Chennai Court October 2011 Judgments
The Officer In-charge, M/S. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and Others Vs. Ra ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
(Both the appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 20.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order J A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.338/2008 Opposite parties are the appellants. F.A.No. 264/2009 Complainants are the appellants. 2. The complainants who are the husband and wife claimed to refund of Rs.1,492/- with interest for the return flight charges, Rs.600/- towards taxi fare, Rs.2,900/- towards travel fare due to cancellation of flight Rs.2,000/- as lodged expenses, Rs.7,200/- spent for the expenses to the American Consulate and Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for damages, mental agony, sufferings and Rs.5,000/- as costs from the opposite parties for the deficiency of service. 3. The complainants who are the husband and wife in order to attend interview for the USA visa before the American Consulate, Chennai on 8.3.2006, they...
Tag this Judgment!Kum. Mercy Vs. the Ministry of Defence, Represented by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. An unfortunate un-married daughter of Ex No.6981391 (late) Sepoy Poulose, aged 58 years ( as informed by the Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the applicant), who was in receipt of family pension as per PPO No.F/39/2008(Army), dated 19.06.2008, which has subsequently been denied under the impugned order of the respondents vide PPO No.F/CORR/0048/2009, dated 16.06.2009 has come forward with this application for restoration of her family pension after setting aside the impugned order of the respondents dated 16.07.2009. 2. According to the applicant, her father (late) Sepoy Poulose died on 12.09.1965 and her mother Mrs.Hilda was granted family pension vide Pension Pay order No.F/7419/67 and was also granted children allowance at Rs.5/- per month with effect from 1965 vide PPO No.F/7420/67. According to the applicant, her mother Mrs.Hilda also died on 19.07.1986 and after her death, PCDA (P), Allahabad vide their Corrigendum PPO No.F/CO...
Tag this Judgment!Kalimuthu Alias Kalimuthan Vs. the Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. Challenge is made in this appeal to the award, dated 19.06.2009 and made in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Ramanathapuram.2.The appellants are the claimants in the claim petition, whereas, the respondent is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pudukkottai. The appellants have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.NO.78 of 2007 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of their son, in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 19.03.2007, at 11.30 a.m, near Naranamangalam bus stop on the road leads from R.S.Mangalam to Devipattinam involving the passenger bus, bearing registration No. TN-55-N-0428 belonging to the first respondent's Corporation.3.The Tribunal after evaluating the evidences available on record has totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellants have come forward with ...
Tag this Judgment!Timmu Reddy Vs. the Chief Educational Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 08.12.2009, in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.264 of 2009, dated 23.10.2009, within a time frame.2.When the matter came up on 28.04.2010, notice of motion was ordered. Accordingly, the third respondent is served and represented by counsel.3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as Waterman cum Gardener in the third respondent aided private school at Vikramasingapuram known as Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School. It is the case of the petitioner that his service is illegally terminated and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute and the said dispute came up before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli as I.D.No.12 of 1996. The Labour Court, by its award, dated 20.07.2010 dismissed the I.D and did not grant any relief. In the award, the Labour Court recorded that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!R.Antony Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge an order dated 30.4.2010, wherein and by which he was informed that his wife Tmt.Maria was a construction worker and who died due to lorry accident outside the work spot on her way from the vegetable market and hence he cannot be granted compensation.2.In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 03.11.2010. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's wife Maria was a member of the Construction Workers Welfare Board. She was working as a helper in the construction work. On 8.12.2007, in front of the Dindigul market, a mini load van in which she was travelling met with an accident and she fell down. She was admitted to the City hospital. Subsequently, on the same day, she succumbed to the injuries and died. Subsequent to her death, the present petitioner, who is her husband, made an application for the grant of compensation under Form-C. On receipt of the same, the second respondent informed him that her death is not covered...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy General Manager Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
1. The petitioner is the Management of Sterlings Spinners Limited at P.Pudupatti, represented by its Deputy General Manager. In this Writ Petition, the challenge is made to a common order passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Trichy, at its Dindigul Camp, dated 25.04.2009 made in various I.Ds, starting from I.D.Nos.184 of 2004 and ending with I.D.No.121 of 2007.2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 18.11.2009, notice of motion was ordered. I.A.No.119 of 2007 in I.D.No.126 of 2003, raised by the petitioner and the said I.A. was tried along with several I.As. in various I.Ds., relating to the same petitioner Management and a common order was passed on 25.04.2009. By the impugned order, the Labour Court held that it is unnecessary to try any preliminary issue separately and all issues can be comprehensively tried by the Labour Court at the disposal of the main I.Ds.3. It is seen from the records that the workmen employed in the petitioner Mill raised industrial dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Thuraiyur Municipality Rep. by Its Executive Authority the Commissione ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to provide water tap connection, alongwith compensation of Rs.15000/- and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the award, order of the District Forum dt.30.11.2009 in CC.No.84/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 07.10.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent/ complainant, had applied for a new water tap service connection, for her house, for which she has paid a sum of RS.4110/- on 14.11.2007, in addition to another sum of Rs.723/- on 14.2.2009, as demanded by the 1st opposite party. After rec...
Tag this Judgment!Air Deccan, Rep. by Its Managing Director and Another Vs. Dr. P.M. Man ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- plus fresh ticket cost to the complainant and for the costs, due to the negligence of service in the provision of air ticket for the journey. 3. Complainant booked online air ticket on 5.2.07 at Nagercoil for the travel from Trivendrum to Bangalore on 11.5.07 at the cost of Rs.1649/- by paying through the credit card. Then on 10.2.07 he rescheduled the same ticket online for the journey on 4.3.07 to be preponed the trip by paying extra amount of Rs.530/- and got the confirmed printed book costing Rs.2,199/- and received the e-mail ticket from t...
Tag this Judgment!The Eye Foundation Vs. K. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order J A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for the direction to replace the defective spectacle purchased from the opposite party and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- as costs. 3. The complainant purchased a spectacle for his defective eye as per the prescription on 10.6.07 by paying Rs.2,325/- towards the lens and frame. The opposite party prescribed lognes S model frame to the complainant and also informed there would be warranty for the same and the model frame is a superior quality believing the same the complainant placed orders for the same placed order and purchased as per bill dated 10.6.07 and...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Halan Vs. State Bank of India, Kotagiri
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction to disburse the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 3. Complainant to purchase a new car approached the opposite party for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and after furnishing all the necessary documents including creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of documents. The opposite party sent a requisition letter to the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Kothagiri to register deed for deposit the memorandum of title deeds in favour of the opposite party and registered on 18.8.08. The opposite party sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »