Kerala Court June 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.
Kerala State Private Bus Operators, Represented by Its General Secreta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. This batch of writ petitions pertains to a common cause, being aggrieved of Ext. P2 notification (Exhibits referred to as given in W.P. (C) 13288 of 2011) issued by the first respondent /Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA in short), declaring the rates of insurance premium in respect of the motor third party insurance, to be made applicable w.e.f 25.04.2011. Challenge is mainly with regard to the power and jurisdiction of the first respondent, denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also in respect of the extent of enhancement. 2. The petitioners are various associations, representing the Stage carriage operators, Contract carriage operators, Tourist bus operators, Car and taxi operators, Lorry and other goods carriage operators in the State. The common contention is that, as per Ext. P2 issued by the first respondent / IRDA, the rates on motor third party premium have been enhanced to an exorbitant extent, in a quite arbitrary manner, that too, wit...
N. Thankappan Vs. the Administrator, Holy Cross Hospital and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in O.P. 216/99 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that while serving in the Army on 15.8.96 he felt belly pain and started vomiting. The military doctor on examination and on the basis of U.S.G. Scan findings found that he is having stones in the Gall bladder and advised a minor surgery. He reached home and got admitted at the opposite party hospital on 30.9.96. He was told by the second opposite party doctor that he will have to undergo an immediate laparoscopic operation and that it is a minor procedure and can go home after 3 days. He under went the surgery done by the second opposite party assisted by the 3rd opposite party doctors. It is alleged that the surgery was conducted without even conducting a scanning test prior to the surgery. He under went the surgery on 1.10,96. On 4.10.96 he felt much inconvenience and pain. On the next day he was fo...
The Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC No. 188/2007 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 14,29,200/- with interest at 12% from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization and cost of Rs. 2,000/- with respect to the damage sustained to the vehicle that was covered by a package policy. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of a Mercedes Benz Car which was purchased from M/s Friends Globe Travels, New Delhi. On expiry of the policy which was then insured by the prior owner. Smt. Selvi Sivakumar the authorized agent of the opposite party approached the complainant and requested to renew the insurance of the vehicle with the opposite party. The purchase of the vehicle, its ownership and the steps taken for transferring the registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant had been informed to the said authorized agent. On getting directions Mr. K.S. Mariap...
Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram, Rep. by Its Secret ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB authorities in CC.201/06 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The bill for a sum of Rs.5240/- issued by the opposite parties stands cancelled and the opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the opposite parties that the impugned bill for the period from 1/4/2006 to 7/6/2006 was issued on 29/7/2006. The explanation is that on account of a mistake of the concerned staff the complainant was billed under VII-B tariff instead of VII-A tariff. The complainant has been issued with an arrear bill with notice of disconnection. 3. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B3. 4. We find that there is no explanation as to how the error has taken place and what action has been taken against the concerned staff. Issuing of consolidated bill of arrears for the period of two years is a burden on the consumer and amounts to ...
The Director, St. Johnâs Hospital, Kattappana P.O.,kattappana Vil ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT No representation for the appellants. Cost not paid. Appellants called absent. Appeal dismissed for default....
Joy John and Others Vs. Mathew Joseph
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.193/10 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. Appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- with interest at 12% from 26/5/2007 and cost of Rs.5000/-. The matter is with respect to the non refund of the amount deposited in the opposite parties scheme by name Jyothis Project. It was assured that the amount would repay within one year in double apart from the amounts received in the prizes of the lottery tickets purchased etc. There was no repayment. The contention of the opposite parties is that the Firm could not conduct the business as per the order of the Police Commissioner, Kochiand hence the amount could not be repaid. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 series. We find that the deposit is evidenced by the receipts produced. The Forum has only directed to repay the amount with 12% interest. We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the ...
E.V. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Its Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. The Enquiry Commissioner and special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C. No. 7 of 2002 convicted the appellant for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) respectively. Assailing the above conviction and sentenced, this appeal is preferred. 2. PW.1 Jimmy John belongs to fishermen community. In 2001, he was studying in ITI, Chandanathopu. He was entitled to stipend as the son of a fisherman. The appellant, who was an employee in the Kerala Legislative Secretariat, was working as Fisheries Officer in the Office of the Fishermen Welfare Fund Board, Padappakkara, at Mukkada, in Kollam District, on deputation basis. PW.1 obtained an application form to apply for stipend. It contained an inner form for certifying the community o...
Aliyamma Isow Vs. P.J. Joseph and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
ThottathilB.Radhakrishnan,J. 1. This appeal by the first defendant in a suit for partition is filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. She says that she was suffering from back pain and was, therefore, prevented by sufficient cause from filing this appeal within the time prescribed. We would have been inclined to issue notice on that ground for condonation of delay. But we thought it appropriate to look into the merits of the appeal as well since nothing forbids a look into the merits in terms of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure even while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in connection with a first appeal under Section 96 CPC. 2. The plaintiff and defendants are siblings. They are the children of Joseph and Aleyamma Ouseph, both of whom are no more. The relationship between the parties and the fact that the suit property originally belonged to their parents are not in dispute. The ...
M/S. Kalyan Silks Vs. Manoj Kumar
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The appellant is the opposite parties in the O.P. No. 456/06 who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam is dated 20.2.2007 and the respondent is the complainant respectively. In short, the complainant purchased a new Kurtha from the appellants shop on 6.9.2006. The allegation of the complaint is that the appellant did not permit him to tried the Kurtha before purchase and that of the purchase he found the Kurtha to be not comfortable to wear and hence the same was returned. It is further the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not replace the Kurtha and also did not get back the price money and hence the complaint before the District Forum for remedy under Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties filed written version and contended that Kurtha was worth Rs. 4,905/- was tried by the complainant in the trial room and that the complainant requested to reduce the length of sleev by 2 inches. This was take...
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Jessy Emmanuel Podi ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party/Insurance Company in CC.387/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The order sought to be revised is with respect to the one in IA.No.466/10 as per which the Forum has directed the revision petitioner to deposit Rs.3,53,630/- and also permitted the complainant to withdraw the same. 2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the above amount representing the repair cost as per the survey report can be released only after effecting repairs to the vehicle and submitting the bills. We find that the contention of the revision petitioner is genuine. Hence, the order of the Forum is modified to the effect that the revision petitioner shall deposit the amount, and that the same shall be released only after the disposal of the case. The Forum is directed to place the amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. The revision petition is allowed as above. The office will forward the copy of this orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »