Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

George Kuruvilla Managing Director, M/S. Integrated Finance Co.Ltd. Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Delay sought to be condoned is of 7 months and 28 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner it is mentioned that due to the inadvertent omission the notice of posting of the EA was misplaced. 2. The respondent/complainant has filed objection denying the genuineness of the case set up by the petitioner and contending that the petitioner is only attempting to protract the matter. We find that the execution is with respect to the realisaiton of the amounts deposited in the petitioner/company. We find misplacing of the records is not a sufficient reason. The deposits are of the year 2000. We find that the petitioner did not establish sufficient reason to condone the delay. In the result the IA is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed....

M/S. Integrated Finance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mohan Paul

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JISTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party in CC.599/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. Delay sought to be condoned is of 2 years 8 months and 18 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the application by the power of attorney holder of the appellant it is mentioned that there are more than 100 cases against the petitioner and that the file of particular case happened to be misplaced. It is also mentioned that in the proceedings in the execution warrant has been issued against the Managing Director. So it is submitted that the petitioner did not receive the order of the Forum 2. The respondent/complainant has filed an objection alleging that the petitioner is attempting to protract the matter and obstruct the recovery proceedings. It is pointed out that the petitioner is having offices at various parts of the country and has got men and material to conduct the case. 3. We find that the matter in CC 599/06 is with respect to return of the amounts deposited...

Hdfc General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai and Another Vs. Sethumadha ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and 3rd opposite party respectively in CC No. 77/2006 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not disbursing the repair charges of Rs. 32,776/- with respect to the insured vehicle, which was insured with the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant also alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in the delay in delivering the vehicle after effecting the repairs to the vehicle, which sustained damage in a motor vehicle accident. Thus, the complainant claimed the balance repair charge of Rs. 32,776/- and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service ...

Shriram Investments Ltd., Vs. Sasidharan.K

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JISTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/financer in OP.21/2004 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8500/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed finance from the opposite parties for the purchase of a Swaraj Mazda Bus Chassis for earning his livelihood. He was made to sign in a number of blank papers. The chassis was taken to Yamuna Body Works near Manjeri. It is the case that after the body building was completed the opposite parties took possession of the vehicle and sold the same . He also already paid to the body builder Rs.1,15,000/- and Rs.15000/- towards the 1st installment to the opposite parties and that he has to Rs. 35000/- balance to the body builder. It is alleged vehicle was repossessed by opposite party from the garage to the body builder. He has also been demanded to pay Rs.3,89,785/- towards the loan. 3. The opposite parties ha...

Thomas Vs. the Manager, North Malabar GramIn Bank, Wayanad

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBE This appeal prefers from this order passed by the CDRF, Wayanad in the file of C.C.No.1/06 dated 28.08.2008. The Forum below found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and appellant prefers this appeal from send finding of the Forum below. The complaint is having a case that his plantain cultivation was totally lost in the severe drought and storm. The opposite party was informed of the destruction of the cultivation the agricultural officer inspected the plantain cultivation of the complainant. The 1st opposite party also informed the complainant subsequently the insured will be compensated adequately. The complainant had the loss of near about Rs.1,00,000/- due to the drought and storm which resulted in destruction of the crop. When ever the complainant enquired the opposite party was not in a position to compensate paying the insurance amount. If an average crop was obtained the complainant could have an income of R...

The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs. E. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Idukki in the file of O.P.237/04. The appellant is the opposite party who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. In short, the brother of the complainant Jabbar who is a consumer of the opposite party. He was working abroad. The consumer number is3486/RYD under LTY tariff and the current charges were being paid without any default as per the slab and spot bills. On 14.07.2004 certain persons, introducing themselves as officers of the Electricity Board, came to the house and prepared a mahazar illegally. On 16.08.2004 a bill dated 09.08.2004 demanding Rs.26,421/- was given to the complainant with a direction to pay the same before 18.08.2004 failing which it was threatened that the supply would be disconnected. The complainant and other family members were unable to raise the funds and hence the supply was disconnected. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposit...

Anitha Rajan Vs. R.D.O.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT932

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioner purchased a parcel of land, 50 cents in extent, situated in Re-Survey No. 166/1 of Nattika village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur district from the legal heirs of late Gangadharan as per the original of Ext.P3 sale deed dated 16.3.2009, registered as document No. 640 of 2009 of Sub Registrar's Office, Triprayar. The property conveyed to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 sale deed belonged to late Gangadharan. Ext.P3 saledeed was executed by his wife Smt. Rathnabhai and his children Sri. Ajayan, Smt. Jisha, Smt. Usha, Smt. Ajitha and Smt. Anitha. Sri. Ajayan, one of the vendors was employed in Dubai and Smt. Usha, another vendor was not residing in her home town. Sri. Ajayan had executed the originalof Ext.Pl power of attorney on 1.3.2009 on non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs. 150/- appointing his mother Smt. Rathnabhai as his power of attorney to execute a sale deed in respect of the lands conveyed to the petitioner. The original of Ext.P1 power of a...

M.M. Salim, S/O. M.M. Haneefa Vs. Pradeep Naik

Court: Kerala

ORDERC.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The respondent in RC(OP) 40/2000 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kollam is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlord filed petition seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the Act). According to the landlord the petition schedule building, which forms part of a row of shops, is situated on the southern side of a property having 70 cents in extent which contains his residential building. Since there is no motorable access to the said property and to the residential building, the landlord wanted to demolish the petition schedule shop room and also another shop room situated on its western side to create vehicular pathway to the property and to the residential building situated on its back. Hence eviction was sought for under Section 11(3).2. Evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of oral testimony of landlord examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to ...

Ummer Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT963

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No. 36 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Kasaragod. The revision petitioner married one Haseena on 13.11.2005 and a child also was born in that wedlock. The dead body of his wife Haseena, aged 22 years was found floating at about 4 p.m. on 9.8.2008 in the Chandragiri river, far away from her matrimonial home where she was staying at that time. According to the version of the inmates of the house of the accused, on the previous day (8.8.2008) at about 7 p.m. while Haseena and the accused were about to go to the house of Haseena, a quarrel took place between the spouses over a trivial issue and Haseena ran inside the house and cut her vein and was thereafter missing. According to the father and other close relatives of Haseena, when they reached the house of the accused after getting the news about her disappearance, they had seen blood stains in the bedroom as well as on the dress of the ...

Venugopal Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT111

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The appellant, then working as a Police Constable, submitted a representation dated 15.1.2008 to the competent appointing authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police, requesting permission to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 30.4.2008 A.N. With materials evidencing transmission of his representation, service book etc. by the Superintendent of Police to the Office of the Accountant General, he filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to voluntarily retire as sought for by him and for a declaration that he is entitled to voluntary retirement in terms of the statutory rules. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, the respondents submitted through learned Government Pleader on 17.6.2009, that the petitioner's application for permission to voluntarily retire from the service with effect from 30.4.2008 was rejected by the Superintendent of Police on 17.11.2008 and that therefore, the relief sough...