Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

M/S Regal Marine Industries Inc., 2300, Jetport Drive, Orlando and Oth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1,3 and 4 in CC.185/07 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants including the 2nd opposite party are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15,29,390/- towards the price etc of the speed boat and also Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as costs with interest at 9%. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Regal Bowrider Boat with a 3.0 GLX Volvo engine from the 1st opposite party through 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. He paid a sum of US $ 16408. The Volvo engine fitted in the above boat is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. The 4th opposite party is the local office of the 3rd opposite party, manufacturer and the 5th opposite party service provider of the 3rd opposite party and the 6th opposite party is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party at Ernakulam. It is the contention that the engine was having manufacturing defects. According to the complainant he purchased the speed boat for h...

V. Kuriyachan Managing Partner Vs. the Branch Manager New India Assura ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

1. The complaint is filed seeking a sum of Rs.23,55,060/- with interest at 12% with respect to the Hydraulic breaker insured with the opposite parties. It is the case that on 2/3/2004 the operator heard an abnormal sound and the machine stopped. A crack formation around the tension bolt thread area in lower hammer part and corresponding cylinder mating area was found. The percussion piston was also damaged. The claim preferred was repudiated. The Service Engineers of the machine had reported that a heavy boulder slipped and fell on the breaker and due to the same the working tool got jammed between the boulders which resulted in residual stresses and crack. Replacement of lower hammer part cylinder and piston was advised. It was reported that the cracks happened accidentally due to slippage of boulders. The cost of replacement as per invoice is Rs.15,12,145.95. Deficiency in service is alleged in repudiating the claim. 2. The opposite parties/insurance company have contended that the d...

N. Manoharan Vs. Adv.T.P. Rajasekharan Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.174/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The complaint has been filed against the opposite party Advocate who conducted three cases of the complainant in the High Court of Kerala. The complainant was a casual employee in Kerala State Horticultural Products Developments Corporation(KSHPDC) from 1992 to 96. According to him other casual employees were made permanent and that he was transferred to a bunk at Mudavanmugal which was in a dilapidated condition. According to him he was removed from service creating conditions in which he could not continue the employment. He was so transferred as per order dated 9.8.96 and thereafter he has not worked. He has made number of representations but without any avail. Subsequently a complaint was filed before the Lok Ayuktha as complaint No.123/01. The complaint was allowed in his favour. As the authorities did not implement the ...

V. Kuriyachan Vs. the Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complaint is filed seeking a sum of Rs.23,55,060/- with interest at 12% with respect to the Hydraulic breaker insured with the opposite parties. It is the case that on 2/3/2004 the operator heard an abnormal sound and the machine stopped. A crack formation around the tension bolt thread area in lower hammer part and corresponding cylinder mating area was found. The percussion piston was also damaged. The claim preferred was repudiated. The Service Engineers of the machine had reported that a heavy boulder slipped and fell on the breaker and due to the same the working tool got jammed between the boulders which resulted in residual stresses and crack. Replacement of lower hammer part cylinder and piston was advised. It was reported that the cracks happened accidentally due to slippage of boulders. The cost of replacement as per invoice is Rs.15,12,145.95. Deficiency in service is alleged in repudiating the claim. 2. The opposite parties/insur...

K. Sami Vs. Branch Manager, Bank of India and Others

Court: Kerala

In all these writ petitions, the one common question that arises for consideration is as to whether, without taking possession of the secured asset symbolically or actually by the bank in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the borrower or anybody aggrieved by the action of the bank can file an application/appeal under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioners in these writ petitions are persons against whose properties, proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have been initiated. Their grievance is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not entertaining applications/appeals despite the Banks initiating action to take possession through the Magistrate, which is a measure under Section 13(4) of the Act. The Debt Reco...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chacko and Others

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. (i) How is the amount payable in the case of death under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (`the Act' hereafter) to be ascertained? (ii) Are the Tribunals to employ the multiplier-multiplicand method to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable in the case of death under the Second Schedule also? (iii) For what purpose is the "multiplier" furnished in the chart/table in the Second Schedule? (iv) Even in a claim under Section 163A are the claimants/legal heirs bound to prove the extent of dependency and loss? (v) Is negligence or contributory negligence relevant in a claim under Section 163A? (vi) Can the Schedule to 163A be ignored or disregarded while ascertaining quantum of compensation under Section 163A? (vii) Can the quantum of compensation payable in the case of death be ascertained independently without resort to the Second Schedule in a claim under Section 163A? 2. These very fundamental doubts/questions seem to disturb and vex Tribunals in the State. In mat...

Ganesh Kumar M. Vs. Sreedhara Shetty, S/O.Malinga Shetty and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ274; 2011(4)KLT338; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)598; 2011(4)KHC153

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.483 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the first respondent for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though he preferred Crl.A.No.345 of 2004 he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was preferred. 2. I have heard Adv.Sri.Aneesh Joseph on behalf of the revision petitioner and Adv.Sri.Johny Thomas on behalf of the first respondent. I was taken through the evidence on record and the impugned judgment. The revision petitioner had advanced a defence that Ext.P1 cheque was not signed by him and that he was working as a gold appraiser under the first respondent. While working so, he was sent out of the office and that Ext.P1 cheque, which was blank...

Rasoja Haridas Vs. K.V. Balachandran and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The question which arises for a decision in this civil revision is: "Whether a payment made in short of the statutory security deposit to the Chief Ministerial Officer while challenging the election of a returned candidate under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act") is a curable defect?" 2. The above question is required to be decided in the matter of an election petition filed by the first respondent before learned Munsiff, Kodungallur challenging election of petitioner from Ward 22 of Kodungallur Municipality in the election held on October 25, 2010. First respondent challenged election of petitioner under Sec.165 of the Act on the ground that details regarding property owned by the petitioner furnished along with her nomination as required under Sec.108(1A) of the Act is incorrect and hence her election is void under Sec. 178(1)(a) of the said Act. Petitioner contended that the election petition is not maintainable for reasons that provision r...

Joy John and Others Vs. Biju Thomas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties In CC.204/10 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.2,58,000/- with interest at 12% from 5/5/2007 and also compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.2,58,000/- attracted by the advertisement of the opposite party that the amount will be returned in double within two years and also that the lottery tickets will be purchased every week for a unit of Rs.1000/-. As the amount was not returned after expiry of the date of maturity he has sought for the return of the amount with interest at 18% and compensation of Rs.20,000/- etc. 3. The opposite party has denied offer of returning amount in double. It is also contended that the lottery tickets amounting to Rs.51,600/- was purchased. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of Ext.A1 series of receipts. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence. 5. We find that the deposit stands prov...

M/S. Asmacs Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Sri. K. Ramakr ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the first opposite party in C.C. 83/09 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta who is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2010 wherein and whereby he is under directions to return the complainants passport and to pay Rs. 10,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the Forum has allowed the complainant to realize Rs. 20,000/- from the appellant/opposite party with 9% interest from the date of order till realization. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is an I.T.I. Certificate holder and that for a job abroad, he contacted the second opposite party and through the second opposite party he paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the first opposite party for arranging a job at Muscat. It is his case that though the job was assured within one month and though he had given the passport to the first opposite party, even after 3 months the opposite parties were reluctant in arranging the job. Alle...