Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments

M/S Motorola India Private Ltd. Vs. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker660

1. The petitioner in AR. No. 44 of 2008 seeks review of my order dated 24-4-2009 dismissing the AR with certain observations, under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure on various grounds. Inter alia it is urged that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from material error apparent on the face of the record as it failed to consider or appreciate the provisions of the Act which mandates that an arbitrator has to be neutral and impartial. It is urged that this court failed consider that it will be impossible for Sri.N.Haribabu, the appointed arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes referred to him for arbitration impartially since his superior officers have already dealt with the disputes between the parties. It is urged that this Court failed to consider that in the facts and circumstances attending in the present case, whether the purpose of the arbitration i.e., having a fair and impartial adjudication of the disputes would be defeated and rendered meaningless...

Good Year India Limited, Convent Road,ponnurunny and Another Vs. P.C. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.166/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to replace the JCB tyre and also to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the JCB tyre involved for Rs.11,600/- on 3.12.03 and that it had a warranty for 3 years. On 5.2.05 a bulge on the tyre was noticed. On inspection the first opposite party/manufacturer noted that there is a break inside. They have to replace the tyre. 3. The first opposite party contended that the complainant is using the JCB for commercial purpose and hence the complainant cannot be treated as a Consumer under the C.P.Act. The damage to the tyre has taken place on account of careless user. It happens due to impact by a sharp object or stone. They have denied any manufacturing defect to the tyre. 4. The version filed belatedly by the second opposite party was not received by the Forum a...

SumA. S. and Others Vs. Union of India, Represented by the General Man ...

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, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 419/2002 dated 16-08-2008. The appellants are the complainants in the above OP under the order to dismiss the complaint by the Forum below. 2. In short, the first complainant is the wife of the deceased and the other complainants are the parents and brother of the deceased. The allegation raised in the complaint are as follows: The deceased person who was a Soldier in the Indian Army, was travelling in the sleeper class along with his wife from Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station to Hawrah in Train No. 6357. The deceased was on his way to join duty after leave. They boarded the train on 10-03-2002 from the Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station, when the train reached Vijayawada the deceased felt uneasiness and the deceased and his wife contacted the TTE for medical aid but in vain. After passing this station his condition became worst and the opposite parties ...

thetrustee, M/S.Brookebond India Ltd. and Others Vs. P. Chandrasekhara ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The CDRF, Kozhikode, as per its order dated 18.05.2000 in O.P.53/2000, has directed the opposite parties to give pension to the complainant at Rs.433/- per month from 01.04.1998 with cost of Rs.500/- within two months from the date of the order and it is aggrieved by the said direction that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was an employee of the opposite parties and that after retirement he was eligible to get pension @ Rs.433 per month and after commutation he was getting only Rs.313/- per month till 01.04.1998. It is his case that after the commutation period of 10 years is over he is entitled to get back the original pension of Rs.433/- per month and the opposite parties had declined the said payment. It is also his case that he was getting only Rs.313/- per month and alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite parties to give ...

Dr. M.K. Balakrishnan Vs. K. Abdul Nazeer

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 23rd February 2005 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in OP.74/03. The complaint in OP.74/03 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency in service in treating the complainant at the Prasanthi Clinic of the opposite party at Uppala. The opposite party entered appearance and filed his written version and denied the alleged deficiency in service and also the alleged treatment of the complainant by the opposite party. The opposite party categorically contended that he was not conducting any clinic by name Prasanthi Clinic at Uppala and that the complainant was not treated by him for any ailment. It is further contended that the complaint is a false one and filed at the instance of rivals who are on inimical terms with the opposite party. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the forum below, the complainant was exa...

Dr. M.K. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Yusuf

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 6th November 2003 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in OP.90/03 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency in service in treating the complainant by the opposite party as a Doctor practising in Uppala. The opposite party filed written version before the Forum below and contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that the opposite party had no occasion to treat the complainant. It was also contended that the complaint is filed at the instance of rivals who are on inimical terms with the opposite party. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and witnesses on his side were examined as PWs 2 to 4. Exts. A1 to A8 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW2 and a...

M/S Dhanasakthi Chitties and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs. T.A. Paul, S/O T.A.Ant ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated:10th October 2006 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP:522/04. The complaint therein was preferred by the respondent herein against the appellant/opposite party/Dhanasakthi Chitties and Loans (P) Ltd for getting refund of Rs.55,125/- which was deducted by the appellant/opposite party towards the income tax to be deducted at source. The complainant claimed refund of the aforesaid amount with compensation and cost on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in deducting the said amount by way of income tax. The opposite party entered appearance and contended that it was bound to deduct income tax by virtue of section.194(B) of the Income Tax Act read with the explanation to Sec.2(24) of the Income Tax Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2001. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.P1 and P2 documents ...

Dr. Benny Joseph and Another Vs. Sunny Joseph

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the complainants and respondent was the opposite party in OP.No.251/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The said complaint in OP.251/2000 was filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in effecting sale of the dental equipments covered by P1 quotation (Performa invoice) dated 8.1.99. The complainants claimed refund of Rs.49069/- being the over charge collected by the opposite party from the complainants and also for supply of the articles which were short supplied by the opposite party with a further prayer for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss and injuries sustained by the complainants due to negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He also denied the case of short supply and the...

Asst.Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section Office Kseb and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August 2006 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP.No.240/04. The complaint in the said OP.No.240/04 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due their failure to replace the defective meter and also for collecting electricity charges for the period from 23.1.01 at the rate of more than 150 units per month. Thus, the complainant prayed for getting the alleged defective meter installed in his premises replaced and to get refund of the excess amount collected by the opposite parties from 23.1.2001 onwards till replacement of the defective meter and to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for the mental and physical sufferings of the complainant. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the pr...

E.J. Kuriakose and Another Vs. Air India, Air India Building and Other ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in OP:377/04 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainants that they obtained two air tickets for their to and fro journey to United States. The tickets were valid for 6 months. The complainant contacted the opposite party for return journey during the month of November and December 2003 ie within 6 months. But the opposite party could not confirm the tickets. After the period is over they had to return spending huge amount through another airline. When applied for only Rs.1140/- ie tax portion was returned. They have sought for return of the amount of Rs.61,789/- with interest at 18% and Rs.24,804/- towards making the alternate arrangements. 3. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that the two tickets were issued under the special excursion fare with the validity of 6 months. The tickets were issued for low fare compared to nor...