Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

Smt. Remachandrika and Others Vs. the Managing Director, Sbi Life Insu ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants are the complainants and respondents are the opposite parties in CC.No.108/08 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in repudiating the claim under the SBI life insurance scheme with respect to the loanee Dasan.N, the husband of the 1st complainant and father of complainants 2 and 3. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They took the contention that the policy holder Dasan.N committed suicide within one year of the SBI life insurance policy and so complainants are not entitled to get the benefit under the said SBI life insurance scheme. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Before the Forum below the 1st complainant was examined as PW1; Exts.P1 to P6 documents were marked on the side of the complainants. ...

Senior Postmaster, Kalbadevi, Mumbai and Others Vs. John George

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in C.C. No. 343/09 dated 21st October, 2010. The appellants are the opposite parties those who prefers this appeal under directions of the Forum below that ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation by the opposite parties also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant as litigation costs. The respondent is the complainant in the above case. In brief, the dispute is in connection with a speed post letter No. E.M. 19876558 1 IN was send by M/s. Chleshi Chellaram Shipping private limited Gazdar House 3rd Floor 629 - A Shankar Sheth, Road, Mumbai- 99 on 24.10.08, addressed to the complainant Moolavattam P.O., Kottayam from Kalbadevi, H.P.O., the complaint is alleging none delivery of the above mentioned speed post article which was received by the first opposite party and registered under No. 10000 11765 on 3.11.08 and an immediate enquiry were ta...

Sales Officer, Hilton Hyundai Company Vs. Padmanabhan and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 2nd opposite party/dealer in CC.392/2010, in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are directed to refund Rs.15,000/- alongwith Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost with interest at 12%. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged non payment of the exchange offer of Rs.15000/- with respect to Maruti Omni Car, 2001. 3. The opposite parties/appellants were ex-parte. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P7. 5. It is the case of the appellants that the notice from the Forum was misplaced by the concerned officials. Appellant has sought for the remittance of the matter to the Forum. 6. In view of the fact that the order is not a considered one the same is set aside on the condition that the appellants pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the complainant or remit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of co...

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tk. Sasi and Another

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, Pathanamthitta in O.P. No. 103/03 order dated 11.2.2010. The appellants are the opposite parties who preferred this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. The respondent is the complainant in the above O.P. In short, the complainant is a registered owner of a Aulto Motor car and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are the insurer of the said vehicle. The vehicle was purchased from the 4th opposite party on 16.1.2003. The vehicle was met with an accident on 6.2.2003. The occurrence of the accident was informed to the insurer in right time. The complainant carried out the repair of the vehicle and incurred repair charges amounting to Rs. 15,436.55. Though the claim was launched, the opposite parties repudiated. The vehicle at the time of accident was driven by C.I. Benny who was having a driving license and badge. The vehicle was also having comprehensive insurance policy valid from 3...

P.D. Joseph Vs. Dr. N.D. Mohandas Asst. Professor, Psychiatry, Medical ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER The appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the CDRF Kottayam in O.P. No.124/2004 dated 17-1-2006. The respondents are the opposite parties in the above mentioned case. The appellant prefers this appeal under the order of the dismissal of the complainant. Which filed by the complainant before the forum below. 2. In short, the complainant have the case that he and his wife Sucy, Alias, Latha mole were residing together as husband and wife for 23 years and in the relationship they have 2 children named Vinod and Vineeth aged 22 years and 20 years respectively. The appellant is doing various types of business including financial business. While so his wife Sucy developed some Psychartic problem and she took her house of the 1st opposite party on 9-2-2003. He told the problems of Sucy to the 1st opposite party doctor and paid for @ . 200/- as consultation fee. The 1st opposite party after medical examination of Sucy, pre...

M.S. the Cholamandalam Vs. Anu. T. George, Md Vadakkemmuriyil Granites

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 Pathanamthitta in CCNo. 183/08 dated 5-12-2008, order dated 23-06-2010. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above mentioned case. In short, the complainant who is the manager of the company who represented as the power of attorney agent of the managing director of the company; Vadakkemuriyil Granites. The appellants are the officers of the Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company. 2. The complainant has a case that the company taken a workmens compensation policy from the appellant Insurance Company for the workers of the company with an effective from 15-2-08 to 14-2-09 wide policy No. CWC/0064365/0000/00. on 28-4-08 at about 11am one Viswanathan and on 6-5-08 and one Babu, both are employees in the company met with an accidents during the course of the employment. Both of them admitted in The Marthoma Medical Mission Hospital, Angady, Ranni immedi...

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kasaragod, Represented by Its-adminis ...

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.107/2005 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/National Insurance Company Ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant with respect to the damage caused to the complainants insured building. The complainant alleged that the subject building was collapsed on 10/11/2004 at about 3.30.am due to heavy storm and cyclone. Thereby the complainant claimed the insurance amount for the damage caused to the subject insured building. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no storm or cyclone on 10/11/2004 and they expressed their inability to settle the insurance claim. Hence the complaint in OP.107/05. 2. Notice was served on the opposite party and he entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It wa...

C.P. Saji, Advocate Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, ...

Court: Kerala

The petitioner is a Lawyer by profession; who is stated as aggrieved of Exhibit P1 notice issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby it has been stipulated that in all cases, the litigants and their counsel have to appear before the 3rd respondent for executing and attesting the vakalath and petitions or sanction to engage a lawyer. The above prescription is stated as in clear contravention of Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and also Rule 5(1) of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, which hence is sought to be set aside by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the first respondent as well. The issue involved being purely a ‘question of law’, no ‘question of fact’ is to be rebutted by filing any counter affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the party concerned is at liberty to engage ...

K.D. Antony Vs. Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT361; 2011(3)KLJ381; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)415; 2011(3)KHC179

Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is running a Bar attached Hotel with Boarding facility at Kuttipuram Town in Malappuram District, under the name and style 'Hotel Salkara', on the strength of Ext.P1, FL 3 licence granted under the provisions of the Abakri Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules 1953 made thereunder. Ext.P1 licence was issued in the year 1985 and was periodically renewed, currently upto 31.3.2012. The licence fee remitted by the petitioner for the current year is to the tune of Rs.22 lakhs and 18 workers are working in the Hotel. 2. On the night of 6.6.2011 there occurred assaults between the suppliers working in the Bar Hotel and a few customers. A person involved in the said incident, Shri. Ayoob, died on the next day, which was a normal death due to cardiac arrest, according to the police authorities. However, the incident lead to protest against conduct of the Bar, and demonstrations started under leadership of some local people. In the said circumstances the petitioner had ...

Rehima Beevi Vs. D. Rajan and Others

Court: Kerala

“C.R.” RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The appellant, a guarantor for the loan availed by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent Bank executed Ext.P7 agreement whereby the appellant gave freedom of recovery through attachment of her salary in the event of default in payment of instalments by the 1st respondent. The appellant started realising the consequence of her commitment in Ext.P7 when the 1st respondent committed breach and the 2nd respondent started recovery from her salary through garnishee proceedings issued to her employer. The appellant challenged the recovery proceedings through attachment of her salary before the learned Single Judge contending that Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act authorises the Co-operative Society to enter into agreement with the members of the Society and not with outsiders. The learned Single Judge however refused even to entertain the Writ Petition and by following the judgment of this Court in Godwin v. Kollam District Co...