Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

The Manager, Hsfc Bank, South Bazar Branch Vs. Mrs.thekkumbath Reetha ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/bank authorities in CC.214/08 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay interest on the fixed deposit of the complainant from 23.7.07 at the rate of 5.42% per annum for a period of 12months and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.250/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she had deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as fixed deposit for one year on 23.7.07. According to him it was agreed that interest accrued on the FD shall be adjusted towards the monthly installment payment of Rs.6,555/- towards the Auto loan taken by the complainant from the opposite party. The complainant deposited Rs.55,000/- as advance as payment of Auto loan. It is the allegation that without the permission the opposite parties discontinued the fixed deposit account within 6 months. The same was not informed to the complainant. The opposite parties has not adjusted the interest of FD towards Auto loan in...

M/S Vertex Securities Ltd. Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. an ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the complainant in CC.521/05 before the CDRF, Ernakulam who is aggrieved by the order of the forum below in IA.62/06 by which the complaint was dismissed for the reason that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. 2. The complainant had instituted the complaint alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice against the opposite party. Contesting the jurisdiction, the opposite parties filed IA.No.62/06 and the forum below after hearing the respective parties had passed the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted before us that the order of the Forum below is per se un-sustainable and hence liable to be set aside. It is his very case that the forum below had the jurisdiction to try the complaint and that the forum below had ignored the contentions of the complainant regarding the jurisdiction. It is his case that as per Section 11 (2) (a) and (b) the forum below had the ...

Sunshine Abodes Pvt.Ld. and Another Vs. V.R. Venugopal and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.83189/- and interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint and also to pay Rs.1000/- as costs in CC.222/07 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his Ford-Ikon car entrusted with the 4th opposite party driver of the second opposite party for parking the same in the parking lot at the rear end of the second opposite party resort fell downhill. On account of the lapse of the driver the car fell into a valley about 100 feet down and sustained extensive damages. 3. The opposite parties have disputed the claim on the ground that taking the car to the parking lot is not a service rendered by the opposite parties. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 to 3, Exts. A1 to A10 and B1o B3. 5. The documents produced would show that the complainant had came to the resort on the basis of the time share schem...

Jins Divakaran Vs. M/S. Kalpaka Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER A complaint filed under sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows;- The complainant is a resident of Thrissur District and working at Doha, Qatar. The opposite party is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of constructing flats, apartments and villas. On the basis of the publicity given by the opposite party regarding construction of apartment by name Katticaren J.M.J. Residency, the complainant intended to purchase an apartment in the said apartment building and he booked the apartment marked as J.13D. in 13th Floor having an area of 1640 sq.feet. He paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance and booked the aforesaid flat. The total sale consideration of the said apartment was fixed at Rs. 36,97,399/- with Owners Association deposit of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- towards K.S.E.B connection charges, cabling cost and KWA charges. The complainant approached I.C.I.C.I. Bank for hous...

V. Ganapathy Vs. the Kerala Stae Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the complainant and respondent is the opposite party in CC.No.100/10 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not effecting the repairs to the flat which was allotted to the complainant. Thus, the complainant prayed for giving direction to the opposite party to carry out the repairs of the said flat. 2. The opposite party/Kerala State Housing Board entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the appellant was put in possession of the subject flat on 29.3.1990 by executing an agreement between the complainant and the opposite party/Housing board. It is further submitted that the alleged complaint regarding leakage on the roof of the flat etc was made after a lapse of 18 years ie; on 30.10.2008 and that the so called repairs are to be carried out by the complainant as he was bound...

P. Gopakumar Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. This is a second round of litigation in respect of the same subject - matter. Since all the facts of the case are clear from a judgment of this Court in the earlier round, which is produced as Ext. P3, I shall extract the said judgment: “Petitioner is aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Ext. P3 is the order imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Helper, but engaged in the clerical section. It is seen from the order that the offence for which the harshest punishment imposed on the petitioner was that he had not worn uniform. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never served with notice and he was not given the uniform allowance also. I do not think it necessary to extensively deal with the merits of the case, except to make a passing observation that the punishment is certainly disproportionate, if not shockingly disproportionate. Petitioner pursued the remedy by way of appeal befo...

M. AbIn Suraj and Another Vs. Dr.M.V. Joseph and Others

Court: Kerala

1. This petition under the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed on the allegation that the respondents herein have willfully disobeyed the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 17th of February 2011 in WP(C) No.37955/2010. 2. The petitioners herein, along with some of their colleagues, filed the aforesaid writ petition, in which, the University of Calicut, its officials and the Director of Medical Education of the Government of Kerala were the respondents. By judgment dated 17th of February, 2011, a copy of which is Annexure I, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:- "For the aforesaid reasons, I direct that the University shall award grace marks as provided in the Regulations 1997 and the Academic Calendar 2005-2010 to the petitioners for practicals also and on that basis, their results shall be published afresh. This the University shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks. It is made clear that, on such publication of th...

Cibumol. B. Babu Vs. the National Institute of Technology Calicut, Rep ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT114(SN)(C.No.116); 2011(3)KLJ746

"CR" C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The appellant with B.Tech Degree was appointed as a Lecturer in June 2008 in the 2nd respondent's Engineering College. The appellant and two other Lecturers were sponsored by the 2nd respondent College for joining the M.Tech course in the 1st respondent College. All the three persons so sponsored by the 2nd respondent were given admission by the 1st respondent for the M.Tech course 2010-2012. As of now, the appellant has completed one year of the M.Tech course in Power Systems in the Department of Electrical Engineering of the 1st respondent Institute at Kozhikode. The 2nd respondent's case is that under the norms of the management only two persons could be sponsored at a time for post graduate studies and appellant was sponsored specifically on condition that if the other two sponsored candidates secure admission, the appellant will not join the M.Tech course even if she gets admission but will return and join the College to continue as Lecturer. The...

The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity B ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellants are the KSEB authorities in CC.418/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The additional bill issued by the appellant stands cancelled. The opposite parties are under direction to categorise the complainants industry under LT IV tariff as per norms. 2. The dispute is with respect to the allegedly incorrect assessment bill issued for the current charges for the period from 1/06 to 04/09 with respect to the connection obtained under LT IV Industrial tariff. The connection was obtained for plastic scrap reprocessing with 23 KW. Subsequently on inspection by the Sub Engineer in June 2005 it was found that the industry of the complainant was not working and that the premises are used as a godown. Subsequently on 20.8.09 the bill was issued changing the connection as LTVIIA ie commercial tariff. Through out the complainant was remitting the electric charges under LT IV which is less than the commercial tariff under LT VIIA. It is the case of...

Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. Bency Tower, Vellayambalam, Thiruvana ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party who prefers the appeal from the order passed by the CDRF Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 213 on 2003 dated 30-6-2010. The respondent is the complainant. 1. This is a complaint in connection with the purchase of the Air ticket for his travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Singapore on 1-7-2002 and the complainant had obtained a flight coupon on the same on 13-6-2002 by an amount of Rs. 22,950/- but due to some personal inconvenience, the complainant postponed his journey and requested for a re-fund of the ticket fare. But the same was not refunded stating one reason or other etc. Further the opposite party informed that the complainant had not direct dealings with the opposite party. And it was through 1. Buna Vista Travels ticket; were booked and that the said travels has not remitted. The ticket amount to the opposite party and hence directed the complainant to approach Buna Vista Travels for the refund. The complainants su...