Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram and Another V ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP.No.150/02 of CDRF, Kottayam and by the order dated 29/4/04 they are under directions to cancel Ext.A1 additional bill for Rs.56,491/- and to pay cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The grievances voiced by the complainant in the OP are that she was running an Oil Mill having Consumer No.9382 under LT IV tariff and was paying the electricity charges regularly. It is her case that on 23/3/02 the 2nd opposite party along with some other officials inspected the premises of the complainant and based on this inspection the impugned bill was issued stating that there was unauthorized additional load of 12 KW installed in her premises. It is her further case that she was using the sanctioned load only and there was no occasion for her to have additional load connected in her premises and alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill amount of Rs.56,491/- with compens...

The Secretary K.S.E.B., Pattom, Trivandrum and Another Vs. Dr.Manikant ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in OP 263/03 of CDRF, Kottayam are under orders to cancel the Ext.A1 demand notice for Rs.85029/- and to pay Rs.750/- as costs. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was running a Nursing Home at Mukkoottuthara, Erumeli as a self employment venture and that he had purchased the building from one Johnykutty on 9/5/02 and was paying the electricity charges correctly. On 25/9/03 a demand notice dated 17/9/03 for Rs.85,029/- was served on him and it is his case that he is not liable to pay the said amount as he had remitted all the charges due to the opposite parties. He has also alleged that no details of the demand were given in the notice and alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill issued on 17/9/03 for Rs.85,029/- with costs and no...

Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the exparte order dated.4.3.05 passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.300/04. The appellants/opposite parties moved an application for setting aside the exparte order passed against them before the Forum and that application was dismissed. Challenging the sustainability of the order in OP.300/04 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that on 5.6.04 the Anti Power Theft Squad of the appellants/opposite parties inspected the premises of the complainant and found that he was using the electrical energy for commercial purpose against the rules and also found that the meter was faulty. The appellants prepared a mahazar at the spot and bill was issued to the complainant as contemplated under section 42(d) of conditions of supply of electrical energy. The lower Forum quashed the bill and directed the appellants to pay compensation of Rs.500/- to the complainant/respondent. 3. According to...

The Asst.Ex.Engineer, K.S.E.B. and Another Vs. the Citizens Club, Rep. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER By the order dated.8.10.04 in OP.No.229/02 of CDRF, Kottayam the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.A1 bill for Rs.17,638/- and to issue regular bill without any penal charges for the actual consumption which the consumer is liable to pay. The opposite parties are also directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is preferred by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was a consumer of the opposite parties and that the demand notice for Rs.17,638/- issued was illegal and unsustainable. The further case of the complainant is that he had no arrears to be paid to the opposite parties and the bill was issued without any basis and it was prayed before the Forum that the bill issued be set aside/quashed with costs. 3. The opposite parties in their version submitted that there was an additional load of 6KW in the premises of the ...

Shanoj T.K. and anr. Vs. the Wandoor Grama Panchayat and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ913; 2008(3)KLT674

Antony Dominic, J.1. In this writ petition, though the petitioners sought several reliefs, the only one that was urged during the course of the arguments was for a declaration that in the absence of Gazette notification issued under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the respondent Panchayat cannot insist that the petitioners should obtain licences under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as D & O rules for short).2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners of poultry farms in respect of which, they have obtained Exts. P7 and P8 consent orders from the Kerala Pollution Control Board. They were informed that they should obtain licence under the D & O rules and thereupon they made applications, the receipt of which have been acknowledged by the Panchayat by Exts. P11 and P12. Thereafter, according to them, they realised that in the absence of Gazette Notification issue...

Aboobacker C.K. Vs. Rahiyanath and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ31

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What is the impact (limited impact as explained by the Division Bench in Abdul Hameed v. Fousiya : 2004(3)KLT1049 of a post iddat remarriage on the claim of a divorced wife for fair and reasonable provision and maintenance under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act')? Should a post Iddat remarriage during the pendency of the claim under Section 3 of the Act influence the Magistrate while quantifying the amount due? Should remarriage pending revision or post revision persuade the superior courts to make appropriate modification of the amount quantified earlier by the Magistrate? Are the rights of a divorced Muslim woman under Section 3 of the Act larger and supplemental to the rights under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.? Cannot the amount due under Section 3 of the Act in a case of remarriage exceed the arithmetical equivalent of maintenance which would have been payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. between the date ...

island Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer-i and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)22VST261(Ker)

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned single judge in W.P. (C). No. 2794 of 2005 dated January 25, 2005.2. In order to appreciate the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis, it may be necessary to briefly refer to the facts pleaded by the petitioner.3. The assessee is a dealer, registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act', for short). The assessing authority has passed regular assessment orders for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1990-91.4. Aggrieved by those orders of assessment, the assessee had preferred the first appeals before the first appellate authority as provided under the Act. The first appellate authority, by its order dated February 25, 1997, has allowed the appeals and has remanded the matters to the assessing authority to redo the assessments in accordance with law. The order passed by the first appellate authority reads as under:In the result the a...

Hajee M.A. Mohamed Kannu Sons Vs. S.A. Nazrudeen and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ121Ker

ORDERP.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in hardware, tools and paint. It is said to be the successor of the firm Hajee M.A. Mohammed Kannu & Brothers.2. The first respondent in the Original petition was a Shop Assistant in the firm, Hajee M.A. Mohammed Kannu & Brothers. On September 5, 1988 he was placed under suspension and a memo of charges alleging misconduct was issued. It was alleged that he was a late comer, that he used to leave the establishment early without permission, that he was wilfully disobeying lawful instructions given by the employer, that he was intentionally destroying the properties of the establishment and was supplying more items than what was actually required by the customers with the oblique motive of causing loss to the employer. As his explanation to the memo of charges was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. A copy of the enquiry report was furni...

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Antony and Oth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER By the order dated.6.5.02 the first opposite party in OP.No.74/01 of CDRF, Idukki are under orders to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4307/- with 12% interest from 5.3.01 till the date of payment with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.750/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had joined in an accident health insurance scheme jointly proposed by the first opposite party and opposite parties 2 and 3. He had joined for the first time on 12.8.99 and subsequently on 27.3.2000. He fell ill on 10.7.2000 and an amount of Rs.4307/- was spent by him towards treatment charges. It is his case that though he made an application for the reimbursement of the amount, the insurance company /first opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that he had contracted the disease within one month from the date of commencement of the policy. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opp...

Jessy and Another Vs. the Medical Superintendent, St. Gregorious Missi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants in Appeal 94/04 are the complainants ie, the wife and three year old child of the deceased husband of 1st complainant and the appellant in Appeal 143/04 is the opposite party hospital, in OP 183/01 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. 2. The appellants in Appeal 94/04 has sought for enhancement of the amount of compensation and appellant in Appeal 143/04 has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum. 3. The Forum ordered the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of the order and thereafter with interest at 6% per annum and also granted a sum of Rs.15,000 to the minor child to be received by him on attaining majority. 4. It is the case of the complainant that the 1st complainant named Mr.Varghese Mathai @ Saji was admitted in the opposite party hospital for psychosis and Ganja addiction on 3.5.2000. On 8.5.2000 the above Varghese Mathai comm...