Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Raju Kolasery, Kolasery House ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/insurance company in CC:9/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.9070/- and Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The case of the complainant is that she underwent appendectomy by laparoscopic surgery and was inpatient for 5 days, Lourde hospital, Kochi. The claim was repudiated on the ground that she underwent along with the above surgery, another surgery for Endometriosis. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellant that treatment for infertility is not covered and Endometriosis is connected with infertility. 2. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B6. 3. We find that the total amount claimed is Rs.18141/-. The fact that she underwent appendectomy by laparoscopic surgery is not disputed. The fact that she underwent treatment for Endometriosis during the above surgery is the reason for reducing...
The Murukkumpuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Abdul Vahid.A, Th ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The delay sought to be condoned is of one year and 19 days. In the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the appellant bank no reason is mentioned for condoning the delay. We find that there is inordinate delay. There is no reason as such for condonation of delay. In the circumstances the delay condonation petition is dismissed. Hence the appeal is also dismissed....
M/S.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. J.Andavar Das and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER By the order dated 29.12.2008 in C.C.48/2008 the CDRF, Idukki has directed the 2nd opposite party to pay to the complainant the policy amount covered under Ext.R4 policy with 12% interest from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.2000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount would carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till payment. It is aggrieved by the said directions the present appeal is filed by the 2nd opposite party before the Commission. 2. The complainants case in brief is that he is a blind man and earns a livelihood from the sale of the milk of cow and that on 16.12.2002 the cow was attacked by wild wolves while it was grassing near the Koodampara state. The complainant further submitted that the cow was lost into the forest because of the attack of the wolves and after two months the remains of the cow were found in the estate by the watchers and a Veterinary Doctor had conducted po...
Baiju Lal Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.420/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint filed stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the premises owned by him wherein stock of raw rubber was kept got destroyed in fire on 21.1.04. The premises were insured under the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy with the opposite party. According to him in the fire 5,000 kg. rubber sheets were destroyed. According to him there was a loss of 30 lakhs. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy covered only the stock of rubber kept in the godown. 3. In the version filed, it is contended that the coverage is only with respect to the building No.VP XV1 238 used as godown for storing raw rubber sheets. It is pointed out that the surveyor has noted that the incident occurred not in the godown meant for stocking of raw rubber sheets but the building used as smoke house exclusively for processing rubber sheets. I...
Tata Tele Services Limited, Palarivattom, Kochi, Rep. by Its Legal Man ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in the file of C.C.No.186/2006 dated 03.10.2009. The opposite parties are providing telecommunication services to the public and the opposite parties also made an offer to customers purchasing mobile phone from them get two years free incoming, recharge free Tata to Tata outgoing facility for two year on a minimum balance of Rs.1/-. On 28.10.2005 complainant purchased a mobile phone from 3rd opposite party by complying their formalities such as handover the copies of I.D. proof and photo. Complainants mobile phone was activated on 28.10.2005 and charged with the scheme card worth Rs.350/-. The complainant was using the mobile phone having number 9249220294 uninterrupted from 28.10.2005 till 09.10.2006. On 10.10.2006, the complainant switched on his mobile he was unable to use the same. On dialing only message heard in the mobile was the number you have dialed is incorrect. Complainant ...
K. Mithran, Agent, Lic of India and Another Vs. N.Sudhamani, Rajeev Ni ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER These appeals are preferred from the order dated:17th June 2003 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP:265/2000. The appellants in these 2 appeals were the opposite parties and the 1st respondent was the complainant in OP:265/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in repudiating the insurance claim with respect to two insurance policy bearing Nos:791449278 and 791449279. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate written versions denying the alleged deficiency of service and contended that the life assured, Viswanathan suppressed material facts and deliberately misrepresented the facts while submitting the proposal for the said policies and that the said policies were obtained by concealing material facts. The 2nd opposite party, the agent of LIC of India contended that there was no deficiency of service on his part an...
Proprietor, Suryadhanasree Chittees, Kuravilangadu Branch, Kottayam an ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal is preferred from the order dated:27th February 2010 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC:263/09. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to pay the assured bonus of rs.500/-. Admittedly the complainant joined the weekly chitty conducted by the 1st opposite party Suryadhanasree chitties and that as per the said chitty the complainant had to remit Rs.100/- per week. The total period of the chitty was 50 weeks. Admittedly the complainant remitted the entire subscription under the said chitty scheme and thereby he paid the total of Rs.5000/- under the said chitty scheme. It is the definite case of the complainant that the opposite party offered bonus of Rs.500/- but at the termination of the chitty the opposite parties paid only Rs.300/- by way of bonus. Hence the said complaint was filed. 2. The opposite party took the stand that the complainant was a defaulter and so ...
Sub Engineer, Kseb, Panamaram, Kalpetta and Others Vs. Anoop, S/O Late ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The delay sought to be condoned is of 243 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the complainant by the Assistant Engineer it is mentioned that he forwarded the order to the chief office in June 2009. The chief office forwarded the same to the legal section in August 2009. The chief office give sanction to file appeal and the order was communicated on 10/2/2010. The delay was caused on account of pressure of work and administrative grounds and the time taken for getting sanction. 2. The respondent has filed objection. 3. We find that the affidavit filed is not a specific one. It is not mentioned when the order was received and the date on which the order was forwarded to the chief office. The date on which the chief office forwarded the same to the legal section is also not mentioned. 4. We find that in the circumstances the reasons mentioned for condoning the delay are not sufficient. Hence the delay condonation petition is dismissed. Hence...
Poyyanil Hospital, R/by Dr.Joseph George Vs. Rejani Kumari.P.V.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioners are the opposite parties/hospital in CC:72/09 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The application filed by the opposite parties for referring the matter as per the decision in Martin Dsouza Vs. Mohammed Ishfaq AIR (2009) SC 2049 was dismissed by the Forum on the ground that the opposite party had appeared in response to the notice and hence the above decision will not apply. It is pointed out by the counsel for the revision petitioner that the decision in Martin DSouzas case is dated:17/2/2009. The complaint was filed only in May 2009. We find that in the circumstances the ratio of the decision in Martin DSouzas case applies. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to comply with the direction of the Supreme Court in Martin DSouzas case. The revision petition is allowed as above. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....
The Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Vs. M.Govi ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC:146/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- hypothecating the tractor purchased. According to him he remitted the entire dues by 22/12/2207. When he sought for return of the RC he was told that the same is missing and the opposite parties wanted him a supporting letter to get the duplicate RC. According to him there was a delay of more than 12 months to get the duplicate RC. He had expended considerable amounts for getting the duplicate RC. As he could not ply the tractor during the period he had incurred a loss of Rs.50,000/-. Hence he has sought for a sum of Rs.63,400/- etc towards the damages. 3. Opposite party in the version filed has denied the case of the complainant that the RC was lost from their possession. According to them the RC book was lost from the possession of the complainant and they have only helped him to get the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »