Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

Titus Mani Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Reptd. by Its Managing Direc ...

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, Thrissur in CC.No.1035/06 dated 14th July 2006. The appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal from the order of the Forum below dismissed the complaint. The respondents are the opposite parties. 2. In short, the complainant is a mediclaim insurance policy holder of the opposite party which taken through the Bharathakshemam Kuries, Thrissur. This policy is a part and parcel of the subscriptions of kury which conducted by the chitty company. The policy issued by the second opposite party which is valid during the period of hospitalization of the complainant. The sum insured is Rs.15,000/-. The complainant admitted at Vattathil Ayurveda Pharmacy and Nursing Home, Kochi on 7.12.05 and was treated there for Migrane, IVDP C5, C6, 14 and 15. The complainant spent a sum of Rs.38,625/- for the treatment. The complainant lodged a claim with the second opposite party to settle the claim. But, the secon...

Managing Director, Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. C.K. Ahame ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMONJUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated 9th March 2005 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in OP.235/04. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 in causing damage to the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The complainant has also alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in their failure to compensate the complainant for the damage caused to his vehicle and also in not compensating the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. Thus, the complainant claimed replacement of the vehicle which was damaged or to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- with cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The 1st opposite party/Maruthi Udyog Limited, the manufacturer of the said vehicle was served with notice in the said complaint; but the opposite party remained absent and thereby the 1st opposite party was decl...

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Har ...

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, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No. 116/06 (complaint filed on 6.4.2006) dated 30.4.2010. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant respectively. This appeal prefers by the appellant under the order directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,88,291/- with 9% interest from 23.5.89 till date of realization and cost of Rs. 3,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The brief of the case is that a pontoon for mounting sand pump works brought from Neendakara to Vizhinjam for dredging purposes and that the same was returning to Neendakara back. The same was caught in heavy winds and the same which belongs to the respondent was abandon in the sea. The pontoon was insured with the appellant and as such they were liable to indemnify for the loss. The contention of the insurance company was that the first of all MMD clearance was necessary to bring the pontoons to V...

Sunnymon Thomas Vs. Biju Mon and Another

Court: Kerala

1. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.32 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kattappana and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.48 of 2003 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. He was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.39,140/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the learned Magistrate by judgment dated January 28, 2003. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court by judgment dated October 28, 2004 confirmed his conviction, but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay compensation of Rs.43,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the first respondent/complainant, as testified by him as PW1 and as...

Maggy Sunny Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner, a dealer in gold ornaments, has filed this revision petition challenging the orders of the VAT Appellate Tribunal confirming penalty levied under S.67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as the Act for short) for evasion of tax during the year 2005-06. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and have also gone through the impugned orders including the appellate order issued by the VAT Appellate Tribunal. 3. Even though tax payable under the Act on the sales turnover of gold jewelery is only 1%, still having regard to the value of the item, the incidence of tax is very heavy and consequently tax evasion is said to be very common in gold business in the State. According to the learned Government Pleader, the usual practice of tax evasion by gold dealers is by making unaccounted sales by issuing slips for the sales instead of raising invo...

Manju Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary and ...

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner seeks the following relief: "Issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to produce the detenue before this Honourable Court, to quash Exhibit P1 detention under which was approved and confirmed by the Government and set the detenue at liberty." 2. By Ext.P1 detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the husband of the petitioner stands detained under Section 3 of the Act. Four Crimes are referred to as the foundation for invoking Section 3 of the Act. They are Crime Nos.346/09, 437/10, 537/10 and 422/09, all of the Thekkumbhagam Police Station. All these cases fall under the Kerala Protection of River Banks And Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Sand Act). 3. We heard Shri C. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Shri K. J. Mohammed...

Jagadamma Vs. the Union of India and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT139; 2011(3)KHC366

The petitioner claims to be the widow of a freedom fighter, viz. N.Kumaran. According to the petitioner, her husband had actively participated in the Punnapra Vayalar movement during the freedom struggle, which is accepted by the Government as a part of the freedom movement. The petitioner's husband submitted an application for freedom fighter's pension producing the personal knowledge certificates (PKC) issued by M/s. Kunjan Sukumaran and P.K.Chandranandan, along with a non availability of records certificate (NARC) issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, where, according to him, the criminal case pursuant to which he had undergone sufferings was registered. That claim was earlier rejected. The petitioner's husband approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 16911/2004, in which, this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment directing the State Government to forward their recommendation on the application of the petitioner's husband for freedom fighter's pension and a further di...

Pushpa Sasidharan Vs. Rajan and Another

Court: Kerala

1. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.662/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Attingal and the appellant in Crl.A. No.154/2004 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Thiruvananthapuram. She was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of ` 6,00,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one year. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court by September 27, 2008 confirmed her conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.5,10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. There was also a direction that fine amount, if realized, should be paid to the complainant (PW1) as compensation. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging her conviction and sentence. 2. The case of th...

Shaji, S/O Sulaiman, Prop. Sha Mobiles, Sales and Service Vs. Sunoj Pa ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.133/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. 2. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2300/-, the cost of the mobile phone and Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost, with interest at 9%, if the amount is not paid within one month. 3. The matter is with respect to the alleged defects to the Samsung mobile phone purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2500/- from the opposite parties. There was warranty for one year. The defect was noticed within the warranty period but the opposite party refused to replace or repair the same and also abused the complainant. He has sought for the cost of mobile phone as well as Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 4. Opposite party has denied even the purchase of the mobile phone as well as the alleged mis behaviour. According to him for the exchange of the mobile phone with a new one there was a dispute regarding the price of the mobile phone got exchanged by h...

E.A.Mohanan Vs. the Manager, Sulthan Bathery Co-operative Urban Bank L ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC 122/09 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The Forum has directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation with interest at 10% from the date of the order of the Forum.Aggrieved by the said order the complainant has filed the appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had entrusted a cheque for a sum of Rs.6,425/- for collection with the opposite party on 4.6.09. The cheque was not encashed. Nothing was heard from the opposite parties. Subsequently, the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party. There was no reply. The complainant has sought for the cheque an amount and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. 3. It is the case of the opposite parties that the cheque was dishonored although it was sent for collection on 22.12.08 as the complainant did not turn up after presenting the cheque. The connected official asked the wife of the complainant to come over to the bank and collect the ...