Kerala Court June 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.
The Secretary, Velliyamattom Grama Panchayath, Idukki District. Vs. B. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:28th July 2008 of the CDRF, Idukki in CC.No:50/07. The appellant was the 2nd opposite party and respondents 1 to 3 were the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 respectively in the said consumer complaint No:50/97. It was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in implementing Kudumba Arogyasree Insurance Policy. The complainant therein joined the Arogyasree General Insurance Policy which was implemented by the opposite parties 1 to 3. But subsequently the opposite parties could not proceed with the said scheme because of the direction issued by the District Kudumbasree Mission Coordinator. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to implement the said scheme. The complainant had also remitted Rs.450/- towards the said scheme and the same was accepted by the 2nd opposite party, the Secretary, V...
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kottayam Divn; Kottayam Vs. San ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Postal Authorities in CC.20/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost. The allegation is with respect to the delayed delivery of the letter addressed to the complainant from VSSC, Employment Exchange proposing the complainants candidature for the post of Technician-A as per the letter dispatched to 26-02-2007. Complainant was directed to furnish copies of certificates etc on or before 9-3-2007. The letter dispatched on 26-02-2007 reached the complainant on 12-03-2007 which is beyond the last date stipulated in the letter. 2. Opposite parties had disputed liability and has also relied on Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898. It is also mentioned that enquiries conducted revealed that there was no laches. 3. Evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 and A2. The complainant also s...
Prabhakaran Vs. the Manager/Proprietor Angel Electronics, Palakkad
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-19-2010
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER The appellant is the complainant in CC.No.81/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensatory costs to the opposite party. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted his defective TV set for repairs to the opposite party and it was delivered back after repairs. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had not issued him the genuine bill and has not returned the replaced spare parts. The staff of the opposite party has issued only a repair slip and estimate. Hence the complainants sent a lawyer notice to which the opposite party sent reply stating untrue facts. Hence he filed complaint before the Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 6500/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and for mental agony caused to him. 3. The opposite party filed version and contended that the complainant has no case that the TV set was not functioning after repairs. It is admitted that while doing out do...
Muhammed Rafi Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 is filed by a landlord seeking a direction to the first respondent District Collector, Kottayam, to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal preferred by him against Ext.P6 order passed by the Accommodation Controller and also to grant stay of Ext.P6, as applied for in Ext.P7(a), till Ext.P7 is finally disposed of. When this writ petition came up for admission, Sri. V.T.K. Mohanan, learned senior Government Pleader, took notice on behalf of the Government and we asked whether Ext.P7 is ripe for hearing and if so when at the earliest the first respondent District Collector will be able to dispose of Ext.P7. Mr. Mohanan submitted that instructions are yet to be received from the District Collector. But, he is agreeable with this Court setting a time frame to the District Collector to dispose of Exts.P7 and P7(a).2. Mr. P. Haridas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that pursuant to Ext.P6 order passed by the Accommodation Controller...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Malappuram, Repres ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party and the respondent was the complainant in CC No. 221/2008 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint therein was filed against the opposite party United India Assurance Company Ltd. alleging deficiency in service in repudiating the insurance claim made by the complainant with respect to the insured vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-16/4464. The opposite party United India Assurance Company Ltd. entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-16/4464 was insured by the registered owner of the vehicle Sri. Abdul Rasheed and that there was no insurance contract between the complainant and the opposite party; that the complainant or the insured Abdul Rasheed never approached the opposite party in getting the policy of insurance of the vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant. The allegation in the complaint...
State Bank of Travancore Thiruvarpu Branch, Kottayam, Rep by the Branc ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-18-2010
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the opposite party and respondents were the complainants in CC.11/07 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in disbursing the educational loan (Gyan Jyothi) to the second complainant Remya.P.S. who joined the nursing course by availing the educational loan from the opposite party/ bank. The opposite party/bank entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the complainants were not ready to execute the revival agreement to get the educational loan for 4th year of the course. Thus, the opposite party/bank prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, both the complainant and the opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Exts. A1 to A4 and A4 (a) documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainants and B1 to B4 documents on ...
Sreekumar S. Vs. State of Kerala, (Special Tahsildar) and the Managing ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
ORDER4. This application seeking condonation of the delay of 1313 days is very stiffly opposed by the learned senior Government Pleader. However, on the consideration that causes should be allowed to be adjudicated as far as possible on their merits rather than decided on technicalities, we are inclined to condone the delay imposing conditions.5. This application will stand allowed subject to the following conditions:i). The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 3500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) as cost to the Government through the office of the Advocate General within two weeks from today and produce receipt before this court.ii). The appellant shall pay a further amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit and produce receipt before this court.iii). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not...
Prabhakaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. All these appeals are preferred by the claimants whose lands in Thodupuzha village were acquired for the purpose of construction of Kolani - Vengalloor Bye pass. The acquisition covered by L.A.A. Nos. 417/2009, 748/2009, 674/2009 and 645/2009 were pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 12/6/2002. For the lands involved in those cases, which were dry lands, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 19,512/- only per Are. The Reference Court in those cases by a common judgment would refix the land value at the rate of Rs. 57,733/- per Are. The lands involved in other two appeals (L.A.A. Nos. 298/2010 & 347/2010) were also situated in the same village and the acquisition was for the same purpose. However, those acquisitions were on the basis of a notification issued two and half years after the notification in the earlier cases. For the lands in those cases, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at the rate of Rs. 25366/- p...
Poothrukkovil Devaswom, Olarikkara, Thrissur, Represented by T.V. Venu ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant and respondent was the opposite party in OP No. 650/2003 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint therein was filed against the opposite party United India Insurance Company Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not issuing the policy of insurance and also in not honouring the insurance claim made by the complainant with respect to the elephant by name Padmanabhan owned by the complainant. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The opposite party Insurance Company entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The Insurance Company contended that there was no policy of insurance issued by the opposite party insuring the elephant by name Padmanabhan owned by the complainant and that the proposal for the policy was not accepted; that there was no concluded contract insuring the elephant as alleged by the complainan...
E. Nabeesa Umma, Junior Superintendent Vs. State of Kerala and the Dir ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner joined the Panchayat Common Service as a Bill Collector in 1982. Thereafter, she was advised and was appointed to the post of Typist. This was in 1985. While continuing so, in the year 1990 & 1993, seniority lists were published and her prior service as Bill Collector was not given credit. Long thereafter, promotion was given to the petitioner as Head Clerk retrospectively from the date on which his juniors were promoted. Consequential orders were issued by Ext.P3 fixing her at serial No. 694-A of the seniority list of Secretaries.2. Subsequently, on 19/08/2009, the petitioner submitted Exts.P4 & P5 representations against Ext.P3, where her main complaint is regarding the loss of seniority during the period 1982- 1985. Orders have not been passed on Exts.P4 & P5. In the meanwhile, Ext.P6 order has been issued in April 2010, and the petitioner complains that her juniors have been promoted to the post of Special Grade Secretaries. It is in this backgro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »