Kerala Court May 2008 Judgments

General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Head Office, Thiruvananthap ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated:14..6..2000 of the CDRF Thrissur in OP:675/00, the opposite parties are under orders to refund Rs.1,20,250/- with 18% interest from 20..2..1999 till date of payment along with cost of Rs.1000/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details in the complaint is that the complainant has approached the opposite parties for a term loan of Rs.300.lakhs for development and improvement in the amenities of the park conducted by him. It was also alleged that the opposite parties have agreed to sanction and pay the loan if it is found that the project is viable consequent to a feasibility study of the project by the technical consultancy cell of the bank. An amount of Rs.1,20,250/- was appropriated from the account of the complainant and a feasibility study was conducted by the opposite parties, wherein the complainant had to spent a f...

Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3480; 2008(3)KLT150

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No. 5437 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Kodungallur, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 292(2) (a) and (b) I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 22-09-1996 at about 5.15 p.m. in the shop run under the name and style of 'Ikkas Gents Corner', 'Ikkas Videos and Audios' bearing building No. 54/53 (B) of Methala Panchayat in T.K.S. Puram Desom within the limits of Kodungallur Police Station, the accused was found in possession for sale/hire/distribution of obscene blue film video cassette depicting a man and woman in a completely nude posture indulging in carnal intercourse appealing to the prurient interests of the viewers and arousing corrupt and sexual feelings of persons who chanced to view the video cassette....

T.P. Nandakumar Vs. State Represented by the Deputy and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4040; 2008(2)KLT913

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who claims to be the Chief Editor of a periodical by name 'Crime Fortnightly' challenges the order dated 11-3-2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, giving consent to the Special Public Prosecutor in-charge of C.C. 193 of 2006 to withdraw from the prosecution all the 7 accused persons in the above case, and consequently discharging the said accused persons of all the offences.THE PROSECUTION CASE2. The Deputy Police Superintendent, CBCID, SIG - I, Muttada, Thiruvananthapuram filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against 7 persons arrayed as the accused in the case. A synoptic resume of the prosecution case is as follows:During the general elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in the year 2001, the first accused (Smt. Shobhana George) while contesting for the election from the Che...

Moideen Vs. Ramlath

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2008)DMC348

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C whereunder the petitioner has been mulcted with liability under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000 per mensem to the claimant admittedly his wife.2. Fundamental facts are admitted and not disputed. Marriage is admitted. Petitioner has another wife. The claimant is the second wife of the petitioner. The claimant had earlier been married and divorced by her former husband. It is thereafter that the matrimony between the petitioner and the claimant commenced. The claimant contended that she is unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner who is having sufficient means is refusing and neglecting to pay maintenance to the claimant. The petitioner contended that being the second wife, the claimant is not entitled for maintenance. It was further contended that she having been married earlier, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner h...

The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board and Another Vs. Mohanan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /Housing Board in OP 95/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.28500 as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for a housing loan from the opposite party under a special scheme, Mythri Housing Scheme intended for people living below the poverty line sponsored by the opposite party. The complainant remitted an amount of Rs.5000/- on 30.3.2000 towards his contribution under the scheme. As per directions of the opposite party and as per the approved plan he completed the construction of the building. But the amount promised ie Rs.28500/- was not given inspite of repeated demands. The completion certificate was produced on 4.7.03 signed by the village Officer. He got the engineer of the opposite party brought to the site in a taxi hired. He spent considerable amount for the engineer and office staff of...

R. Sukumaran Nair Vs. M/S. Icici Prudential, Life Insurance Company an ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIENT The complainant has sought for a compensation of Rs.45.lakhs and cost of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties, the Insurance Company and the ICICI Bank. The case is that the life time policy with coverage of Rs.50.lakhs happened to get lapsed as the 2nd opposite party bank did not remit monthly premium as instructed and the 1st opposite party, the Insurance company did not intimate him in time. The 2nd opposite party/bank had remitted 5 monthly instalments only from October 2006 onwards. The Insurance Company intimated about the same only on 11..5..2007. The premiums have been remitted only for 5 months. The complaint has been filed on 13..8..2007. 2. The counsel for the opposite parties have contended that the case is not maintainable before this Commission. Of course the amount claimed exceeds Rs.20.lakhs. It is his contention that the claim is highly inflated. We agree with the objection raised by the counsel for the opposite parties. It appe...

The Manager, Battery World Kattappana Vs. Shiji Joseph

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/dealer who is under orders to pay Rs.6200/- being the price of the battery, Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost to the complainant with respect to the defective battery of the invertor supplied to the complainant vide, the order of CDRF, Idukki in OP.3/04. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the battery on 4.11.2002 from the shop of the opposite party who represented that it was manufactured by Japan Panasonic Company and that no maintenance would be required for one year and that there would be no requirement to recharge the same for the minimum period of one year. But after 6 months the battery had to be recharged and Rs.200/- was charged from the complainant. Further on 8.8.03 at 8.am the battery burst out and damaged house hold articles worth Rs.10,000/-. As instructed by the opposite party, the battery was brought to the shop of the opposite party and he agreed to replace th...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nilambur Rubber Company Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8.4 lakhs to the complainant. The order is an exparte one. 2. The respondent/complainant has entered appearance. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that he has no objection in setting aside the order to the Forum and remitting the matter back to the Forum. 3. In the circumstance the order of the Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum with direction to dispose of the case afresh after permitting the parties to adduce evidence if they so desire. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 30.6.08. The office will transmit the order to the Forum urgently....

General Manger, Kerala Roadways Pvt.Ltd.,(Krs) Corporate Office and An ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.23/05 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are Carriers who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation and 2000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the consignment addressed to the complainant consisting 19 Kgs of sarees, sweets pants etc was not delivered and when it was enquired into the complainant was intimated that the parcel has been lost and that the loss would be compensated, but the same was not done. The complainant has sought for a compensation of Rs.41000/- with interest + 10000/- as compensation for mental pain. 3. The opposite parties contested the matter alleging that the compensation claimed is exorbitant. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 Exts. A1 to A3. It is the contention of the counsel for appellants that the consigner has not been examined; and instead of the consignor it is the mother of the consignor who was ex...

Sub Postmaster and Another Vs. Krishnankutty Kadavath

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in OP 59/05 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram and under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that the postal article sent by the daughter of the complainant to the Readers Digest office did not reach the destination. The postal article was sufficiently stamped and properly addressed. She has sought for 50000/- as compensation as she could not participate in the bumper prize scheme conducted by the Readers Digest. 3. The contention of the opposite parties is that the OP is not maintainable as the complainant who is the father is not the aggrieved and hence not a consumer. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is also relied on. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2. No evidence at all was adduced by the opposite parties. 5. The Forum rejected the contention as ...