Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments

T. Mahalakshmi Vs. the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Represente ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.4 lakh with respect to four LIC policies with interest at 12% which has been calculated at Rs.96,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant, who is the wife of the deceased assured is that the opposite party/LIC of India has repudiated the claims on un-sustainable grounds. 3. The opposite parties have filed version alleging that there was suppression of material facts with respect to the health of the deceased assured and hence the policies are void. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have agreed to settle the matter. Only dispute is with respect to the rate of interest. Although the complainant has sought for interest at 12% the opposite parties have contended that as per the relevant circular, interest for delayed payment can only be at 8%. 5. We find that the complainant has came down to accept the amount with 9% interest which we find is reasonable. In the circumstances, the opposite ...

M/S Keyar Yobykes Vs. M.P. Premakumar

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, Ernakulam order dated 17.6.2011 in CC No. 484/2010. The opposite party is the appellant who prefers this appeal under the direction that the opposite party either to refund for Rs.44,900/- obtained as price of the vehicle in question or to as per the prayer of the complainant to upgrade the same if feasible. 2. The respondent is the complainant in the OP who appeared for the commission as party in person. The appellant represented though the learned counsel. Brief of the dispute is that the complainant who contacted to the opposite party for an electric two wheeler with good mileage. The opposite party offered a vehicle with 80-85 km at stretch charge. The opposite party further agreed to deliver the same in Shornur. Thus the complainant visited the showroom of the opposite party. The opposite party handed over a brochure of an electric scooter which has 80-85 km mileage at a stretch. Accordingly th...

Harikumar, Secretary, Teltron Electronics Development Society Vs. Rinn ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants/opposite parties in CC.78/11 in the file of CDRF, Kannur are under orders to refund the amount of Rs.14,600/- and pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The allegation of the complainant is with respect to a lightning arrester and surge protector installed by the opposite party at the house of the complainant. It is the case that the equipment was manufactured with sub-standard materials and as a result the lightning affected the entire electrical and electronic instrument inside the house and the same were got damaged. 3. The opposite party stood ex-parte before the Forum below. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 and C1 series. 5. The appellant has stated that he was laid up and was in bed rest and that the notice received from the Forum was also misplaced as the premises were shifted. He has sought for an opportunity to contest the matter. 6. In...

Sheela and Others Vs. Lic of India, Rep. by the Zonal Manager and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complainants are the L.R.S. (wife and children) of the deceased Sasidharan who had availed an L.I.C. policy from the opposite parties 1 to 4/L.I.C. authorities. A sum of Rs. 35 lakhs is claimed towards the assured sum and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and 10,000/- as cost. 2. The deceased died on 17.1.2004in an accident. It is stated that he was a PWD contractor. The first complainant is the wife and the rest are the children. It is alleged that the 6th opposite party Abdul Asharaf/L.I.C. agent was a close friend of the deceased and that he used to visit their house frequently and he is very familiar to them for the past 8 years. The above agent is a Member of the Panchayat wherein the complainants are residing. The above agent/6th opposite party used to persuade the assured to avail an L.I.C. policy. Meanwhile on 6.3.2002, the deceased met with a bike accident and was hospitalized. He got fully recovered from the injuries and the opp...

Sujatha Vs. Mariayamma Xavier and Others

Court: Kerala

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is in challenge of Ext. P10, order dated 10/03/2010 on EA No. 434 of 2009 in EP No. 208 of 2007 in OS No. 688 of 2005 of the Court of learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha. 2. 1st respondent is no more and as the 6th respondent who is present in person states, respondents 2 to 6 are legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent. The 6th respondent also holds power of attorney of respondents 2 to 5. Since the 6th respondent appeared in person and the issue involves questions of law and fact, I sought the assistance of Shri Sajan Varghese, Advocate who was appointed Amicus Curiae for the purpose. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Sanal Kumar and Shri Sajan Varghese. 3. Respondents sought execution of the decree in OS No. 688 of 2005 in EP No. 208 of 2007 for recovery of possession of the homestead occupied by petitioner and ten cents appurtenant to it. Petitioner claimed that she belongs to the Hindu Samba...

