Kerala Court December 2007 Judgments

Abdul Salam the Manager, Canara Bank Vs. K.J. Alexander

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARNGADHARAN: MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dtd.30.4.01 in OP.No.428/99 by CDRF, Kannur directing the appellant/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1100/- as compensation and Rs.250/- as cost to the complainant/respondent. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent/complainant is an account holder of Canara Bank since 1996. On 24.9.99 the complainant approached the opposite party bank with two national savings certificates of a face value of Rs.10000/- each for availing a loan of Rs.15000/-. The opposite party refused to grant loan. Thus, the complainant filed an application requesting the opposite party to mention the reasons for denying the loan. Then the opposite party directed the complainant to get the certificates pledged in favour of the Canara bank, Thaliparamba from the concerned post office and on 27.9.99 the complainant submitted the certificate and application for loan and the bank informed the complainant that the loan could be consid...

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. K.X. Joseph Shi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER: The above appeal is preferred from the common order dated.11th November 1999 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.N.63/99. The complaint in the said OP.63/99 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming the insurance amount in respect of the insured vehicle owned by the complainant. The insurance claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was violation of the policy condition by permitting a person to driver the vehicle without valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. But, the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant to a certain extent and thereby the impugned order was passed directing the opposite party to pay the insurance claim after considering the claim submitted by the complainant/insured. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party in the said OP.63/99. 2. The learned counsel for the appella...

B.Sunil Kumar Vs. the Manager, T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party/manufacturer who are under orders to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.18,643/- towards the loss incurred by the complainant on account of the excess consumption of engine oil and Rs.5,000/- towards the compensation. The case of the complainant who is mentioned as a driver having heavy duty driving licence is that he purchased an Ashok Leyland Comet Trucker Lorry from the second opposite party/dealer on 29.03.99 spending a sum of Rs.5,19,700/- of which Rs.4,00,000/- was availed from the financier, M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited. According to him, since the date of purchase it was found that the rate of engine oil consumed is very high. According to him for each trip covering 5,000/- km., the engine oil used tobe consumed amounted to 10 litres. The matter was reported to the dealer, the second opposite party a number of times and each time the...

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. P.N.Kuttappan a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the common order dated.11th November 1999 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.N.1615/98. The complaint in the said OP.1615/98 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming the insurance amount in respect of the insured vehicle owned by the complainant. The insurance claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was violation of the policy condition by permitting a person to driver the vehicle without valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. But, the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant to a certain extent and thereby the impugned order was passed directing the opposite party to pay the insurance claim after considering the claim submitted by the complainant/insured. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party in the said OP.1615/98. 2. The learned counsel for the ap...

M.R. Venkiteswaran, Proprietor Vs. K. Devaprasad

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.15th March 2002 passed by CDRF, Trichur in OP.83/01 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party claiming replacement of the defective Dish Antina and to replace the LNB and receiver which were found defective and also to get a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The aforesaid claim was repudiated by the opposite party by contending that there was no deficiency of service. But the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2350/- representing the cost of the Dish Antina and its accessories with interest at the rate of 12% and cost of Rs.3000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant argued on th...

The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in OP.377/97 on the file of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram have come up in this appeal against the order dated.4.7.2000 wherein and whereby the appellants/opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,385/- as repair and salvaging charges, Rs.7000/- as general compensation and Rs.3000/- as costs to be paid to the complainant/respondent within one month from the date of order failing which the complainant was eligible for 16 % interest also from the date of order till the date of payment. 2. The main grievances voiced in the complaint are that the complainant had insured his vehicle with the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and that his vehicle had met with an accident on 29.7.95. The vehicle fell into a ravine 60 feet deep from which place it could be lifted only with the help of crane and Khalasies, and an amount of Rs.1,84,850/- was paid for the repairing charges of the vehicle. The vehicle was repaired by V.N. Aut...

Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. Vs. George John

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order assailed in this appeal has been passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.151/2000; whereby the opposite parties are directed to refund the sum of Rs.11851/- with interest at 14.5% and to pay R.2000/- as compensation. An amount of Rs.500/- was awarded as costs also. 2. The main grievances voiced in the complaint are that the complainant/respondent had booked a Maruthi car paying an amount of Rs.176415/- on 5.8.99. The opposite party had promised to deliver the car within 30 to 45 days. It is the case of the complainant that even after 45 days, the car was not delivered and the same was delivered only on 6.10.99; whereby the complainant was compelled to pay an additional amount of Rs.12791.05/-. Aggrieved by the said action of realization of excess amount by the opposite party, the complaint has been filed praying for directions to refund the excess amount of Rs.12791.05 and to repay Rs.1279 /- being the additional sale tax amount collected...

The Carikodu Cable Tv Subscribers Samithi, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. t ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 29th December, 2003 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.445/02. The complaint in OP.445/02 was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite party claiming various reliefs on the grounds of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in providing Television channels. The opposite party denied the case of deficiency in service and contended that the opposite party as a Cable TV operator has performed his duties. Thus, the opposite party requested for dismissal of the complaint in OP. 445/o2. But the Lower forum accepted the case of the complainant to a greater extent, but dis-allowed the prayer for refund of the security deposit. The complainant is not satisfied with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in rejecting this prayer for refund of the security deposit. Hence the present appeal by the complainant in OP.445/02. 2. Notice in this appeal was i...

K. Velayudhan Vs. Taluk Land Board and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ481

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions involved in this Revision are:1) Whether a member of the statutory family as defined in Section 2(14) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act could maintain an application under Section 85(8) of the said Act?2) Whether a claimant under Section 85(8) could base his claim on an oral gift which was followed by a registered deed?3) Was the Taluk Land Board justified in rejecting die claim petition under Section 85(8) on the ground that the declarant did not raise the contention as is raised by the claimant on the basis of the gift deed?2. Ceiling proceedings were initiated in S.M. No. 1407/1978, Taluk Board, Palakkad against the declarant, namely, Balakrishnan. The statutory family of the declarant consisted on his wife and four children. The Taluk Land Board passed final order holding that the declarant is liable to surrender excess land. The matter did not become final as the declarant filed revisions after revisions against successive orders passed by the T...

Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]308ITR434(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P-5 order whereunder the Commissioner of Income-tax dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the validity of the income escaping assessment completed under Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessee, a Government of Kerala undertaking, filed original return for the assessment year on December 31, 1992, declaring a taxable income of Rs. 50,48,761. This income included business income of Rs. 49,98,241 which was arrived at after claiming a deduction of Rs. 32,27,451 under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. The entire income declared was set off against brought forward losses relating to earlier years. Thereafter, the assessee filed another return whereunder the total income shown was Rs. 54,03,613 which again was completely set off against carry forward loss of earlier years. The income from business covered by the re...