Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments
The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B.A. Abdulla Kunhi and An ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-26-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party/Insurance Co. in CC.118/09 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is RC owner of 2008 (sic 2007) model Hyundai Santro Car that he entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party on 10.6.08 as he represented that he wanted the car to attend the marriage of his relative. According to him the car was not returned. It was found that the 2nd opposite party has absconded and the residence is seen closed. He filed a complaint before the JFCM, Kasargode. The Kasargode police have registered the case under section 406 IPC vide crime No.526/08. It is stated that he informed the Insurance Co. about the incident in time and the opposite parties advised him to wait till the police complete the investigation and that the claim will be considered only after 6 mon...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Moosa Kutty Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-26-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.196/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Lancer car owned by him met with an accident on 6.5.04 and that the same was repaired at the approved workshop. The opposite party/insurer paid only Rs.1,90,000/- although, the repair charges amounted to Rs.3,40,351/- The complaint is filed claiming the balance amount and compensation. 3. In the version filed, it is contended that the complainant had produced only handwritten bills for spare parts and not purchase bills from the authorized dealer. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any further amount. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B10. 5. We find that as per Ext.B2 survey report, the surveyor has calculated the net amount liable to be paid as Rs.2,15,390/- deducting salvage and policy excess. The complainant has challenged the abov...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Joy Vs. the Manager, M/S. Sitaram Motors, Thrissur and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-26-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in CC.37/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint has been allowed directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he paid the entire price of the vehicle on 11.9.07 on the assurance of the opposite parties that the Maruti Alto Car will be delivered before 13.9.07. The new vehicle was intended to be used as the official vehicle at the time of the marriage of his elder brothers daughter on 15.9.07. The allegation is that the car was not delivered as agreed and he had arrange another vehicle for the marriage. He has sought for interest on the amount of Rs.2,86,934/- paid from 11.9.07 to 15.9.07 amounting to Rs.500/-. A sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the amount that had to be spend for the substitute vehicle and Rs.8500/- towards compensation. 3. The opposite parties have filed vers...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Roy Vs. State of Kerala, Rep by Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. Appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No.351/2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad Hoc-II), Kasaragod. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18/8/1999, while PW4, the Sub Inspector of Police of Chittarikkal Police Station, moving on patrol duty along with PW1, the Head Constable and other police personnel got information that the appellant was illegally keeping arrack in his house. PW4 and party, suddenly proceeded to the house of the appellant. When they reached near the house of the appellant, a man was found coming across with a sack on his head. Seeing PW4 and party, after abandoning the sack, the man took to his heels. Tho...
Tag this Judgment!Ej Shaila, Alappuzha Vs. the Kerala Public Service Commission, Rep. by ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
The short question arising herein is whether the application submitted by the petitioner to the Public Service Commission in the form prescribed for SC/St candidates valued at Rs.5/-, could be accepted as valid. She is not a Schedule Caste, but is a Muslim. According to the Commission, the application prescribed for general categories ought to have been submitted by the petitioner. 2. The notification issued by the Public Service Commission is for appointment to the post of H.S.A. (Maths) in various districts including, Alappuzha which has been produced as Ext.P3. On submission of application, she was allotted bar code No.28416529. But since she did not get the memo for the written test, she contacted the district office of the Commission and was informed that since the application submitted by the petitioner values only Rs.5/- instead of the application worth Rs.10/-, the same cannot be considered. Thereafter, she submitted a representation before the Secretary of the commission and s...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Muhammed Vs. Melakath Puthiya Maliyekkal Sulkiya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. Revision is against the order in a proceeding under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the revision petitioner / husband to pay a sum of ` 1,500/- as maintenance to the respondent / claimant in the proceeding. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision. 2. The wife claimed maintenance at the rate of ` 4,000/- per month from the husband alleging neglect on his part to maintain her and also her lack of means, with a further allegation that he is a trader of foreign goods getting an income of ` 724,000/- per month. He was employed in a gulf country for several years and apart from having the vocation as a trader as aforesaid, he is doing real estate business was her further case, to sustain the claim made at the rate stated from him. Resisting the claim, the husband contended that the wife is employed as a tailor earning ` 3,000/- per month. She is living separately from him without justifiable cause and that too after an order of restitution of conjugal rights has be...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Birla Vs. Vidyasagar Panicker
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.121/11 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.500/- with interest at 9% from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The matter is with respect to non refund of the amount paid as advance for a paper napkin manufacturing machine. According to the complainant he could not proceed with the project on account of the cost of the materials having increased to almost the double and he could not repay the loan availed from the bank. The opposite party did not refund the advance paid. 3. opposite party although filed version did not adduce any evidence and hence Forum allowed the complaint. 4. The counsel for the appellant/opposite party has pointed out that immediately after filing ie within 2 months the matter was disposed of and that the opposite party whose office is situated at Delhi could not make arrangements ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Subin, Thrissur District Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No.199/2003 of Judicial First class Magistrate, Ponnani. He and another accused are facing trial for offences punishable under sections 406, 408 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. The defacto complainant therein was examined in part as PW1. The accused are stated to be the near relatives of PW1. The case of the Prosecution is that while PW1 was away, engaged in the construction of his house, the management of the toddy business was entrusted with the accused. They were to keep the accounts. Subsequently, it was revealed that the accused misappropriated a sum of `13,69,283/- by manipulating the accounts of the business. It was also alleged that by forging documents it was made to appear that they had remitted the amount towards toddy worker’s welfare fund and without remitting that amount they committed criminal breach of trust to the tune of `1,00,236/-. 2. If is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that two witnesses have filed appl...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Abt Parcel Service and Another Vs. Sri. Sundaran Nair
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kozhikode in OP 510/03 dated 24/01/05. The appellants are the opposite parties who prefers this appeal under the direction for the Forum below is that to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation with 12% interest from 2.10.03 till realization and a cost of Rs.2,00/- to the complainant. The respondent is the complainant. 2. The complainants case is that he sent some articles (5 items) from Bangalore to Calicut by the opposite party parcel agency on 27.9.03. According to the complainant, the 2nd opposite party gave an assurance that if the complainant pays Rs.650/- as packing charges, articles will be properly packed for the safe transport from the 1st opposite party. So the complainant paid an amount of Rs.650/- as packing charges to the 1st opposite party and sent the articles through the opposite parties parcel office. The complainant has received a way bill and he paid a transport charge of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Muktha K.N., Koyikkalethu Vs. the Secretary, Kseb, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan a ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in CCNo. 93/09 dated 30/10/2010. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties in the above said OP. The appellant complainant prefers this appeal from the order that the complaint was dismissed by the Forum below. 2. The grievance of the complainant is that the refund of the bill amount of Rs. 10797/- dated : 16..11.04 and the bill amounts charged on the basis of average consumption of electricity during the period when the meter was faulty along with interest and costs. 3. The complainant filed a petition before he A.E. stated that here may be fault in recording the meter reading. As per the complaint the Assistant Engineer examined the meter and said to the complainant that there is no fault in the meter. The complainant was forced to remit the bill amount Rs.10997/-. 4. The door of the complainant was locked on reading dates : 18.05.06 and 17.7.06 and hence...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »