Kerala Court July 2009 Judgments

Raveendran P. Vs. A. Jayakumar and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010CriLJ208; 2009(3)KLJ47

ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. The main question urged for a decision in this revision is whether an article of food can be said to be adulterated even if other edible seeds found in it are. not proved to be deleterious to health.2. Petitioner before me stands convicted of offences punishable under Sections 2 (i-a), (m) and 7(i) read with 16(1)(a)(i), (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act') and Rule A-05.09 of Appendix B of the Food Adulteration Rules (for short, 'the Rules') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of, fine. Case is that on 26.6.1991' at about 1.00 p.m. the Food inspector purchased 450 gms of cumin seed from petitioner at Shop No. KP-11/86. Food Inspector after complying with the formalities sent one of the sample parts to the Public Analyst who reported that the same did not conform to the standards prescribed for cumin seed. Prosecution was launched on the basis of the report. On the request of petitioner the second part of the s...

The Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Kanjar Branch and Another ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in the file of CC.No.102/2008 dated.29/9/08. The appellants are the opposite parties in the above said OP who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the forum below. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant is a consumer and account holder of the opposite party bank as Saving Bank Account No.2727 and she is having a balance of Rs.500/- in the account. On 13.9.07 she pledges some gold ornaments in the opposite party bank as gold loan No.499/07 for Rs.2,000/- and another gold loan No.529/07 for Rs.900/- on 25.9.07. The complainant approached the opposite party for the redemption of gold ornaments several times. But the opposite party deliberately avoided the complainant from the same. On 3.6.08 at about 12 AM, the complainant approached the opposite party with her husband, for getting back their gold ornaments, the opposite party insisted the complainant to close anothe...

The Post Master, Head Post Office, Thodupuzha and Another Vs. V. Justi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT: The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC.73/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and also Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a speed post money order for Rs.400/- at head post office, Thodupuzha on 7.4.08 to the addressee Mr.S.Warshal, Sathur post office, Viruthanagar, Tamilnadu who was assured that the amount will reaching the addressee on the second day. Rs.20/- money order charges and Rs.12/- for speed post charges were remitted. The money order did not reach the addressee on the second day or on the next day and hence he filed complaint. 3. In the version filed by the appellant/opposite party it is submitted that the money order was booked as alleged. It is pointed out that the speed post money orders are sent to Thodupuzha sorting office first and from there to the destination through various transit post offices. T...

Sabu Vs. Rajan P.Jacob

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appellant is the opposite party in CC.10/06 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint in the aforesaid consumer complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant claiming compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in delivering the consignment covered by A2 consignment note. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version contending that the opposite party acted only as a collection agent of the Flyking Courier and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is also contended that the Flyking Courier is a necessary party to the proceedings in the said complaint. Before the Forum below both parties filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Exts. A1 to A4 documents were also produced and marked from the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of t...

New Kannapuram Chitties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.K. Ravi

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP No.1039/04 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to return the amount of Rs.4,500/- with 12% interest to the complainant and also costs of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he has a subscriber to the chit with the opposite party. The monthly instalment was Rs.500/-. Altogether, a sum of Rs.4,500/- was deposited. According to him, on the 9th month he auctioned the chit for Rs.12,000/-. Although, sureties were furnished the amount was not given. Hence, he sought for return of the amount paid. 3. According to the opposite party/appellant, the complainant was remitted only a sum of Rs.2,664/- and also alleged that no sureties were furnished. After auction no instalments were remitted. 4. We find that no evidence was adduced before the Forum. The appellant has produced herein certain documents to support his contentions. It appears that the Forum has not considered the c...

Anandan K. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ509

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The issues involved in both these cases arc closely interconnected and hence dealt with together. The grievance projected by the petitioner in the former case is against the coercive steps taken by the respondents for realisation of huge amounts from him stating that, pursuant to the default of the petitioner in completing the works awarded to him, the same had to be re-scheduled and re allotted at the cost of the petitioner, in view of the loss to the 5th respondent/Block Panchayat. The case of the said petitioner is that, the termination of the contract itself is wrong; particularly when cancellation of the work order vide Ext. P2 was. without any prior notice and hence in violation of Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Contract) Rules, 1996. It is also contended that, no coercive proceedings will lie, since there is no quantification of the liability by issuing any notice to die petitioner giving an opportunity of hearing and that the liability has been...

Rajesh Vs. M.E. Easow(Mannumkal)

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order 27.1.2006 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.No.170/03. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in printing of directories on behalf of the complainant. The opposite party entered appearance before the Forum below and contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in printing the directory as agreed. It is further contended that the opposite party printed 500 copies of directories as agreed and that the complainant returned 200 copies by pointing out some printing mistakes in those directories. The opposite party rectified the mistakes and informed the complainant to get back those 200 copies of directories; but the complainant was not amenable and filed complaint in OP.170/03. Thus, the opposite party requested...

Thuppilakkadan Sulaiman, Hotel Almas, Edakkara and Another Vs. Assista ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.No.182/03 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint filed for getting additional bill for Rs.54,000/- cancelled stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the opposite party KSEB that the APTS detected unauthorized extension from the house of the complainant to the adjust Grace hospital. Hence the bill. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the affidavit filed by the respective parties; Ext.A1, B1 and B2. 4. The matter has been disposed of by a concise and crypt order. The complainant sought for any opportunity to cross examine the opposite party and adduce the required evidence. According to the complainant the Forum did not provide sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. It appears to us that the matter requires a little more detailed consideration. In the circumstances order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to permit the both sides to adduce further evidence and dispose of the matter b...

Komalavally Vs. the Management of St.Joseph’s Hospital and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.No.406/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed for default. The matter relates to medical negligence. It is the case of the appellant/complainant who is a lady that she was laid up. A medical certificate has also been produced. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. Forum is directed to permit the appellant/complainant to adduce evidence and dispose of the matter by a considered order. The case will stand posted before the Forum on 15/9/09. Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

R.Binu Vs. M/S. Sreeram Investment Ltd., Rep. by the Manager, Ernakula ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.No.130/05 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint stands dismissed for default. The counsel for R1 has no objection in allowing the appeal. 2. n the circumstance the order of the Forum is set aside. Forum is directed to permit the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the matter by a considered order. The case will stand posted before the Forum on 14/9/09. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....