Kerala Court May 2010 Judgments

National Insurance Company Ltd., Thrissur Branch Represented by Its Ma ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 8th March 2004 of the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.193/02. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not releasing the insured sum of Rs.50,000/- with respect to the policy of insurance issued in the name of deceased P.P.Shaji, the husband of the complainant. 2. Notice was served on opposite parties 1 and 2 and that the 2nd opposite party remained absent. The 1st opposite party/National Insurance Co.Ltd., Thrissur branch represented by its Manager entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. The 1st opposite party justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim on the strength of exception clause No.5(b) of the policy. It was contended that insured Shaji died whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug and so 1st opposite party/National Insurance Company is not liable ...

A.V. Saleem S/O. Hassan Vs. the Superintendent of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his minor daughter Fathima, aged 16 years (date of birth: 25/3/1994). She has already passed the S.S.L.C. examination. She was found missing from 06/05/2010. Crime was registered on 07/05/2010 and the petitioner had come before this Court on 18/5/2010 as his minor daughter was not traced by them. It was the apprehension of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, a young autorickshaw driver aged 22 years, in collusion with his parents, respondents 4 and 5, is illegally detaining and confining the alleged detenue.2. This petition was admitted on 18/5/2010. The matter came up on 24/5/2010. The alleged detenue was not produced. Accordingly, the case was posted to this date.3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his wife are present. The petitioner is represented by his Counsel. The alleged detenue, Fathima has come to court along with her parents. Respon...

N. Ravindran S/O. Narayanan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The 1st respondent Indian Oil Corporation invited tenders from Tanker truck operators. The cut off date for submitting that tender was 21.12.2009. One of the conditions to be satisfied was that the tenderer should offer a vehicle/vehicles with calibration certificate. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner did not have such a certificate for the vehicle that he had offered, which is a new vehicle. He could obtain calibration certificate for that vehicle only by 4.2.2000. In the meanwhile, certain other operators had come to this Court and filed a writ petition, W.P.(C). No. 36500 of 2009, contending among other things that the prescription of the tender conditions requiring the production of calibration certificate is unsustainable. There were forced to seek refuge before this Court in view of the fact that they wanted more time to produce the calibration certificate. This Court granted an interim order in that case directing the company to provisionally...

Abraham K. Mathen Vs. Dr. Preethi Yohannan

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The parties to this Mat. Appeal are spouses who have a strained relationship between them. A prayer for custody and a prayer for divorce were pending before the Family Court. They have a child and the child is aged 4 years now. The application for guardianship was settled at the Lok Adalath and Annexure 1 award was passed by the Lok Adalath on the consent of the parties. In the divorce application, the respondent/husband filed objections. In the objections, he evidently raised a prayer that he may be allowed to visit the child on 31/01/2010 and thereafter on every alternate Saturdays. Arrangements regarding visitorial rights were already made in Annexure 1. The court below passed the impugned order under which the respondent/wife is 'directed to produce the child before the Counsellor Smt. Chitra Devi from 11 a.m till 1 p.m on 31/1/2010'. This appeal is seen preferred against the same direction.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent raises an objection that this orde...

N. Radhakrishnan Vs. the Divisional Railway Officer, Divisional Office ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC:382/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands allowed directing the 2nd opposite party/licensee of the parking lot to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- towards the price of the motor cycle stolen and a compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Interest at 12% is ordered if the amount is not paid within 2 months of the date of receipt of the order. 2. First complainant who is the owner of the Yamaha Motor Cycle is the appellant. The appeal is filed dissatisfied with the quantum of the amounts ordered to be paid. It is the case of the complainants that the vehicle of the 1st complainant was taken by his nephew the 2nd complainant to the Thiruvananthapuram central railway station on 20/8/2000 at 4.30 am and parked the vehicle in the registered parking area after paying the requisite fee and receiving a token bearing No:2008. When he returned to the spot with the token on the same day it ...

The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board Vs. Anirudha Sarma

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in CC.401/04 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint therein was filed claiming interest at the rate of 18% on the excess amount of Rs.1,37,628 and also the failure on the part of the opposite party in limiting the interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum from 7.10.93 to 7.10.2003. The complainant had also claimed compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of the proceedings. The opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that there was no provision in the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party to pay interest on the excess amount collected and that interest at the rate of 3.5% was granted by the opposite party as gesture of goodwill. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and a witness on the side of the opposite party...

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office Chalakudy, Rep. by ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 17th August 2005 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.No.517/04. The complaint therein was filed by the respondents herein as complainants 1 to 3 claiming insurance amount due under New Jeevanshree Policy No.774176478 issued in the name of the life assured E.V.Varghese. The first complainant is the widow and complainants 2 and 3 are the children of the policy holder late E.V.Varghese. The life assured E.V.Varghese died on 15.10.03. After the death of the life assured, the complainants preferred the insurance claim due to them as legal heirs and legal representative of the life assured. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the Branch Manager and Sr.Divisional Manager of LIC of India. The aforesaid policy was issued from the Branch of the first opposite party. The opposite parties repudiated the aforesaid claim made by the complainants, on the ground that the life assured committed suicide within one year of the...

Jojo Jameson Vs. M/S Jet Airways (India) Limited

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER It is against the dismissal of the complaint in OP No. 347/2001 by the CDRF, Ernakulam that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2.The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had booked an air ticket with the opposite party for his journey from Cochin to Chennai on 07-02-2001 and that on reaching Chennai he found that his luggage in the cargo section was flooded with dirty water and emanating foul smell of fish. The complainants further case is that he had to get the dress drywashed and also had to purchase new clothes for his onward journey to Singapore and as such he could not continue the journey on 08-02-2001. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and costs of the proceedin...

State of Kerala Vs. Sushama Kumari

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ972

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Government against the award of enhanced compensation towards value of land and also towards value of the building which existed on the land under acquisition. The property was in Thycaud Village of Thiruvananthapuram District. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Jagathy Bridge pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 6.11.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs. 2,96,400/- per Are and awarded structure value at Rs. 4,28,387/-. The reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs. 6 lakhs per Are on the basis of the evidence which came on record. The structure value was enhanced (sic) to Rs. 3,98,365/-. Before the reference court the claimant relied main (sic) Ext. A5 commission report and Ext. A5(a) valuation prepared by an expert who assisted the commissioner in the matter of Ext.A5 commission report. The claim towards compensation for the building was Rs. 40 lakhs. Under Exts.A5 and A5(a) th...

M/S. Skode Auto India Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. P.C. Faris

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Revision petitioners are the opposite parties in IA.281/09 in CC529/09 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. Revision petitioners are under orders to release the vehicle after rectifying all the defects and the complainant remitting 1/3rd of the demanded bill amount. 2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the revision petitioners that the order was pronounced ex parte before the revision petitioners entered appearance before the Forum. The counsel for the revision petitioners produced the letter alleged to have been given to the complainant dated 12.1.2010 mentioning that the repair cost come to Rs.62500/- and that as a good will measure they are reducing 50% of the sum and has requested to remit the balance. The amount of the above bill was challenged in the Forum by filing the complaint. It is pointed out that it is 1/3rd of the bill amount that has been remitted by the complainant and got the vehicle released. Revision petitioner has sought for an ...