Kerala Court October 2011 Judgments

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. E.Vasudevan

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.539/01 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.53,500/- towards the insured sum and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is conducting a rice mill and that the premises and stock in the building were insured for a sum of Rs.4,59,000/-. On 20.4.01, the water tank of the building complex in which the complainants shop is situated got burst and water overflowed to the complainant shop and godown and the entire stock was destroyed. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.53,500/-. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the rice stock was damaged as the rice bags got wet due to water logging in the slab above and over flowing of water down and that it is not a peril covered by the policy. 3. In the version filed, it is contended that there is no water tank as alleged and that rain wate...

Dr. Praveen Kumar, Ophthalmic Surgeon and Another Vs. K.V. Leelavathi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Common Judgment: Both the appellants are the respondents/opposite parties in the O.P. No. 20/01, the order dated 29.4.2005 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The first respondent is the complainant in the above O.P. The appellants prefers this appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs, 2 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as Medical expenses together with litigation expenses Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order under the provisions of Consumer Protection Amendment Act. The complainant was having a case that he was having cataract in her left eye consulted the first opposite party, doctor who in turn advised surgery. After the operation she was discharged on the same date after that she had reviewed that first opposite party continued meditation but she does not regain her own eye sight. The compl...

M/S. New Bharat Tyres India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kurian Abraham and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The 2nd opposite party in CC No. 318/2009 before the CDRF, Ernakulam, is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 79,985/- within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order failing with the said opposite party is liable to pay interest also at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till payment. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had purchased a Honda City Car bearing Registration No. KL-7BK 336 from Sri. Tushar Bhatia, Mumbai and that the vehicle was having valid policy issued by the 1st opposite party for the period from 27.3.08 to 26.3.09 and that on 7.2.09 he had taken the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for wheel alignment and up gradation of tyres. It is the further case of the complainant that the vehicle driven by one Mr. Ajesh, who is the employee of the 2nd opposite party met with an accident and for the repairs, the complainan...

Johnson Manuel Vs. Lovely MartIn @ Lovely Margrette and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLJ698; 2011(4)KLT139(C.No.148)(SN); 2011(4)KHC509; 2012CrLJ967

‘C.R’ Revision is by the respondent in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, ‘the Act’), challenging the orders passed by the magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence as against the applicant, to accommodate her in his house mentioned in the complaint and also directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to his two children over and above the maintenance awarded to them by the Family Court till enhancement of such claim is effected by such court at the request of the claimant. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is impeached by the respondent in this revision. 2. Notice given, the applicant in the aforesaid proceedings has appeared. The records of the case were called for and perused. 3. Application arising various reliefs under the Act, moved by the applicant/wife before the Chief Judicial magi...

T. Samuel Vs. Elsykutty Philip, Adoor and Another

Court: Kerala

1. The accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the ‘N.I.Act’, concurrently by the two courts below has filed Crl.R.P.No.3437 of 2009 and also Crl.M.C.No.171 of 2010. 2. Complainant in the cheque case questioning the sentence imposed on the accused as inadequate, has filed the other revision, Crl.R.P.No.3595 of 2009. 3. Crl.M.C.No.171 of 2010 filed by the accused is directed against modification of the sentence by the learned Sessions Judge enhancing the quantum of compensation to Rs.7,50,000/- from Rs.50,000/- awarded by the learned Magistrate, upholding the challenge raised thereto by the complainant filing a revision Crl.R.P.No.20 of 2008, which was heard and disposed along with the appeal, Crl.A.No.138 of 2008, challenging his conviction by the learned Magistrate. The accused, no doubt, could have challenged the property, legality and correctness of the enhancement of the sentence in his revision, Crl...

Delhi Telecom India (P) Ltd. Vs. S.i. of Police

Court: Kerala

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. 1. The petitioner company is seeking police protection for its staff and employees for carrying out construction and other works of a Base Transceiver Station and its ancillary unit tower, in survey No.11/4 in Kakkodi Village, in Kozhikode District, from the threat and hindrance alleged to have been caused by respondents 4 to 6 and their men. Averments are to the effect that, by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement entered into with M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., which is a registered infrastructure provider, the petitioner had undertaken construction of the Telecommunication Tower in question, for which M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. had obtained Ext.P2 Building Permit from Kakkodi Grama Panchayat, the 3rd respondent herein. But when the petitioner company started the works relating to construction of the Telecommunication Tower on 7.7.2011, the respondents 4 to 6 along with some other persons threatened the workers and created physical obstructions. Eventhough the petitioner submitted Ex...

M.T. Hemachandran @ Kamalesh, Kozhikode and Others Vs. Sub Inspector o ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)841; 2011(4)KLT841; 2011(4)KLJ891; 2012CrLJ1328

1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure, filed by accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Crime No.490 of 2011 of Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 333, 326, 506 (i), 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the PDPP Act). 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 20-9-2011 while the Sub Inspector of Police and two civil police officers were on law and order duty, at about 5.20 P.M., one Sudeep was arrested for drunken rash driving of a motor bike. Sudeep was taken for medical examination. While the police officers were returning from the hospital, the police jeep had to be stopped at Kakkoti Bazaar due to a traffic block. At that time, about 25 persons belonging to DYFI rushed towards the police party shouting “kill those dogs” and attacke...

E. Satheesh Kumar Vs. Malabar Devaswam Board and Others

Court: Kerala

1. This is an application for bail under S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No. 490 of 2011 of Chevayoor Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under S.143, S.147, S.148, S.332, S.333, S.326, S.506(i), S.307 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code and S.3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the PDPP Act). 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 20/09/2011 while the Sub Inspector of Police and two civil police officers were on law and order duty, at about 5.20 P.M., one Sudeep was arrested for drunken rash driving of a motor bike. Sudeep was taken for medical examination. While the police officers were returning from the hospital, the police jeep had to be stopped at Kakkoti Bazar due to a traffic block. At that time, about 25 persons belonging to DYFI rushed towards the police party shouting "kill those dogs" and attacked them with stones, brick...

Dr. Preceline George Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLJ694; 2011(4)KLT657; 2011(4)KHC502

1. Revision is by the respondent in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act {for short “the Act”} on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- I, Ernakulam. The petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings, the 2nd respondent herein, claimed various reliefs under the aforesaid Act, alleging that the revision petitioner, a doctor by profession, who married her on 07.06.2009, committed domestic violence on various counts entitling her to the reliefs canvassed. All the reliefs claimed by her in the petition, except the claim for maintenance were turned down by the learned magistrate. The claim for maintenance raised by her was allowed in part, directing the revision petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month from the date of the petition. The order of the magistrate awarding maintenance as aforesaid was challenged in appeal, but that was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc-II), Ernakulam. F...

Smt. Anna Jose and Another Vs. Sri.G.Cleetus and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER These appeals are preferred against the order dated:6.5.2009 of CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.185/09. Appeal.489/11 is filed by the complainant who is not satisfied by the amount of compensation ordered by the Forum below and A.620/11 is filed by the opposite party who is aggrieved by the order of the Forum below directing him to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant in A.620/11 submitted that the opposite party did not get a chance to contest the matter before the Forum as the opposite party was set exparte. It is also his case that the opposite party has a good case to be contested and that even the commission report is not sufficient enough to fasten the liability on the opposite party for paying Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The learned counsel submitted that the opposite party may be given an opportunity to contest the matter before the Forum by filing version and adducing evidence i...