P.R. Radhakrishnan and Another Vs. State of Kerala, Rep.by Public Pros ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT88; 2012(3)KLJ377

ORDER 1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.473 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur. They are indicted for offences punishable under sections 465, 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This criminal miscellaneous case has been filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1complaint and all proceedings in C.C.No.473 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur. 2. The defacto complainant viz., the second respondent filed Annexure- A1 private complaint on 3.10.2003. It is alleged that while the petitioners were acting respectively as the President and Secretary of Paravur unit of the Nair Service Society they had recorded in the minutes that on 13.6.1999 a resolution was passed in the General Body to take loan for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to clear the liabilities of a shopping complex owned by NSS. It is further alleged that the General Body, had, in fact, dissolved without taking any such decisi...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Pearl Food Products

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the respondent’s eligibility for deduction of sales tax which was not paid in the previous year or until the last date as required under S.43(B) of the Income Tax Act (for short IT Act). 2. We have heard Sri. P. K. R. Menon for the appellant and Sri. A. Kumar for the respondent. The issue arose in the year 1991-92. Admittedly, respondent - assessee did not remit the sales tax before the closing of the previous year or until the date of filing of the return for the relevant assessment year. So much so, in the normal course assessee was not entitled for deduction of the accrued sales tax liability by virtue of S.43B of the IT Act which entitles for deduction only if payment is made on or before the due date provided thereunder. However, assessee still claimed deduction because being a sick industry the assessee was entitled to the benefit confer...

M/S. Hercules Automobiles International(P) Ltd. Vs. Thomas M. Pattiyan ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party/dealer in C.C. 145/09 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta under orders to refund the sum of Rs. 45,000/- and interest at 8% from the date of booking of the car and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that the first opposite party as representative of the second opposite party canvassed order of booking from him. The complainant booked seven Maruthi Alto L.X- Silkey Silver cars and paid Rs. 45,000/- as booking advance on 18.11.2008. The first opposite party also offered to arrange loan from State Bank of Travancore, Vennikulam branch. The vehicle was promised to be delivered on 20.11.2008. The car was not delivered at all. It is the case that the advance was paid at the office of the complainant at Vennikulam in Thiruvalla. He has sought for refund of Rs. 45,000/- with interest at 18% and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- The first opposite party stood exparte. The second opposite party...

Mukesh M. Shah Vs. Star Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

The complaint filed .under Section, 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows; The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party Star Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd for purchase of an apartment in the Multi storied building named Water Melon. As per the said agreement, the complainant agreed to purchase 1/65 undivided share in 26 cents of land with apartment more particularly described as Flat No. G. in the Forth Floor of the said building on a total consideration of Rs. 6,90,000/- which is to be paid on or before 27th June, 2006. The opposite party also agreed to complete the construction of the apartment and handing over the same to the complainant by 31st December, 2007. The opposite party also agreed to pay rent for the said flat @ Rs. 2,917/- but the opposite party paid the monthly rent up to 31.12.2009 and committed default in paying the monthly rent from 1.1.2010 on wards. In spite of the repeated requests, the opp...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. N.V. Kalyanaraman and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER This appeal is filed by the first opposite party in CC.89/08 before the CDRF, Palakkad who is aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below ordering payment of Rs.2 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant by the opposite parties. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has taken an insurance policy from the first opposite party for the period from 1.8.07 to 31.7.08 by paying an amount of Rs.3,841/- as premium and the coverage was for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. It is alleged that consequent to the Coronary Angiogram and subsequent treatment he made a claim before the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.2,98,233.95 and another sum of Rs.37,433.66. The first opposite party repudiated the claims. It is further stated that though the claims were sent to the second opposite party they also supported the repudiation. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint...