Kerala Court October 2011 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.
Rasily Vs. Seema Khaise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. This Original Petition is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.169 of 2011 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Pala aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Sub Judge in Ext.P3-IA.No.1550 of 2011 that the said application will be considered after all the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. 2. First respondent sued petitioners and other defendants for partition and separate possession of 7/72 shares over 13 items of property referred to in plaint A to C schedules. Petitioners (who are said to have filed written statement) filed Ext.P3, application-I.A.No.1550 of 2011 to reject the plaint under R.11 of O.VII of the Code of Civil procedure (for short, “the Code”) as court fee paid is not correct. First respondent filed Ext.P4, objection. On Ext.P3, application learned Sub Judge is said to have directed that the same will be considered on other defendants entering appearance and filing written statement. The said order (cop...
Manager M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Marykuttan Stephen
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP.No.11/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay the sum assured ie; Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- compensation and Rs.500/- as costs and if that the amount is not paid within 2 months, the same will carry interest at 12% from the date of complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the deceased husband of the complainant was having accident insurance coverage for 5 years of Rs.50,000/- from 19.9.2000 to 18.9.05. He fell down from the lorry while unloading goods on 21.11.03. He was hospitalized at JubileeMission Hospital, Thrissur. During hospitalization, he died on 1.12.03. The claim was repudiated. 3. It is the case of the opposite parties that death was not directly due to the accident. It is contended that the deceased fell due to vertigo for which he was undergoing treatment for the last 5 years. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.R1 to R12 serie...
Proprietor, Edulinks, Overseas Educational Vs. Prasad.T.G.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
JUSTICESHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Overseas Educational Consultancy in CC.92/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party received a sum of Rs.5,000/- for processing his wifes application to go to Australia. The original certificates were also entrusted. The opposite party demanded further sum of Rs.2,000/-. At that point, the complainant sought for refund of the money paid and return of the certificates. The complainant has sought for refund the amounts paid with 18% interest and return of the original certificates. 3. The opposite party/appellant has contended that the original certificates were not handed over at all. The amount paid towards service charges is not refundable. It is the case of the opposite parties that the wife of the complainant retracted subsequently. Hence, the...
The Kerala State Electricity Board Reptd. by Its Secretary, Kse.Board, ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
COMMON ORDER JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The revision petitioners are the opposite parties/KSEB authorities in CC.No.180/2010 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The case of the revision petitioners is that the Forum as per Regulation 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 ought to have disposed of the IAs filed by the respective sides on merits. The Forum instead has directed to keep the statusquo without passing a considered order. 2. We find that the Forum has just postponed the disposal the main contentions on the ground that more evidence is required. The Forum is bound to dispose of the matter on merits on the basis of the evidence/documents available in the IA. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum in IA.Nos.186/10 and 11/11 and CC 180/10 is set aside. 3. The matter is remitted back to the Forum below. The Forum is directed to dispose of the entire matter at the earliest. In the meantime, the revision petitioner is directed not to disconnect electric sup...
The Manager M/S Popular Hyundai Vs. Sri.Joe Jose, Advocate and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the first opposite party/Authorized Service Centre who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 13,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs and to pay interest at 12% if the amount is not paid within one month. 2. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted the Hyundai Santro Car to the opposite parties on 20.09.10 for rectifying the complaints of reverse gear. The vehicle was delivered after repairs only on 11.11.10. The inordinate delay caused is deficiency in service it is alleged. It is also contended that he had to engage Taxi Car for 14 days paying a rent of Rs.750/- per day apart from Petrol expenses of the vehicle. He has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards the cost for engaging the taxi car. 3. The opposite party/appellant had contended that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2002 and had plied 110464 kms. It is contended that the entire gear assembly has to be changed and that the...
M/S. Asian Paints Limited Vs. K.A. Abootty Haji Crescent Traders
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-01-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.21/08 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not returning the machinery, viz. Colour World Machine which was taken for effecting repairs. The complainant alleged mental agony and financial loss on account of the failure of the opposite party to return the aforesaid machine to the complainant. Hence the complainant claimed refund of Rs.3,94,864/- being the price of the machine together with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and cost. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the complainant purchased the colour world machine by availing loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from Citi Bank agreeing to repay the amount by monthly instalments and that the opposite party, M/s Asian Paints Limited stood as a 3rd party t...
Dr. M.A. Moideen, M.D Diabetes Hospital and Research-center and Others ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-01-2011
COMMON JUDGMENTSHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBERThe order dated 18.11.08 of CDRF, Kozhikode in OP No. 6/03 is assailed in the above appeals by the complainant and the opposite parties. Appeal 91/10 is filed by the opposite parties and Appeal 470/10 is filed by the complainant. By the impugned order the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 5,00/- . 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that on 1.11.2001 he noticed a small abscess around his right fourth toe and as he was a diabetic patient, he visited the 2nd opposite party hospital for special treatment for diabetes and that on 2.11.2001 the complainant was admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital at the advice of the 1st opposite party. On admission the 1st opposite party diagnosed the case of the complainant as Diabetes Mellites, Peripheral Neuropathy and foot infection. The complainant was given medicines including insul...
Maria Flames Rep.by Its Managing Partner John Plakkeel Vs. Sojan K.Geo ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-01-2011
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/authorised distributors in OP.222/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to both the complainants towards costs. There is also a direction to issue bills for supply of LPG gas in future. 2. The case of the complainants is that the opposite party gas agency is insisting that the gas will be supplied at the residence of the consumers only and that the same will not be issued from the godown. According to the complainants they have came to know that they are entitled to collect t gas cylinders from the godown and for the same they will be getting a reduction of Rs.8/- per cylinder in the price of the gas. According to the complainants they are having vehicles and hence they should be permitted to collect gas cylinder from the godown and they should be allowed reduction of Rs.8/-. They also sought for compensation of Rs.5000/- for not permitting them to c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›