CENVAT credit on inputs and input-service credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the period November 2005 to March 2006, they had availed input-service credit on dry cleaning service, Customs House Agent s service and had also availed service tax credit for payment of telephone bills for telephones installed in their Head Office. It appeared to the authorities that credit was not admissible and therefore a show-cause notice proposing recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit together with appropriate interest and proposing penal action was issued; notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed a demand of Rs.97,462/- + education cess of Rs.1,666/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs.2,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the input services were essential in relation to the business and that they were eligible...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Manager (Division) Mr. Jayaku ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant herein. 2. The complainant/ respondent, is engaged in the export business, having the firm called M/s. Painga Exports. He had purchased and stored 100 bags of Beedy Leaves, at the Mookandi Chettiar Godown, Customes Lane, Tuticorin-1 to be exported to Colombo. On 10.11.99, fire broke out during the early hours at about 2.30 a.m, causing damage to the above goods, completely destroying the leaves also. 3. On 11.11.99, complainant lodged a claim, since he had taken insurance for Rs.15 lakhs, under fire policy with the opposite party. Unfortunately, based upon the survey report, which is incorrect, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Therefore, the complaint is filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,820/- being the value of the goods damaged/ destroyed, and for a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony. 4. The appellant / opposite party, admi...

C. Shanmugam Vs. the Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, Chennai a ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The Complainant before the lower Forum is the appellant herein. 2. The complainant, who was in service, and retired is receiving a monthly pension of Rs.547/- from 21.06.2002 through Indian Overseas Bank, Valmiki Nagar Branch, Chennai 600 041. The complainant received the pension amount regularly upto January 2005 and for the month of February 2005, pension amount has not been received. Despite the complainant has requested the opposite parties to expedite the pension, and inform the reason for the delay, there is no reply. However, the unpaid of arrear of pension for the month of February 2005, has been received by the complainant on 02.04.2005 along with pension for March 2005. Later, the opposite parties informed that the pension payment was delayed, for want of Life Certificate which must be incorrect, since the Life Certificate of the complainant, has already been sent to Indian Overseas Bank, Valmiki Nagar Branch, Chennai-41. The opposite partie...

Mohamed Yaseen, Proprietor, M/S. Coronet Construction, Chennai Vs. V. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party before the lower forum is the appellant herein. 2. The Respondent/Complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party originally on 22.11.1991 for the purchase of undivided share of land as well as a flat for a sum of Rs.2.25 lakhs, for the ground floor area measuring 800 sq.ft., for a further consideration of Rs.2,19,000/-. Under the agreement construction, should be completed, possession should be handed over within 11 months from the date of handing over of the vacant possession by the owner of the land. The possession of the land was handed over on 18.07.1992. Thereafter, the opposite party/appellant extended the plinth area from 800 sq.ft. to 1040 sq.ft. for the enhanced cost of construction of Rs.1,26,169/- plus additional undivided share of land, sale consideration of Rs.65,831/- as well Rs.10,200/- towards registration charges. After construction, by causing delay also, the flat was handed over after two year and eight...

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Vs. Srinivasan Madhavan

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The insurance company, who suffered an adverse order in he hands of the District Forum, Chennai (North), is the appellant. 2. The respondent/ complainant had taken a mediclaim policy with the appellant/ opposite party for the period from 28.2.2003 to 27.2.2004, by paying a premium of Rs.1973/- under policy No.501800/48/02/8500901. Thereafter, when he suffered nasal block, approached an ENT surgeon Dr.Krishna Kumar, who treated him, diagnosing that the complainant was having deviated nasal septum to left Bilateral Sinonasal Polyposis, for which a surgery also was done. Totally the doctor charged or the claimant spent a sum of Rs.21,307/-, which is to be reimbursed by the insurance company, on the basis of the policy referred above. 3. The complainant lodged a claim, which was repudiated by the opposite party on untenable grounds, which is illegal and void, as if the claim was not permissible, since the ailment was pre-existing, at the time of the prop...

The Ceo and the Manager Sales and Marketing Global Enviro Tech, Kodamb ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite party who suffered an adverse order in the hands of the District Forum, is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent herein, as appellant approached the District Forum for certain reliefs, on the ground that he had purchased a 20 LPH RO system from the opposite parties, that the opposite party who installed the same on 23.12.2001, had collected a total sum of Rs.36,400/-, that the system stopped functioning from 26.1.2002, that on request as well on complaint, though some services had been effected, were not satisfactory, thereby the opposite party committed not only deficiency in service, but also caused mental agony, and that the opposite party should be directed to replace the water purification plant or to pay the cost of the plant, with compensation of Rs.10000/- in addition to cost of Rs.2000/-. 3. The appellant/ opposite party, denying the averments in the complaint, had stated in the written version, that the complainant force...

The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant herein. 2. The respondent/ complainant, alongwith his family members traveled from Coimbatore to Mayiladuthurai to go to Kumbakonam, in route No.722- Fast Express- run by the appellant/ opposite party, on 4.5.2003, at about 8.30 p.m On the way, when the bus reached Pongalur, it broke down and the crew though made alternative arrangement, they have arranged only 35 seat capacity bus, forgetting the fact that the bus traveled by he complainant and others had 45 seats. Because of this deficiency in service, the complainant and his family members, handicapped wife, aged mother and children were compelled to travel by standing. For the sufferings undergone by the petitioner and his family members, the opposite party should pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation. 3. The appellant/ opposite party admitting that the complainant and his family members traveled in route No.722, that the bus also br...