Kerala Court August 2010 Judgments

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sunitha Susan George and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC 177/08 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,811/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs towards the treatment expenses incurred vide the medi-claim policy issued by the appellant. The appellants/opposite party was ex-parte before the Forum below. There was delay in filing the appeal which was condoned on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the policy had lapsed on 16.3.96 and the cheques sent to the second opposite party/Development Officer are dated 9.5.06 and 1.8.07 and according to the appellant there was no renewal of the policy. Further, it is pointed out as per the policy the coverage is limited to Rs.25,000/- per head. 3. The evidence adduced before the Forum consisted of Exts.A1 to A10 and the proof affidavit of the complainant. 4. We find that the contention raised by the ...

Nimmy Lonappan Chackola Vs. Saman C George

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.573/04 dated 12.9.05. The appellant is the opposite party who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order. The respondent is the complainant. This complaint arised from a dispute in connection with the purchase of upholstery cloth for an amount of Rs.3778/- from the opposite party on 22.6.04. Hence spending Rs.6300/- by the complainant who is done the upholstery works on the furniture by this cloth. The cloth purchased from the opposite party got decolourised due to fall of water on the furniture on which the cloth was applied. The decolourisation occurred due to the manufacturing defect and that fact was immediately brought to the notice of the opposite party. The opposite party at the first instance agreed to reimburse the amount spent for upholstery work also. But later, the opposite party withdrew from the settlement. Hence this complaint. 2. The opposite party contended in the vers...

M/S Krishna Medicals, Rep. by Its Managing Partner P. Rajasekharan Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.176/03 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The matter relates to the inadequacy of the insurance amount allowed by the opposite party. The Forum has dismissed the complaint on ground that the complainant had availed services of the opposite party for commercial purposes. Evidently the above finding is absolutely incorrect (Harsolia Motors vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. 1 (2005) CPJ 27 NC). Hence the order of the Forum in this regard is set aside. The Forum is directed to consider the case of the complainant with respect to the enhanced insurance claim and dispose of the matter on merits after permitting both sides to adduce evidence. 2. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 21.10.2010. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

M/S Sita World Travel India Ltd., CochIn and Another Vs. Dr. Vinod Sri ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.184/02 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to give preference to the complainants while conducting another tour to the Far East and arrange for them to visit the places they could not visit earlier free of any charges. It is also provided that for the rest of the journey the prescribed amount should be paid by the complainant and also the 1st opposite party shall pay Rs.1000/- towards cost to the complainants. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged deficiency in service in the package tour conducted. It is the allegation of the complainant that they could not visit some of the places mentioned in the broachure of the opposite parties. They have sought for a direction to arrange full tour at Bangkok, Pattaya and Phuket or to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and further compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for hardships and inconvenience caused. 3. The appellant/opposite party w...

Sanu P.J. Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker146

1. Petitioner is a Forest Guard. By Ext.P1 memo of charges, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was also placed under suspension. Later, he was reinstated in service and disciplinary action continued. It is stated that on finalisation of the enquiry, he was issued Ext.P3 show cause notice proposing imposition of a penalty of barring of one increment without cumulative effect for one year and recovery of Rs.7,585, being the proportionate share of loss caused to the Government. On receipt of the notice, petitioner has filed Ext.P4 reply dated 18/1/2010. It is stated that despite the above, the respondent has not finalised the disciplinary action, and therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. In the facts as stated above, since all that is needed is that the respondent should pass orders finalising the disciplinary action, I direct the respondent to pass orders finalising the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. This the respondent shall do, as expe...

T.C. Mathai R/by a Power of Attorney- Major.K. Mathews and Another Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT As per the order of the National Commission in First Appeal-297/02, the matter has been remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the limited issue with regard to the payment of the balance amount of Rs.4.25.lakhs by the respondents and interest if any payable thereon to the complainants and also the joint and several liabilities of the respondents. This Commission as per order dated:11/4/2008 had allowed the OP in part directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4.25.lakhs and Rs.1.25 lakhs as evidenced by Ext.P12 cheque and Ext.P13 promissory note (remembered as Ext.P13 and P14) and directed that the complainants would be entitled to realize the amounts from the assets of the deceased 1st opposite party vested with the 2nd opposite party if any and also held that the complainants will be entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint on Rs.1.25.lakhs. The claim with respect to the other sum of Rs.4.25lakhs ...

The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Pulimoottil Shopping Arc ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party /Insurance co. in CC.230/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.24845/- to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a retired Govt. employee and he purchased a new Maruthi Alto car in the name of his daughter and had coverage from 6.5.08 to 5.5.09. On 28.8.08 the vehicle met with an accident and sustained serious damage. The estimate for repair amounted to Rs.40000/-. The R.C book of the vehicle was in the name of his daughter which was subsequently transferred in the name of the complainant. The opposite party repudiated the claim. In the version filed the opposite party has contended that on the date of the accident the complainant was not the RC owner of the vehicle. The registration of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant only with effect from...

N.C. Chacko Vs. Manager/Dealer, St. Joseph’s Cement House, Chempe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in the file of OP.227/02 dated:9/1/2004. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties in the above OP. 2. As per the complaint he purchased 18 Asbestos sheet for an amount of Rs.5760/- on15.4.2001. He paid Rs.72/- also for unloading the asbestos sheets. The 2nd opposite party is the wholesale distributor of asbestos sheets in Kerala. The 1st opposite party guaranteed at the time of purchasing. But when the monsoon started in June; leakage was seen in the roof. The complainant approached the opposite party and asked for standard quality of asbestos sheets. Then the opposite party told that the distributor come and verify that the matter will be settled. Even after repeated phone calls, the 2nd opposite party never come to the house during monsoon in 2002 the leakage was increased. After repeated requests the 1st opposite party came to the house and satisfied abo...

The Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. V. Ramachandran and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC 99/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- as costs etc. 2. The case of the complainant is that he has been billed in violation undertaking in the scheme that he will be allowed 1 GB usage free per month for 3 months and 512 MB for subsequent months. 3. The second opposite party stood ex-parte. 4. Before the Forum below the first opposite party did not file version in time. 5. Evidence adduced consisted of the affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A11. 6. The contention of the appellant is that as per the scheme 1 GB is given free altogether for 3 months and not 1 GB per month for 3 months. We find that Ext.A5 reply sent by the opposite party to the representation of the complainant specifically mentions that as per the special offer, the subscriber will get 1 GB free per month for 3 months. ...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager, Division ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in OP No. 1545/2004 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant and also Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. 2.The complainants are the legal representatives of the deceased Narayanan who was covered with policy of the opposite parties. It is the case that on 07-01-2002 at about 12 noon when Narayanan was engaged in the business of making crackers under the employment of one Varghese, there was an explosion and on account of the grievous burn injuries he died on 12-01-2002. The claim was repudiated. The coverage was Rs. 5,00,000/- for accidental death. 3.The opposite parties have filed version contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and further that all the legal heirs of the late Narayanan has not been impleaded. The policy is admitted, that it was a master policy with Dollars India. The insured ought to have given notic...