Kerala Court September 2010 Judgments

Nandakumar and Another Vs. K.V. Jayanand

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in OP.325/02 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay the market price of the gold pledged as on 2002 after deducting Rs.60,500/- + interest at the rate of 12% from the date of pledge till 2/9/2002 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. It is the case of the complainant that he pledged 2 items of gold having the weight of 171.90 gms and 81.90 gms and availed loan of Rs.31,500/- and 29,000/- respectively. When he went to take back the ornaments on 2/9/2002 he was told that the articles were sold in auction. The selling of the ornaments without notice amounted to deficiency of service. Hence the complaint, seeking compensation and return of gold ornaments. In the version filed, the opposite parties/appellants have admitted the pledging alleged. It is the contention that the gold ornaments were not taken back within the period fixed. According to the opposite par...

Pankajakshy Vs. Devaki Ramakrishnan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker207

1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below non-suiting the plaintiff/appellant negativing her claim for declaration of possession and injunction over the suit property is challenged in the appeal. Plaintiff had claimed possession over two items of properties. So far as item No.1 property, it was her case that she obtained possession thereof by way of an oral sale from one Narayanan, the title holder. Item No.2 property was claimed by virtue of a registered sale deed. Both properties are lying contiguously was her case for seeking a declaration of possession in common over such items with a further relief of prohibitory injunction against the defendants alleging threat of trespass. Consideration of Rs.3,000/- was paid to the above said Narayanan to purchase item No.1 property by an oral sale was the case of the plaintiff. The defendants resisted the suit contending that she is entitled to item No.2 property alone and the claim set up over item No...

Subhash B.Ravu Vs. K.V.Varghese

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker481

1. The appellant is the complainant. He filed a complaint against 1st respondent, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was taken up on file in the year 2002 and, summons was issued to the accused. On 6.10.2003, complainant was absent and process fee was not paid and hence, the accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) of the Code. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.         2. Notice was served on accused-1st respondent and he also entered appearance through counsel. But, at the time of hearing of this appeal today, neither the appellant nor the 1st respondent was present or represented. 3. As per the memorandum of appeal, a contention is raised that the absence of the complainant on the crucial day ie. On 6.10.2003 was not willful. According to appellant, he was suffering from back pain for the past three years and it was difficult for him to move and travel. A medical certificate was allegedly...

Naduthodi Yousaf Vs. Naduthodi Rubeena

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker37

1. The appellant is the father of the respondents. The mother of the respondents was divorced by the appellant. There were disputes between the appellant and the mother of the respondents. Altogether there were six children born in the wedlock. When litigations were pending between the appellant and the mother of the respondents, Annexure A1 agreement was entered into. As per the terms of the said agreement, the respondents herein were allegedly handed over to the custody of the appellant. The mother of the respondents was given custody of only the sixth child, a male child. All pending proceedings were allegedly brought to termination after execution of Annexure-A1 agreement. 2. Subsequently, admittedly the children, the respondents herein continued in the custody of their mother. According to the appellant, their mother had snatched away the respondents, who were agreed to be and were actually handed over under Annexure A1 agreement to the appellant. The appellant did not take any s...

V. Madhusoodanan Vs. Vilasini

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC 82/07 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant with interest at 6%. 2. The case of the appellant/opposite party is that he was not served with a notice. He has also produced the Electoral Identity Card, which would show his address as 458 E, Kangiravila-6, Panamaram, Mananthavady. 3. We find that the address mentioned in the agreement is the same as mentioned in the complaint. All the same, we find that the order is not a considered one. 4. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of Rs.7000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant and dispose of the case on merits after permitting both sides to adduce evidence if so they desire. 5. The case stand...

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC No. 245/2006 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties (KSEB) in issuing A2 short assessment bill dated 17-11-2006 for Rs. 6,95,331/-. The opposite parties (Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Ettumanoor and Secretary KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram) entered appearance and the first opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It was contended that the short assessment bill was issued demanding the electricity charges for the electrical energy consumed by the consumer for the period from December 1997 to October 2003. It was also contended that the short assessment was detected by the internal auditing of KSEB and also by the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for d...

Indian Bank, Kollam, Represented by the Assistant General Manager Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/Indian Bank in CC No. 344/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with interest applicable to Fixed Deposit above 5 years from 23-04-1981 for 5 years and thereafter with interest at the rate applicable to SB account. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs. 2. The case of the complainants who are the legal representatives of the deceased C.V. Mariyamma is that the deceased had a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 50,000/- with the opposite party bank on 22-03-1976 vide receipt No. 36796. It was due for payment on 22-04-1981. As per the direction of the opposite party dated 09-04-1981, the deceased returned the above FD to the bank with instructions for renewal. Thereafter the opposite party imposed a general lien on the assets of Melayil Industrial and Commercial Enterprises of which the complainants ar...

The Deputy Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC 69/2010 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant together with interest at 6% per annum from 7.6.08 and cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. The matter relates to the non payment of the covered amount under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. The husband of the complainant died on 20.3.08 in an accident. The claim was submitted on 7.4.08. The matter was taken before the Legal Service Authorities also but the amount was not paid so far. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the relevant communications with respect to payment of the renewal premium was not received from the government and hence the claim could not be settled. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 to B3. 5. It is seen from Ext.B3 that DD for Rs.1,43,60,500/- taken on 31.12.07 in favour of the 1st opposite party has been given to the 1st op...

K.K.Moideen Vs. Assistant Wild Life Wardern

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker134

1. Could the authorized officer confiscate a property which is either admitted or proved to be not belonging to the Government of Kerala together with the vehicle etc used to transport such property under Section 61A(2) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act")? That is the question I am called upon to answer in this revision arising from judgment of learned District Judge in C.M.A.No.8 of 2006 confirming order No.W4-3397 of 2004 dated 27-06-2005 of the Wild Life Warden, Waynad Wild Life Division, Sulthan Bathery, (for short, "the Authorized Officer"). 2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the question are: On 08-08-2004 at about 9.30 p.m the forest officials intercepted lorry bearing reg. No. KL-11/E 4995 carrying bunches of banana covered with banana leaves at the forest check post at Tholpetty. On examination it was found that the lorry was carrying sawn and sized rosewood logs. The driver took to his heels. The lorry and rosewood logs were seized on preparing a m...