Kerala Court October 2010 Judgments

indus Motor Company Private Limited, Kochi, Rep. by Power of Attorney ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA MEMBER This appeal preferred from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in the file of CC.No.46/06 order dated 10.8.06. The appellant is the 1st opposite party and the respondents are the complainant and the 2nd opposite party respectively. 2. The brief of the complaint is that, he purchased a Euro III Zen LX car from the 1st opposite party who arranged sales promotion fare in front of Pappens restorant at Cheruthoni. The complainant went to the fair and he booked the above mentioned car and paid Rs.1000/- as advance on 26.8.05 at the time of booking of the vehicle the opposite party offered one year free insurance, a gift cheque of Rs.10000/- against a stereo worth Rs.5000/- and agreed to deliver the vehicle for Rs.3,43,459/- within 2 days of the payment of full amount. On 30.8.05 complainant arranged a loan from Mahindra Finance and paid to the opposite parties. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered within a week of time....

The Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd., Now Hdfc Bank Ltd., Calicut, Rep. b ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The CDRF, Kasaragod vide its order dated 1.6.09 in CC.254/08 had directed the second opposite party to return the original RC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14 F 1840 with key to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. It is also directed that in the event of failure to return the original RC and Key, the second opposite party shall be liable to pay additional compensation of Rs.5000/. It is against the said directions, that the present appeal is filed by the second opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. For a fair disposal of the appeal, the brief facts of the case are re-capitulated as here under. The complainant had purchased the Yamaha Libero Motorcycle from the first opposite party and the loan was arranged by them from the second opposite party and that on payment of the entire dues, the complainant had requested for re...

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kozhikode Dis ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC No. 66/2007 which was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim with respect to two life policies stood in the name of deceased K.N. Moideenkutty who died on 17-12-2005 due to acute coronary syndrome. The complainant is the widow and nominee of the life assured deceased K.N. Moideenkutty. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the life assured suppressed material facts regarding his health condition at the time of submitting the proposals for the two life policies. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts. A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of th...

Aduvanni Saidu, and ors. Vs. Aduvanni Moidutty.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker338

1. Concurrent decision rendered by two courts below upholding the claims of the respondent/plaintiff for a declaration of injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, is challenged by the appellants/defendants in this second appeal. 2. Plaintiff claimed a declaration as to his right to easement by grant and also by necessity over a pathway, a pond and a well, on the basis of the provisions made in Ext.A1 partition deed. The plaint property was one among the items covered by the partition deed (Ext.A1) entered by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff and defendants and a pathway (kannidavazhi), a pond and a well were left in common for all the sharers, is the case of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule properties were set apart to the share of his father and, later, on the basis of a gift deed executed by his father, he had exclusive right over the plaint schedule properties, according to the plaintiff. The defendants, who have obtained items of properties covered by Ext.A1 partit...

V. Subramanyan Vs. P.T. Jayaprakash and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the common order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in CC.32/09 and CC.33/09 whereby the Forum below directed the opposite parties 1,2 and 4 to refund Rs.34000/- in CC.32/09 and to refund Rs.45000/- in CC.33/09 with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till payment with costs of Rs.3000/- each. It is aggrieved by these directions that the present appeals are preferred by the 2nd opposite party. 2. The case of the complainant is that he joined in the chitty conducted by the opposite parties 1 to 4. But they appropriated the instalments paid in the chitty. In CC.32/09 it is stated that he had joined in two chitties on 25.1.2006 and 16.12.2006 and paid Rs.2000/- each totaling Rs.34000/- and in CC.33/09 it is stated that he had joined the chitty on 22.6.03 and paid 45 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1000/- each totaling Rs.45000/-. On getting information that the chitty is under collapse he ...

C.P. Dhamodaran (President), Prathyaksha Reksha Daiva Sabha (Prds), Er ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:29th March 2001 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.131/99. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties (KSEB) in issuing bills for excess current charges for a sum of Rs.1,53,507/- for the period from 2/95 to 2/97 and also for Rs.1,25,565/- towards excess electricity charges for the period from 2/97 to1/99. It was also alleged that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service by revising the monthly rate of the current charge at Rs.6,574/- and demanding the same from February 1999. It was alleged that the complainant is a religious and charitable institution entitled for concessional rate for the electrical energy which is being consumed. The complainant has also prayed for directing the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric connection to the premises of the complainant. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and fi...

M. Krishnan Nair Vs. Prethikumar @ Pradeep

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.20/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party on 4/1/2004 had agreed to rectify the leakage of water from the first floor of the building and from the first floor bathroom by using modern chemicals and by removing tiles in the terrace and plastering using costly modern materials. He had also agreed that if any defect is noticed thereafter he himself will rectify the defects without any payment. It was Murukan an employee of Thrissur Jwellers, East fort, Thiruvananthapuram who introduced the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant also personally knew the opposite party. It was agreed that the works will be executed within 3 weeks time. He commenced the work on 5/1/2004. As per agreement in the presence of respectable witnesses at the residence of the complainant altogether a sum of Rs.14,600/- was paid to the...

P.Rajan Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker287

1. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman, who was discharged from the Defence Service. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the 3rd respondent company. The mode of fixation of pay on such reemployment is prescribed in Ext.P1 circular issued by the 2nd respondent. Based on the same, the petitioner's pay had been fixed. But subsequently circulars were issued regarding such fixation contrary to each other. A writ petition filed by another employee challenging one of them was allowed by Ext.P5 judgment. The writ appeal filed against Ext.P5 judgment     has also been dismissed.    Another writ petition viz.,O.P.No.12010/1996, filed by another person in respect of the same subject matter is also stated to be disposed of. In view of the pendency of those proceedings and interim orders therein, the petitioner’s pay had not been refixed to his detriment. Going by the age in the affidavit accompanying the original petition, the petitioner has already attained t...

Shajahan Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker42

1. Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.1647/2010 of Karunagappally Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 5(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, seeks anticipatory bail.        2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 21.10.2010 or on 22.10.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate concerned and file an application for regular bail. On being convinced that the petitioner has been interrogated ...

Udayakumar Vs. Rajalekshmi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker475

1. Second appeal arises from the final decree and judgment  passed in a suit for redemption namely O.S No.252/1974 on the  file of the 3rd Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The case has a long chequered career and for the  purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is unnecessary to advert to  the factual basis of the claim raised by the plaintiff or the  contentions advanced by the contesting defendants resisting the  relief canvassed, and also the disputes, which emanated  there from for adjudication before the court. Suffix to state, the  above suit, which was one for redemption, was jointly tried along  with another suit, O.S No.593/1974, in which the plaintiff therein  also set up a claim for redemption over the same property.  Subject matter involved in both the suits is fifteen cents of land  outstanding on a mortgage. The plaintiffs in the respective suits  set up rival claims on the basis of their stat...