Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments
M/S Integrated Finance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Molly Chacko and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above 3 appeals are preferred from the common order dated 16th June 2006 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.Nos.47/06, 46/06 and 45/06 respectively. The complaints in those consumer complaints were filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (M/s Integrated Finance Co.Ltd.) in their failure to disburse the fixed deposits effected by the complainants with the opposite party M/s Integrated Finance Co.Ltd. It was alleged that the complainants in CC.45/06 deposited Rs.80,000/- with the maturity date of the deposit as 22..9..2007. The opposite parties paid the interest on the fixed deposits upto May 2005 and thereafter the opposite parties defaulted to pay the interest due on the fixed deposits. Hence the complainants claimed refund of the deposit amount with interest accrued thereon. The complainant in CC.46/06 averred that he deposited amount with the opposite party M/S Integrated Finance Co.Ltd and the fixed deposit was...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Office, Town Hall Road, Thr ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CCNo. 538/07 date 27-09-2010. The appellant is the opposite party who prefers to this appeal under the direction of the forum below that the opposite party directed to pay the Double Accident Benefit with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization with cost of Rs. 750/- with in 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order of the forum below.The respondent is the complainant in the above mentioned case. 1. This dispute araised from a repudiaion of the Double Insurance Benefit claim by the complainant by the opposite party. The complainants husband took an insurance policy from the opposite party for a sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000/- and added additional Double Accident Claim as per the clause 10(b) of the policy which commenced on 28-05-2002. The insured Vargheese was murdered on 9-06-2005 at 9.25 hours at Thanikudom is on 28-02-2022. The lif...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director and Another Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 14.6.2010 of CDRF, Thrissur in C.C. 1248/05 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the medi claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till realization. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had taken a medi claim Insurance policy from the opposite party which was valid for the period from 3.10.03 to 2.10.04 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and that on 16/11/03, he was admitted at the Medical Trust hospital and treated by Dr. Saji. V Kuruttukulam and was discharged on 24.11.03. He had to spend a sum of Rs. 1,23,837.61 for the treatment and though he claimed the amount to the second opposite party along with bills, it was repudiated on the ground that the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chithra Proprietrix, M/S Devi Stores Vs. the Manager Indian Bank, A ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the complainant and respondent is the opposite party in OP.No.28/07 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank in collecting excess amount of Rs.3,63,523/-. Hence the complaint was filed for refund of the excess amount with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Though notice was served on the opposite party they did not file any version in the matter and they remand ex-parte. 3. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 documents were marked. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30.4.09 dismissing the complaint in OP.28/07. Hence the present appeal. 4. We heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He also relied on the docum...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.H. Rahimkutty Vs. the Southern Railway, Represented by General M ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Trivandrumin O.P. No. 444/02 order dated 31.5.2010. The appellant is the complainant in the above O.P. to prefers this appeal against dismissal order of the Complaint by the Forum below. The respondents are the opposite parties in the above mentioned O.P. In short, the complaint is a regular season ticket passenger in the opposite partys train from Thiruvananthapuram station to Kanyakumari by using season ticket vide Train No. 1082 Jayanthi Janatha, Kanyakumari Mumbai on 31.07.2001, the complainant was traveling from Thiruvananthapuram to Kanyakumari as usual. He was sitting on the side seat near the window of the train and when the train reached near Kaniyapuram at about 7.45 A.M. , the shutter of the window which was raised and locked suddenly it slipped down and fell on the right hand of the complainant causing series injury to the right hand and finger of the complainant. The blood rushed throu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, CochIn Vs. Electronic Controls and Dischar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The respondent - assessee is an industrial unit engaged in manufacture and export of high intensity discharge lamp, igniters, luminaries, control gears etc. located in the Cochin Special Economic Zone. Being an export unit within the Special Economic Zone, assessee is entitled to income tax exemption under S.10A of the Income Tax Act on the profit earned on the export of goods received in convertible foreign exchange for a period of ten years. The assessee was in fact granted exemption on profit on export of goods received in convertible foreign exchange for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. However, during these two years, the assessee had made sale of components to another industrial unit in the Madras Special Economic Zone for which assessee received payments in Indian rupee. Besides claiming exemption on export profits on the actual exports, assessee also claimed exemption on the profits derived on the sale of components made to the indust...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Master Vs. V. Janaki and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
The question urged for a decision is whether, if pending an application for execution filed by a person entitled to rateable distribution to the court which was holding the assets the court has disbursed the amount to the holder of decree in which case the amount was deposited, it is within the power of the executing court to direct the holder of decree who received the amount to pay the amount rateably payable to the applicant for rateable distribution? 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4, order dated June 30, 2010 Passed by the learned Sub Judge, Hosdurg on E.A.No.108 of 2010 In E.P.No.179 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 2009. Petitioner was the decree holder in the said suit. He obtained a decree for recovery of money from the defendant in O.S.No.84 of 2009 and filed E.P.No.179 of 2009 to execute that decree. Pending suit court had attached the amount in the custody of 5th respondent-garnishee, a Co-operative Bank on 24.10.2009 as per order on I.A.No.810 of 2009. On passing the decree, petition...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla and Another Vs. Abdulkhader Kunju and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
BASANT, J. 1. Claimants are the appellants. They are parents aged 38 years and 39 years of a minor child aged 5 years who suffered injuries and succumbed to such injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 9.8.2006. The parents claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal by the impugned award assessed the total loss suffered by the claimants at Rs.1,20,000/- as per the details shown below: 1.Transport to hospital and funeral expensesRs.5000/-2.Compensation for pain and sufferingRs.5000/-3.Compensation for loss of dependency(global amount fixed)Rs.100000/-4.Compensation for loss of love and affectionRs.10000/- TotalRs.1,20,000/-After so fixing the total loss at Rs.1,20,000/-, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the responsibility for the accident. It was held that the minor child aged about 5 years was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. The Tribunal ultimately directed that the claimants/appellants are entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Sree Devi and Others Vs. the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
Basant, J. 1. How is compensation payable for loss suffered by the parents in the case of death of a non-earning minor child to be assessed? Can the Tribunals insist that such compensation payable under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot fall below the amount that would be payable under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act? These questions arise for consideration in this appeal. 2. The claimants are the appellants. They are the parents and brother of the deceased - a child aged 15 years who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 3/11/1999 and succumbed to the same. The claimants lodged a claim for compensation under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against a claim for Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,86,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of dependency - Rs.1,50,000/- (15000 x 2/5 x 15) 2. Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection – Rs.10,000/- 4. Funeral and transportation...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Engineer, Kseb Mavungal Section Office and Others Vs. Dr ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:19th July 2010 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.267/09. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service in issuing the bills dated:10/9/2009, 8/10/2009 and 1/11/2009 for Rs.33,292/- Rs.71,100/- and Rs.773,882/- respectively. Thereby the complainant prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid bills and for compensation of Rs.1,03,732/- with cost. 2. The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the impugned bills were issued based on the consumption of electrical energy by the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC.267/09. 3. Before the Forum below, Exts.A1 to A32 documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. The opposite parties did not adduce any documentary e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »