Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

T.K. Machinaries Vs. P.L. Elikutty

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in OP.No.299/04 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in effecting sale of a defective machine by name Triple State Mini Cyclone Multimill and also due to the failure of the opposite party to rectify the defects by replacing the defective machine with a new defect free machine. The complainant claimed replacement of the defective machine with a new defect free machine and in the alternative to refund the price of the said machine amounting to Rs.75,348/- and also compensation for the financial loss suffered by the complainant. 2. The opposite party entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the complaint is not maintainable, that the Forum below is not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in...

National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep by Its Manager Vs. P.V. Sheeja an ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT561; 2011(3)KLJ557; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)665; 2011(3)KHC642

K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. Appellant is the second opposite party in W.C.C.No.305 of 2003 of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur. Respondents 1 to 6 are the widow, parents and three minor children of the deceased employee. The 7th respondent is the employer. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 laid a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation for the fatal accident caused to the deceased Balakrishnan, alleging that the death occurred during the course of and out of the employment while working in the bus. Late Balakrishnan was a driver under the 7th respondent. According to them, Balakrishnan died on 6.6.2003 due to heart attack which was the direct result of strenuous and continuous work as a driver and the death occurred during the course of and out of the employment while working in the bus. 3. The appellant denied the case that the deceased died due to the direct result of strenuous and continuous ...

Proprietor, Carmel Exports and Imports Cochi Vs. Commissioner of Custo ...

Court: Kerala

J. Chelameswar, C. J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 5th July, 2011 in WP (C) No. 16503 of 2011, the unsuccessful petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 2. The appellant, one Mr. T. A. Joslin, describes himself to be the proprietor of a business concern carrying on business of imports and exports. He has been duly registered as such and duly allotted an ‘Import Export Code’. He imported certain consumer goods, such as cosmetics etc. The goods arrived at the Cochin Port some time in the month of April, 2011. They were de - stuffed on 27/04/2011 at the Container Freight Station, Petta. The said material was examined by the respondents in the first week of May, 2011. But the goods were not cleared for home consumption. The appellant received a communication dated 16/05/2011 from the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (IPR Cell). The substance of the said communication is that, of the various items of the goods imported by the a...

Sapna Maria Gomez Vs. the University of Kerala, Represented by Its Reg ...

Court: Kerala

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. It is strange that the Appellant, a female member of the minority community, has to seek assistance from this Court to get employment in the 2nd respondent institution, which is established and run essentially for the benefit of the community to which the Appellant belongs. The Appellant's grievance is that inspite of the excellent academic record she has and the selection she got for appointment to the post of Lecturer in English, the 2nd respondent College deliberately refused to fill up the permanent posts lying vacant only to defeat her claim. Even though on Appellant's application, the University directed the 2nd respondent to consider her for appointment from the select list, the 2nd respondent refused which dragged the Appellant to this Court. The learned Single Judge without appreciating the scope of the statutory provisions which entitles the Appellant to get appointment in the permanent vacancy available in the 2nd respondent College during the curren...

P.N. Reeja Anil Vs. Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the complainant and the respondents 1 to 3 are the opposite parties 1 to 3 respectively in CCNo. 25/2007 on the file of CDRF Wayanad, Kalpetta. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to give tax exemption for the products of the industry started by the complainant with the financial assistance rendered by Khadhi and Village Industries. It was alleged that the said industry in Lime Tiles and Slabs was commenced by availing a loan of Rs. 8,46,000/- from the opposite parties with the assurance that the products of the complainants industry would be given tax exemption; that the complainant did not collect Sales Tax from customers till 15.9.2000 because of the assurance given by the opposite parties regarding Sales Tax and Excise Duty exemption; that the Sales Tax Authorities have demanded Sales Tax from the complainant for the period from 1997 to 2000 and reven...

M/S. Lis Deepasthambham Represented by Its Managing Partner and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated:29/11/2010 in CC.145/2010 of CDRF, Wayanadu is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 26/6/2005 and Rs.30,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 17/11/2005 till the date of payment. They are also under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4000/- towards cost and compensation. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside on the ground that the District Forum failed to consider that the claim of the complainant was barred by limitation and that the granting of 12% interest is on a higher side. It is also argued by him that the district forum failed to note that the opposite party could not continue the repayment of commission as the working of the project itself was stopped by the police. He canvassed...

P.K. Jimmy and Others Vs. St.Joseph’s Hospital and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The complainants in OP.64/99 before the CDRF, Kannur are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below as per order dated 28/6/06. 2. The case of the complainants in brief is that Smt. Sini Issac wife of the first complainant and mother of complainants 2 and 3 and also the daughter of complainants 4 and 5 was taken to the opposite party hospital on the night of 18.7.98 due to stomach ache and was admitted there as an inpatient. Her condition was diagnosed as appendicitis and on 19.7.98 appendicectomy was scheduled to be done. On 20.7.98 the operation was done by the doctors of the first opposite party hospital under spinal anesthesia. After 48 hours of the operation the patient had severe headache and vomiting as she was subjected to multiple punctures while trying to administer spinal anesthesia by the doctors. The same was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and it was told that the head ache ...

P.A.Hamsa Vs. the District Registrar General and Others

Court: Kerala

J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 14.03.2011 in W.P.(C) No.9342 of 2008 by which the writ petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the 3rd respondent therein, the unsuccessful petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 2. The appellant herein in his capacity as the Chairman and Managing Director of a Private Limited company and also in his individual capacity sold certain parcels of land in favour of another Private Limited company of which the 3rd respondent herein is the Managing Director. The said sale transactions were duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The documents so registered are dated 31.08.07 and marked as Exts.R3(a) and (b) in the writ petition. Subsequently, the appellant sought to get two documents, styled as cancellation deeds, (marked as Exts.P1 and P2 in the writ petition) registered. 3. When such documents were presented for registration, the 2nd respondent herein impounded the documents and referred the docu...

S. Abdul Salam and Others Vs. Union of India Represented by Its Secret ...

Court: Kerala

1. Does the law reckon the poor folk travelling in an ill-fated plane and losing their lives in an accident, along with mighty rich, as the 'Children of a Lesser God', with regard to the eligibility to obtain the statutory compensation payable under the Carriage by Air Act 1972, as amended by the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act 28 of 2009) incorporating the relevant provisions under the III Schedule in conformity with the Montreal Convention adopted on 28.05.1999, is the point involved. 2. The history of civil aviation industry in the world is said as traceable to the 18th century, when a hot air balloon was designed, proclaiming the starting of balloon flights, followed by construction of airships in the 19th century and the 'first flight' by the Wright Brothers in 1903. The concept of Air crafts and Air travel however was not alien to Indian society, in view of the reference to 'Pushpaka Vimana' in the 'Ramayana' by Saint Valmiki, though it was beyond the dreams of the res...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Manager Vs. Pazha ...

Court: Kerala

(CR) BASANT, J. 1. Should negligence be proved invariably in all claims for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act? What is the quality of negligence to be proved and the extent of proof required? These questions arise for consideration in this appeal. 2. Insurer is the appellant. The insurer assails the award of the Tribunal directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,53,700/- to the claimant who is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was a passenger in a vehicle insured with the appellant. While the vehicle was being driven, it is alleged that the deceased made some movements inside the jeep. The door of the jeep opened and he was consequently thrown outside the jeep. This is the alleged incident.  3. The Tribunal even in the absence of any better evidence came to the conclusion that the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle are liable to compensate the claimants. No specific finding on the question of negligence was entered. 4. The insurer assails the impug...