Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suganthi W/O. Late Mohanan,

Court: Kerala

Abdul Rehim, J.1. The 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, who is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, is the appellant herein. The claim arises out of death of one Sri: Mohanan, the husband of 1st claimant and father of minor claimants 2 and 3. He sustained fatal injuries when a scooter driven by him skidded, throwing down him to the public road. The claim is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was employed in the Indian Airlines as Helper- Catering Head. He was aged 48 years at the time of accident. The 1st claimant, wife of the deceased was aged 38 years. As per Ext.A10 salary certificate it is proved that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 10,314/-. Even the basic salary of the deceased is Rs. 3,820/- per month.2. The Tribunal awarded compensation calculating loss of dependency under the structured formula in the second schedule of the Act as provided in Section 163A by limiting annual income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/-,...

V.P. Augustine and Another Vs. S. Ganesh

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT: The petitioner/first complainant in CC No. 08/2007 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad has sought for condoning the delay of 327 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is mentioned that he was aged 65 years and laid up with spondylitis. In the affidavit the period of delay is mentioned as 317 days. The respondent has filed objection pointing out the difference in the days mentioned in the affidavit and petition. It is also contended that spondylitis is not a disease that would disable a person to pursue the matter. We find that the appellant has produced the certificate of an Ayurvedic Physician mentioning that the complainant was under his treatment from 12-06-2008 and that he is not in a position to move about at present and that he has been advised complete rest. The certificate is dated 09-07-2009. We find that there are two complainants ie, the present petitioner and his wife. His wife was working as J...

The Manager, M/S.Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Benny

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 17th January 2008 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.366/05. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank in recovering possession of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant by availing a loan from the opposite party/HDFC Bank Ltd. The opposite party entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency in service on his part. He contended that he took possession of the vehicle because of the default on the part of the complainant in making payment of the loan instalments. Before the forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and P1 to P9 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party, DW1 and D1 to D3 documents were produced. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the forum below passed the impugned order allowing the complaint in CC.366/05 with a direction to refund a sum of Rs.2...

Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]189TAXMAN225(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This Wealth Tax Appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal upholding wealth tax assessment on the value of the land on which a commercial building was under construction as on the valuation date. The appellant-assessee is a public limited company engaged in production and sale of automotive tyres. It was allotted a plot in Gurgaon earmarked for institutions by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on 29-12-1995. The appellant commenced construction of a commercial building in the plot in November, 1997, completed construction of a four storied building with basement and started occupying it from 29-3-2000. After completion of construction of the building, the land and building are granted exemption from wealth-tax as the said asset falls under the exempted category. However, in the course of assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, the Wealth Tax Officer assessed the value of the land treating it as urban land under Clause (v...

Stella W/O. Stephen Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the production of her husband Stephen, who has been detained under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and to set him at liberty.2. Against the said Stephen, the husband of the petitioner, Ext.P1 order of detention dated 27-8-2009 has been passed by the second respondent. In execution of the said order, he was detained on 18-9-2009. He continues in custody from that date. According to the respondents, approval under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA was given by the Government on 29-9-2009. The same was communicated to the detenu through the jail authorities on 30-9-2009. The detenu thus continues in custody from 29-9-2009.3. According to the respondents, the detenu is a known goonda falling within the sweep of expression `bootlegger' and consequently a goonda and a known goonda under Section 2(j) and 2 (o)...

Nisha Rafeek W/O. Rafeek Vs. District Collector (District Magistrate),

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenue by name Rafeek @ Manal Rafeek. The husband of the petitioner - the said Rafeek, is detained preventively as per Ext.P1 order of detention dated 31/8/09 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the KAAPA'). The husband of the petitioner was taken into custody in execution of the said order on 1/9/09 and he continues in custody from that date.2. He was taken into custody alleging that he is a `known rowdy' and that his detention is necessary to prevent him from indulging in anti-social activities. He was involved in as many as six crimes, the details of which are shown below:Sl. No. Crime No. Section of Stage of theoffences proceedings691/05 448, 294(b) and Acquitted1 42786/06 451, 341, 323 & Charge Sheet filed2 294(b)3 283/07 435, 120B & 427 Charge Sheet filed191/09 Police officer isthe complainant Charge Sheet filed- 294(b) &4 3535 289/0...

Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore and Another Vs. K. Narayanan ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite party/SBT authorities in CC.223/08 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders directing to refund Rs.784/- and also pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the appellants/opposite parties illegally appropriated a sum of Rs.784/- from his account on the ground that he failed to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in his account. He had a balance of Rs.1761/- as on 19.9.07. On 19.9.07 he withdrew Rs.1000/-. According to him he was not informed of the new condition impose. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party that as per circular dated 25.6.07 issued from the head office at Thiruvananthapuram, account holders are to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in semi urban areas, if the account is provided with the facility of cheque transactions. The above information was displayed in the notice board of the bank. As per the circu...

E.P. Rajan Vs. Aiswarya Corporation and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.22/2000 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant/appellant that he deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 29.1.97 and Rs.20,000/- on 28.7.98 with the opposite party. FD receipts were also issued promising to repay with interest at 12%. The FD for Rs.30,000/- is to mature on 27.1.98 and the deposit of Rs.20,000/- is to mature on 20.8.99. Since 28.7.98 no interest has been paid. After maturity the amounts were also not repaid. The complainant has been filed seeking to get back the amounts with interest at 12% from 27.1.98. 3. During the pendency of proceedings, opposite party No.3 expired and his name was deleted. The opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5 that included the second opposite party/Managing partner and the first opposite party firm has filed a joint version alleging that the fixed deposit receipts have been forged by the 6th opposite party ie; anoth...

Xerox India Ltd., (Regd. Office), Noida Rep. by Power of Attorney Hold ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 25-11-2008 of the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 22/2008. The complaint therein was filed by the first respondent as complainant against the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 as opposite parties 1 to 4 respectively. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in curing the defects developed by the Xerox Machine which was purchased by the complainant from the 4th opposite party dealer. The opposite parties 1 and 2 (appellants) are the manufacturers of the said photo copying machine and the second respondent (3rd opposite party) is the service provider. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written versions denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part and that there were no defects in the photo copying machine purchased by the complainant from them. Thus, the opposite parties prayed f...

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Alwaye Vs. Jose P ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above revision is preferred from the order dated 26th February, 2009 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in EP No. 116/2002 in OP No. 1101/01. The Revision Petitioner was the opposite party in OP No. 1101/01. The complaint in the said OP No. 1101/01 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, National Insurance Company Ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim of Rs. 15,000/-. The aforesaid complaint in OP 1101/01 was disposed of by the order dated 07-08-2002 directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- with 12% interest from 19-09-2001 till the date of realization and costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner herein filed first appeal as Appeal No. 737/02 challenging the order dated 07-08-2002 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP 1101/01. Along with the said appeal a stay petition was als...