Kerala Court January 2010 Judgments

Saji Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT753

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. One of the main points that arises for decision in these Writ Petitions is whether the persons included in the rank-list published by the Public Service Commission (for short 'P.S.C.') for appointment to the post of Lower Primary School Assistant (for short 'LPSA') (Malayalam) can claim the vacancies occupied by protected teachers. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are persons included in the rank-list published by the P.S.C. for appointment to the post of LPSA (Malayalam) in Kollam district. The rank-list was published on 1.11.2006. It should have expired on 30.10.2009. But, because of the unification of the age of retirement of Government servants, the P.S.C. has extended its life and now the list expires only on 30.04.2010. These Writ Petitions are filed, mainly, praying to report all available vacancies, including those occupied by protected teachers, to the P.S.C.. They also claim that the vacancies set apart for inter-district transferees, when su...

Babu Antony Vs. the President, Kairaly Marketing and Processing Co-ope ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is preferred from the order dated 13.02.2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in O.P.A.124/2002. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in effecting supply and sale of oil expeller and filter press. The complainant alleged that they paid the total consideration of Rs.1,37,383/- to the opposite party and that the opposite party failed to supply the machineries. The opposite party entered appearance and contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in O.P.A.124/2002. The opposite party has also contended that the claim is barred by limitation and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A3 documents were produced from the ...

The Branch Manager, Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd., P.O. Kasargod a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in C.C.189/05 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing no objection certificate to get the higher purchase endorsement cancelled. The complainant alleged remittance of the entire loan amount on 19.03.2002 and approached the opposite party to get the No Objection Certificate for the purpose of getting higher purchase endorsement cancelled by the Registering Authority. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version and contended that balance amount was due from the complainant and thereby they justified their action in not issuing the no objection certificate. They also contended that an arbitration proceedings was pending prior to the institution of the complaint in C.C.189/05. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to...

The Secretary, Kseb, Vidyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, Repd ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in CC:308/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellant is under orders to issue fresh bill based on back assessment for 6 months prior to the date of meter becoming faulty vide Regulation 33 (2) of the Conditions of Supply. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. We find that no prejudice is caused to the appellants as the appellants have been directed to issue fresh bill in compliance of Regulation 33(2) of the Conditions of Supply. The bill has been issued after 5 years. We find that there is no scope for admission. The appeal is dismissed in-limine....

The Managing Director, Unit of Benz Automobiles Ltd, at Present Known ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in the file of O.P.No. 231/2002 dated 31/08/2006. The appellants are the opposite parties prefers this appeal from the above order. In short the complainant is a teacher by profession. He has a son and a daughter who are students. The opposite parties had made advertisements through media and newspapers that they are, manufacturers and dealers of high quality computers, inkjet printers, U.P.S. and other accessories, the complainant on 28.01.2002 purchased a computer with HPBrio P III 1 GHE with colour monitor inkjet printer, UPS its accessories of specification. He paid Rs.47,000/- after payment of the amount and the instruments were delivered and installed at the residence of the complainant by the 1st opposite party. A warranty period was provided for one year. The key board of the computer showed defects on 29.01.2002 itself and the service personnel of first opposite party corrected the sam...

State of Kerala Vs. Krishnankutty Alias Aniyam Nair and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLJ740

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Appellant is the State of Kerala. The first respondent filed the Suit claiming compensation from the appellant and the second respondent for damage arising out of the negligence with which the second respondent Doctor treated the first respondent culminating in the amputation of the left leg (below knee) of the first respondent. The trial court decreed the Suit in a sum of Rs. 1,31,000/- with interest at six per cent from the appellant and second respondent.2. We shall refer to the parties as in the trial court. The plaintiff suffered an injury when a silicate stone on the sunshade of a building fell down and hit on his left leg, just above the ankle on 19.11.1989. The plaintiff was working at the building site. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur where the second respondent was working. Plastering was done. He was discharged on the same day in the evening. Thereafter, he went back to the hospital on 23.11.1989, complaining of severe pain. Then, the...

The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vidyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthpauram a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC138/08 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod.The appellants are under orders to provide electric connection to the pump house of the complainant on or before 31.12.2009 failing whichto pay a compensation of Rs.25000/- 2. The case of the complainant is that she applied for electric connection to the pump house and remitted necessary charges on 20.4.09 and 12.5.09and dug a bore well for irrigation purposes.She could not use the same as the connection has not been provided so far. 3. The case of the opposite parties is that her priority has not reached. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.A1 to A5. 5.The order of the Forum is dated 23.9.09.We find that the opposite parties/appellants have not produced any authority to substantiate their contention that the persons who applied for electric connection in the above category before the complainant has not been providedwith the electric connection.In the circumst...

M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Purushothaman Nair and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party in CC.74/2008 in the file of CDRF,Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- with interest at 8% from the date of purchase and Rs.250/- as cost. 2. The matter relates the alleged manufacturing defects with respect to a tractor. The opposite parties stood ex parte before the Forum. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A4. 4. We find that no proper reason has been mentioned by the appellant for not contesting the matter before the Forum. All the same in view of the fact that the case involved a considerable sum it is desirable to have a considered order. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the 1st opposite party pay a sum of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards cost or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The matter stands remitted. The Forum will permit the opposite ...

Indian Airlines Vs. Kurian Abraham

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT849

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. An interesting question regarding the interpretation of the word 'wilful misconduct' and the question of burden of proof arises for consideration in this appeal.2. The defendant, who suffered a decree at the hands of Sub Court, Kochi is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the court below.3. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff had entrusted five cartons of curcuma powder of 10 kg. each to the first defendant to deliver to M/s. Proquimao Color S.A. C/o. Solsona-42, E-08227 Terassa, Barcelona, Spain. The first defendant was an agent and the second defendant was the carrier. At the delivery end, it was found that one of the cartons was missing. Short delivery of one carton was confirmed by the defendants. As a result of the deficiency in quantity, the consignee refused to accept delivery. Apart from the cost of the article, the plaintiff had to pay 805 U.S. Dollars towards demurrage charges. 108.51 U.S. ...

High Court of Kerala Vs. Mohammed Faisal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT857

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The third respondent in the Writ Petition, the High Court of Kerala, represented by its Registrar, is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are the following:The 1st respondent, while working as Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad, was suspended from service on 12.2.1994, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It appears, the suspension was preceded by certain preliminary enquiries held by the High Court through its Vigilance Wing. The preliminary enquiry against him was held based on a report filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, who noticed some irregularities committed by the 1st respondent. Later, the 1st respondent was served with Ext.Pl memo of charges on 5.3.1994. The allegations in Ext.Pl memo were to the effect that he tampered with the depositions of PWs.3, 4 and 7 in C.C. No. 73/1991, a case tried by him, so as to help the accused. The 1st respondent submitted Ext.P2...