Kerala Court July 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.
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Represented by Branch Manger, Thriss ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP No. 1155/2004 (Appeal 888/2006) and in OP No. 1156/2004 (Appeal 889/2006) in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to restore the policies to the original periods; and the cancellation of the same stands set aside. Appellants are also under orders to pay cost of Rs. 1,500/- each to each of the complainants. 2. In OP No. 1155/2004 the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued to the complainant on 19-03-1999 for a period of 10 years has been cancelled on 24-09-2002 and the pro-rata premium cheque has been forwarded to the complainant. 3. In OP 1156/2004 a similar policy taken on 07-05-1999 stands cancelled and pro-rata premium refunded. The action of the opposite parties in cancelling the policies was challenged. 4. The insurer had contended that as per Condition No. 5 of the policy, the opposite parties/appellants are entitled to cancel ...
The Managing Partner, Century Connections(P) Ltd., Arikupuram Building ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellant in appeal 364/03 is the 2nd opposite party manufacturer and the appellant in 386/03 is the 1st opposite party dealer in OP.61/2001 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.29,230/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. It is also ordered that on payment of the above amounts the complainant will hand over the vehicle to the 1st opposite party dealer. 2. The case of the complainant is that the kinetic Honda scooter purchased by him on 22.2.2000 on hire purchase was totally defective. The vehicle was having serious manufacturing defects. It was having only low milege. Its front portion was having a crack, the front shock absorber was defective, the speedometer was not in working condition, the tubes and tyres were defective. For more than 20 times the vehicle was taken to the dealer for repairs. 3. The opposite parties have filed joint v...
Joy.D.Silva Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Ch ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.35/09 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur in the complaint filed claiming the assured sum for the loss of one eye. The Forum has directed the opposite party/Insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a worker in Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Limited, Kathikudam. He was covered with the personal accident insurance policy issued by the opposite party. During the policy period he met with an accident and the same resulted in loss vision to his right eye. For the loss of vision of one eye he is entitled to 50% of the capital sum assured ie Rs.2.lakhs. He has sought for 50% of the insured sum which would work out to Rs.1.lakh. 3. The opposite parties were set exparte before the Forum. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P8. 4. There was no representation for the respondent/Insurance company before th...
T.P. Jose, Thaliyanayath House.P.O. Vs. Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Anna ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.944/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. 2. The complaint has been filed alleging excess demand and collection of amount for providing electric connection. 3. The opposite parties were absent and set exparte before the Forum. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P4. 5. The Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to return the excess charges if any along with cost of Rs.300/-. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the order is not specific. We find that the Forum ought to have specified the amount liable to be returned failing which there is every likelihood that there would be another round of litigation. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to issue notice to the opposite parties and dispose of the matter by a considered order. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 23-09-2010. The ...
Manager, Central Bank of India, Mavelloor Branch and Others Vs. Selvar ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above 3 appeals are preferred from the order dated 1st February 2007 passed by CDRF Alappuzha in OP.A.67/2003. The complaint therein was filed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service on their part in handling cheque No.BC 637/102 which was presented by the complainant for encashment before the first opposite party, Cherthala Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. The second opposite party Lord Krishna Bank Ltd; Cherthala was the collecting bank of the first opposite party bank. The aforesaid cheque was drawn by P.C.Binu as drawer and that the third opposite party, Central Bank of India, Mavelloor Branh is the drawee bank. The complainant Sri.Selvaraj did not get the said cheque encashed. He also did not get the said cheque returned. The complainant alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in handling the aforesaid cheque which was presented before the first opposite p...
Binu.V.Thomas Vs. A. Shameer
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.136/09 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.17,778/- with interest at 9% and also compensation of Rs.5000/-. 2. The appellant was exparte before the Forum. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3. 4. It is the case of the opposite party that the manufacturer has not been made a party and further that he happened to be exparte as the counsel who was entrusted with the matter did not appear before the Forum. 5. We find that the order is not a considered order. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.3500/- to the complainant towards cost or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum will dispose of the matter on merits after issuing notice to the complainant. The parties will be perm...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ernakulam, Represented by Senior Divi ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP No. 131/2001 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay the entire ID value of the vehicle with interest at 10% per annum from the date of claim and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The ID value is Rs. 3.35 lakhs. It is the case of the complainant that the Tata Sumo vehicle insured with the opposite party was stolen on 17-01-1999. The police have filed a report to the effect that the crime as well as the vehicle could not be detected. The opposite parties have contended that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle whereas at the time of the incident the vehicle was used for hire and the theft was committed during a hired trip. It is also contended that it is specifically mentioned in the policy that the policy would not cover the risk if the vehicle was used for hire or reward. The same is mentioned in the General Exceptions with respect to the limitation as to...
George Kuruvila, Managing Director and Others Vs. A. Saradamma, Sreyas ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.301/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.7,04,025/- with interest at 9% from 14-06-2005, the date of maturity of the Fixed Deposit with compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The matter relates to the amounts deposited vide FD for 5 years. The amount ordered to be paid is the matured amount of the FD. 3. The contention of the opposite parties before the Forum was that all such matters are pending before the Madras High Court and a scheme has been approved. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P5. 5. At the time of hearing it was found that the Madras High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the opposite parties under the Companies Act, 1956. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court vide the special leave petition filed. 6. In view of the fact that the special leave petition has not been admitte...
Subhash Vs. Ajith
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-17-2010
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 24th November 2005 of the CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.No.A.56/04. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in constructing the house for the complainant. It was alleged that the opposite party agreed to construct the house for the complainant at a cost of Rs.4,95,000/-. But the complainant abanded the work after obtaining an amount of Rs.3,92,500/- and that the opposite party has not done the work for the amount of Rs.3,92,500/- received from the complainant. It was also alleged that the work executed by the opposite party is also defective and the materials used for executing the work are of inferior quality. Thus, the complainant prayed to compensate him for deficiency in service and also for the financial loss and mental agony. The opposite party entered appearance and f...
Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by the Asst. Executive Engineer, ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-17-2010
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHANAN : MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties before the CDRF, Alapuzha in O.P. 118/2004. By the impugned order dated 2.6.2006, they are under directions to cancel Ext. A2 bill and to adjust the amount remitted by the complainantrespondent in the future bills. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer number 7637 and that he was conducting a restaurant for earning a livelihood. It is also submitted that the complainant had remitted the charges without any default and that he had given an application for changing the three face connection to single face connection on 27.2.2003 after remitting Rs. 50/- and another sum of Rs. 20/- It is his case that it was only on 18.7.2003 that the change was effected by the opposite parties and during the long period of 5 months the opposite parties were collecting charges for the three face connection. It is also his case that on 25.5.2004, the opposite parties...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »