Kerala Court January 2010 Judgments

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by Dr. Mohan Shanker,senior D ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in CC.183/07 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellant is under orders to pay the amount as per Ext.A3 survey report and Rs.1500/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his smoke house and rubber sheets were insured with the opposite party and that the same was got gutted in fire on 5.9.05. The claim was repudiated. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellant that the surveyor has reported that the rubber sheet etc. were damaged due to overheating during drying process. As per Clause 1 (a) ii of the policy destruction or damage caused due to fire during heating or drying process is excluded . 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits by the respective sides and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3. 5. The Forum has disposed of the matter by a cryptic order mentioning that as per the survey report the burner was noted as separated from the smoke house and hen...

The Secretary, Pallivasal Grama Panchayat Vs. V.T. Saseendran, Lic Age ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC No. 37/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to take back the balance number of books unsold on payment of Rs. 495/- per copy within 30 days and in case the opposite party refuses to do so, the complainant is allowed to realize the amount on production of the books before the Forum. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 7,350/- being the price of the undelivered copies and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs and that if the amounts are not paid within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, the amount would carry interest at 12%. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted the printing of the book Gurudharamam in the Offset Press of the opposite party. The printing as well as the plate making was entrusted with the opposite party. The entrustment was on 18-12-2004 and it was agreed to return the printed cop...

Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Regional Providen ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT639

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The petitioner is a Government owned company. The first respondent has by Ext.P3 order made an assessment of additional contribution due from the petitioner at an amount of Rs. 71,29,165/-. The amount represents the contribution demanded from the petitioner in respect of 12 factories.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that assessment in respect of 18 more factories are being finalised. The additional compensation demanded is in respect of the trainees who were being engaged by the petitioner. The 1st respondent has found that the trainees are, in fact, regular employees of the petitioner who have been appointed after assessing the requirements of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, the trainees are persons who come within the definition of 'employee' contained in Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).3. The case of the petitioner is ...

Varghese Vs. Mathew Simon

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT719

M.N. Krishnan, J.1. M.F.A. No. 684/03 is preferred against the judgment in O.S. No. 1 of 1989 of Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta and the other case is filed against the judgment in O.S. No. 4 of 1988 of Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta. For the purpose of appreciating the case, I shall briefly refer to the facts of the case. Here the subject matter is regarding the genuineness and acceptability of the Wills. One Aleyamma, according to the case of the defendants had, executed a Will Ext.B2 in the year 1964 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1/89 would contend that she had executed a Will on 8.6.1980. It is also contended that the Will of 1964 is not a valid document. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 4/88 would contend that the Will Ext. A4, alleged to have been executed in the year 1980, is a forged document and it will not have any effect. So the decision of the case would depend upon the acceptability of one of these Wills. Original plaintiff in O.S. No. 4/88 is one of the sons of ...

Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Neena

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT541

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Writ Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Bank challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge vacating the order of the Government in appeal, restoring the order of the Joint Registrar and directing the appellant to appoint the first respondent in the Writ Appeal as Junior Clerk pursuant to her inclusion in the select list prepared by the Appellant based on the examination conducted by the Co-operative Service Examination Board in the year 2003. We have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, counsel appearing for the Appellant-Bank and Sri. P.N. Mohanan, counsel appearing for the first respondent.2. The Co-operative Service Examination Board constituted under Section 80B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, conducted examination for selection of Junior Clerks for appointment to various Banks including that of the appellant. Pursuant to list of candidates prepared by the Examination Board, the appellant-Bank prepared merit list wherein the first respondent fi...

Tharakan Devassy Jose Vs. Dollars India Cards Ltd. and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Petitioner is directed to present the matter before the CDRF, Thrissur with a delay petition. The Forum is directed to consider the same and dispose of the same. The complaint is returned to the complainant....

Cardamom Marketing Corporation, Rep.by Its Treasurer Mathew Scaria and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Not pressed. Dismissed....

General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras and Others Vs. K.M. Chakko

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Authorities of Southern Railway in CC No. 44/08 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as compensation with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the order and costs of Rs. 300/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he booked a parcel of rubber stumps from Thiruvananthapuram Railway Station to Kannur on 03-01-2008. But the same did not reach the destination on the next day. He waited till 22.30 hours but in vain. He was told that the parcel was lost. After 4 days he was informed that the consignment is lying at the Kannur Railway Station. But by the time the rubber stumps had become useless. He complained the matter to the higher officials on 12-01-2008. But he received a curt reply directing to withdraw the complaint. The cost of the lost rubber stumps is Rs. 16,500/- for 1,100 stumps at the rate of Rs. 15 per stump. He has sought for the same and a comp...

M/S Bros India Group, Represented by Its Managing Partner, John Paul V ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appeal is filed by the complainant over the order in IA 14/07 in CC No. 454/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. The IA was filed by the opposite party disputing the maintainability of the complaint. It was the contention of the opposite party that with respect to the claims of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 8,31,683/- has been paid in full and final settlement and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The Forum relying on the documents produced held that the amount has been received in full and final settlement and hence the complaint is not maintainable and therefore dismissed the complaint. 3. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that there was two claims involved and that the Forum has considered only the alleged payment with respect to one claim and the second claim with respect to the consignment of Rs. 11,75,966/- which was rejected was not considered. It is pointed out that the second claim has not been settled so far by th...

The Regional Manager,kerala State Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe Dev ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.198/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to provide certified copies of the original documents submitted to the appellants at the time of availing loan and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost Rs.500/-. We find that it is admitted that the documents is missing from the custody of opposite party. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. The office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....