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 Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Pattambi Vs. K. Narayanankutty ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the 1st opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the complainant and 2nd opposite party respectively in CC.151/06 on the file of the CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party, the Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Pattambi branch in causing financial loss of Rs.81,025/- with interest accrued thereon and also in the failure of the 1st opposite party in returning the dishonoured cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- which was presented for encashment. Thus, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.81,025/- with interest thereon which was shown as the balance amount in the SB account No.57061727919 in the name of the complainant and also for compensation of Rs.5000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant. 2. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. He contended that the cheque ...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mannarkkad Branch, R/by Dr.Mohan ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/United India Assurance Company Ltd in CC.146/2006 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the claim amount and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was covered by the medi claim policy issued by the opposite party and during the period he had to undergo a Coronary Artery Bypass operation. The claim submitted towards the medical expenses was repudiated alleging that he was having pre-existing diseases which were allegedly suppressed. 3. The opposite parties/appellants has asserted with the complainant was having hyper tension for the last 10 years and asthma from 1973 onwards. The above facts were suppressed. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective sides, testimony of DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3. 5. The Forum has rejected Ext.B3 investigation report rel...
M/S Reliance Infocomm Ltd., and Another Vs. A.Kesavan, S/O Late S.Arum ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.49/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.19,400/- and Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the mobile handset of Samsung from the opposite parties/Reliance Infocomm Ltd. On 3/10/2003 on payment of advance of Rs.5001/- and monthly instalment of Rs.400/- in 36 months. On 25/4/2006 and on subsequent dates he approached the opposite party several times to get the battery of the handset repaired. As directed by them he approached the Samsung Service Centre who demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- for repairing and replacement of the battery. Hence he has sought for return of the amount paid and compensation. 3. In the version filed the opposite parties have contended that the manufacturer is Samsung Electronics and that the manufacturer should be responsible and that the complainant is bad for non jointer of...
The Muslim Service Soceity, R/by Its Secretary, P. Mohammed Ali Haji, ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the complainants and the respondent was the opposite party in OP.144/04 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in their failure to settle the insurance claim preferred by the complainants with respect to the insured ambulance van bearing registration No:KL10-J-3747. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party/Insurance company contended that the insured vehicle is a transport vehicle and that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having valid driving license with badge to drive the insured vehicle. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A7 documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainants. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. On an ...
M/S. Phenomenal Health Care Services Ltd., Mumbai and Another Vs. Thre ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-11-2010
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties 1st and 2nd and the 1st respondent was the complainant in C.C.117/2006. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the insurance claim made by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that she is a member of Phenomenal Health Care Limited and as per the terms and conditions of the membership, she is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- towards medi claim. The complainant was admitted in Lissy Hospital, Ernakulam consequent to a fall and was subjected to an operation and discharged on 20.10.2005 and treatment is still continuing. She spent Rs.24,000/- towards treatment. But the opposite parties did not settle the claim on the ground that the claim was not submitted within one month from the date of discharge. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties she filed complaint before the Forum and claimed a sum of...
K. Roy Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Wc and Lt),
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is a works contractor, who had undertaken certain works and had filed necessary returns before the first respondent. However from, April 2006 onwards, the petitioner formed a partnership firm with his wife and further works were carried out by the said firm, which has filed necessary returns effecting payment of tax. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the first respondent has assessed the entire work during the year 2007-08 without taking note of the returns and tax payment for the previous periods, casting huge liability vide Ext.P7 which made the petitioner to file Ext.P9 petition for rectification of error which is stated as still pending.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the reminder as borne by Ext.P14 with a copy to the next higher authority as borne by Ext.P15 (both were sent by registered post), his grievance is still to be acted upon and hence is constrained to approach this Court.3. Heard the l...
J.T. International (Wholesale) India Vs. Commercial Tax Inspector and
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the detention of the transport vehicle bearing No. KL 07 AW 4345 as per Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, observing that the concerned Company is not a registered dealer in KVAT Act, thus doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation made by the concerned respondent in Ext.P3 is not true or correct and that the position has been explained as given in Ext.P4 reply, stating that the petitioner is a registered dealer, having assigned TIN as on 1.5.2010. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Ext.P1 certificate of registration dated 15.5.2010.3. True, the certificate of registration is dated 15.5.2010, i.e., on the next day of Ext.P2 invoice dated 14.5.2010. But the registration certificate clearly shows that the registration has been given with effect from 1.5.2010 as pointed out by the petiti...
The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram Anothe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-10-2010
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.33/07 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in repudiating the insurance claim made by the complainant with respect to the postal life insurance policy issued in the name of the complainants husband late Sri.C.D.Raju. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. Then contended that the CDRF, Alappuzha has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; that the postal life insurance policy was obtained by the insured Sri.C.D.Raju by suppressing the material fact regarding his disease of cerebral hemorrhage. The opposite parties justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim by allowing the ex-gratia payment of Rs.30,000/-. The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC....
Thomas Antony S/O. Late Antony Mathew Vs. the Recovery Officer and
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:(i) To issue a Writ or Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions to stay the sale of all that part and parcel of the land admeasuring 2.448 Hectares (2.70 Hectares in Encumberance Certificate and Valuation report) in Re-Survey No. 325/5, Block No 14 (old Sy. No. 1/1A) and 2.62 Hectares in Re-Survey No. 325/4 Block No. 14 (Sy No 1/1A) of Kanjirapally village talu and Sub-District, within Kottayam District scheduled to be held on 24.9.2009 by the first respondent for a period of 30 days from the date of issue of order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the first respondent in Ext.P1 claim petition.(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions commanding the first respondent to issue a certified copy of the order dated 22.9.2009 in Ext.P2 and to post the sale after 30 days from the date of issue of the copy.And(ii) To grant such other reliefs...
Baiju Thomas Alias Biju Vs. the Manager and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2010
P.Q. Barkath Ali, J.1. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in OP(MV) 270/1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, August 7, 2002 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,52,679/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: On January 18, 1997 at about 1.30 p.m. the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KL/03A 4592 along the Kayamkulam - Punalur public road and when he reached near Ezhamkulam junction, a jeep bearing registration No. KL 02/D 9332 driven by the 2nd respondent came from the opposite side in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. The claimant sustained very serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent as the owne...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »