Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

The Managing Partner, Surya Builders, Behind Ksrtc, Kannur Vs. O.K. Fa ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/builders in CC:209/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to register the title deed and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost. The appellant/opposite party was exparte before the Forum. It is submitted by the appellants that they are ready to execute the sale deed of the flat for which the entire amount has been paid. In the circumstances the appellant is directed to execute the sale deed infavour of the complainant within one month from today. The appellant is also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant. On payment of the above amount to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant the Forum will permit the appellant to contest the matter. The case stands posted before the Forum on 11/5/2010. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

Tata Motors Ltd. Passenger Car Business Unit, Kochi Vs. Dr. A.P. Phili ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties under orders to replace the Indigo car with a fresh car of the same category or to pay Rs.4,43,933/- and Rs.2,000/- towards costs in CC.209/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the car on 15.9.08 and that on 4.10.08 the vehicle had a break down. The break and steering control of the car were lost and the passengers had a miraculous escape. The vehicle was taken to an authorized workshop. The defect stated is that it was on account of slipping of alternator belt and also due to leakage of steering fluid. On 28.10.08 also the vehicle had the same problem and himself and his wife just escaped from a serious accident. The car was taken to the authorized service center. They have sought for replacement of the vehicle or return of the value of the same. 3. The opposite parties 1and 2 the manufactures and the dealers filed separate versions. They have pleaded ignor...

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd; Chemmattumattom Junction, ...

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.13/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki under orders to pay a sum of Rs.31,205/- and Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his Tata 909 Ex lorry met with an accident at Madurai on 18.5.05 and the vehicle sustained severe damages. The opposite party repudiated the claim. 3. The opposite party has filed version pointing out that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was driven by one Mani who was having only license to drive light motor vehicles. The vehicle involved is a medium goods vehicle. The driver was not holding any effective driving license to drive the particular vehicle. Hence the claim was repudiated. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, P1 to P5 and Exts.R1 to R6 5. I find that the Forum has held that the opposite party has not proved that the driver was not a duly licensed driver. The Forum has also relied on the decision of ...

Consumer Vigilance Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs. the Bran ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the complainants and respondents were the opposite parties in CC No. 280/2006 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in deducting a sum of Rs. 1,075/- from the loan amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in the failure of the opposite parties to take the policy of insurance in the name of the lonee Rajappan Nair, the husband of the second complainant Omana. R. The said complaint was filed by the second complainant through the first complainant, the Consumer Vigilance Centre. Thereby the complainants claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony suffered by the second complainant with a further prayer to absolve the second complainant from the liability to pay the loan amount outstanding in the name of Rajappan Nair, the husband of the second complainant. 2. Notice in CC No. 280/2006 was served on the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they ...

The Manager, Chittur Road, Vaduthala, CochIn Vs. K. Sudevan and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the first opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and second opposite party in OP.No.2/03 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint in OP.2/03 was filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 with respect to the sale of a defective tyre to the complainant. The complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the said tyre with Serial No.57103622729 which was purchased by the complainant from the second opposite party/dealer. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the said tyre. Thereby, the complainant prayed for replacement of the defective tyre by a new tyre and also for compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant. 2. The first opposite party (the manufacturer of the tyre) filed written version denying and disputing the alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It was contended that the complainan...

N.C. Alexander Vs. C.G. Ravi and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is filed from the order dated 18.02.2005 in O.P.No.226/2004 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellant is the 3rd opposite party. The impugned order has been passed against the 3rd opposite party directing payment of Rs.25,500/- to the original complainant, Mr.Ravi. During the pendency of the present appeal 1st respondent/complainant died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 6. The additional 4th respondent is the wife and additional respondents 5 and 6 are the minor children of the complainant/1st respondent. The parties to the present appeal settled the matter and a compromise petition is filed by the appellant and the additional respondents 4 to 6. The additional 4th respondent being the guardian of the minor additional respondents 5 and 6 signed the compromise petition on her own behalf and on behalf of the minor additional respondents 5 and 6. As per the compromise petition the additional 4th respon...

Sunil Jacob, Vs. Infant Jesus Metal Crusher,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P1, the decision taken by the 2nd respondent, directing the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Panchayat to grant licence to the first respondent for the establishment of a Stone Crusher Unit. The challenge raised by the petitioner is mainly on the ground that the width of access road to the proposed crusher unit is less than 5 meters. It is therefore submitted that, the access road does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 57(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Counsel also referred me to Exts. P2, P3 and P4, the report of the Engineer, the report of the Chief Town Planner and the proceedings of the Panchayat, where also it is mentioned that the width of the road is less than 5 meters.2. However, a reading of Ext. P1, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent shows that it was taking into account that the area is a developed area where two similar industrial units are already functioning, that license was direc...

Gopalan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT255

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is concerning the construction to be placed on Clause (i) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The brief facts of the case are the following:The appellant was the licensee of T.S. No. 22/2007-2008 of Idukki Excise Range. It was renewed for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 also. In the meantime, a crime was registered against him as Crime No. 7/2008 by the Excise Officials, alleging offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The final report in that case has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Idukki. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the appellant. The appellant appeared and after hearing him, the case has been committed, as per C.P. No. 35/2009 to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha for trial. In view of t...

Rappai Vs. Pushpam

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT182

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 280 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for dissolution of a firm and settlement of accounts. Respondents are the additional plaintiffs in the suit. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit for dissolution of the firm directing settlement of accounts by passing of final decree. In the final decree proceedings, the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 moved an application for permitting them to carry on business of their own in a building over which the firm has tenancy right, which formed part of its assets. The petitioners canvassed such a right contending that they form the majority among the partners of the dissolved firm. Ext.Pl is the copy of that application. That application was objected to by the respondents, the additional plaintiffs impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, viz., one among the partners of the firm. At the time of arguments, as seen from Ext.P3 order, ch...

CochIn Stock Exchange Ltd. Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT510

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Revision petitioner is the Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. In the revision, challenge is against an order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam in the execution proceedings from the decree passed in O.S. No. 495 of 1997 directing the Cochin Stock Exchange to sell the membership card of the 1st judgment debtor in that exchange and deposit the amount after deducting the dues from that member, to the exchange.2. Notice given, the decree holder (1st respondent) alone entered appearance. Service by publication was ordered against the other respondents, co-judgment debtors, but after such service, none of them has turned up.3. I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also the decree holder. The decree holder is a bank. The suit was filed for realisation of the amount due from the defendants 1 and 2 (2nd and 3rd respondents) on a loan transaction availed by them from the bank. In that suit, the revision petitioner was impleaded as ...