Kerala Court September 2009 Judgments

The Secretary, Thalakulathur Bhavana Nirmana Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.321/05 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to return the original documents produced by the complainant at the time of availing the loan and also to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the documents submitted as security at the time of availing of the loan has not been returned even after closing the loan on 17.1.05. It is the contention of the appellants/opposite parties that they were financed by the Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation and the title deeds deposited by the complainant are with the above Federation and that the complainant has to approach the Federation for getting back the documents. 3. We find that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant. There is no illegality in the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed in-limine....

Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kollam Vs. A.J. ...

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, Kollam in the file of OP No. 536/03. The appellants are the opposite parties. 2. Inshort, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The monthly consumption of the complainant was in between 100 to 125 units during the past three years. The bill issued by the1st opposite partys meter reader was regularly paying by the complainant. In 09/03 the first opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 4,778/- for the consumption of two months. The complainant complained the same before the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Therefore the 1st opposite party tested the electric meter of the complainant and reported that the meter was fault free. The 1st opposite party further issued a notice demanding the bill amount within 7 days. The complainant has not consumed so much of energy for issuing such a huge bill. Due to the laches on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mentally, physically ...

Chathukutty P. Vs. Kalpetta Municipality and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ428

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, an elected member of the Kalpetta Municipality, is a member of one of its Standing Committees. Notice of a motion of no confidence against him is given. He challenges that as one intended to tarnish his image. He pleads that the allegation of negligence as against him alone, is beyond comprehension, since it is the collective responsibility of all the members of the committee to act diligently. He also contends that the matter involved in the no confidence motion is sub-judice in an election petition challenging his election.2. A motion of no confidence does not necessarily depend upon the abilities, capabilities or qualities of the person against whom it is moved. That is part of political process. Support to a particular person may. depend upon various factors; sometimes even unreasonable in the views of the common man. A no confidence motion does not depend on anything other than the support that it may gather on being moved. If the ...

Lekha Shaji Vs. M/S Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT: The appellant is the complainant in OP:287/01 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The matter relates to the accident insurance cover for Asianet subscribers.The 2nd opposite party/the insurer had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased. The Forum has upheld the contention of the opposite parties that the amount that can be claimed is only Rs.1,00,000/- relying on clause 3 of the terms and conditions printed on the reverse of Ext.A1 insurance enrolment form. As per the above clause the policy is offered for four persons in the family, in the age group of 5 years to 70 years at the rate of 50,000/- per head. In the case of lesser number of persons, the subscriber may choose a combination of: i) One lakh for self and 50,000/- each for two members, OR ii) One lakh each for self and spouse,OR iii) Retain Rs.2.lakhs for self alone. OR 3. The above clause would show that if the family consist...

Forum for Social Justice Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ538

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Article 39A of the Constitution of India, forming part of the Directive Principles of State Policy lays down thus:39A. Equal justice and free legal aid. The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not dented to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.2. Prior to coming into force of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, there was no statutory body for implementation of this policy of providing legal aid to the needy as envisaged in Article 39A That duty was mainly performed by non-governmental and voluntary organisations apart from the Kerala State Legal Aid and Advice Board, a body constituted by the Government by executive orders. At the time various voluntary and nongovernmental organisations engaged in providing legal...

Regional P.F. Commissioner, E.P.F. Organisation Vs. Administrator, Cos ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)1LLJ14Ker

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner in this original petition. He is challenging Exhibit P-4 order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal set aside Exhibit P-l order of the petitioner holding that the interim relief and special allowance paid to the employees of the 1st respondent is not eligible to contribution under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, based on a judgment of the Madras High Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Regional P.F. Commissioner, Tamilnadu : 1984 I LLJ 300 (Mad). On an inspection of the books of accounts of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent found that the 1st respondent had paid to their employees interim relief at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 50/- per month as special allowance in respect of which no contributions have been paid under the Act. By Exhibit P-l order, the petitioner directed the 1st respondent to pay contr...