Kerala Court August 2011 Judgments

Roshan Kynade Vs. Seby Alapatt

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT920

It appears to us that the petitioner landlord is voicing a genuine grievance. His tenant, the respondent, according to him has not paid rent for quite some time and even on admission rent is in arrears to the tune of about Rs.15 Lakhs. But, he is unable to invoke the summary provisions under S.12 of the Act for want of a Presiding Officer in the First Additional Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, which is in seizing of R.C.P. No.71/2011 filed by him. 2. Even though P.R. Venkatesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made very appealing and persuasive submissions, we feel that remedy of the petitioner even if his grievance is genuine, lies in the form of an application for transfer under Rule 14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules before the Prinicipal Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. We relegate the petitioner to that remedy. If the petitioner files an application for transfer under R.14, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode will gi...

Asokan Vs. Manager, Pazhani Motors Fort Road, Thalasserry and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant in CCNo. 107/2004 before the CDRF, Kannur. Who is not satisfied by the order of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the vehicle by replacing defective parts or else to pay the purchase price with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,500/-. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has purchased a Victor GL motor bike from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.39,818/-. The vehicle is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. As the vehicle started showing oil leak, the same was taken to the 2nd opposite party as per the advice of the 1st opposite party. It is alleged that the kicker happened to be loose and other defects like low mileage etc began to appear. The complainant has alleged that inspite of repairs, the defects continued and hence it is his case that the vehicle has manufacturing defects. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the v...

Managing Director, M/S. K.K.J Group International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 399/08 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in their failure to make the damaged vehicle in a road worthy condition. It was alleged that the first opposite party, Oriental Insurance company Limited , the Insurer of the vehicle is not permitting to replace the defective chasis of the vehicle. Thus, the complainant prayed for getting the vehicle repaired by replacing the defective chasis and also for compensation @ Rs. 3,500/- per day. 2. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They took the contention that the insured vehicle has been repaired and the vehicle has become mechanically roadworthy. Thus, the first opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The second opposite party ente...

M/S Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Johny Abraham

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite party/insurance company in CC 126/09 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay the claim amount as per the policy and Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs with interest at 10% from the date of the order. 2. The matter relates to the treatment expenses claimed under medi claim policy. It is the contention of the opposite parties/appellants that treatment for sinusitis is not covered. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of respective sides and Exts.A1 to A8 and B1. 4. It is the case of the appellant that for two years from the date of commencement of the policy the particular illness is not covered vide policy conditions. We find that the complainant/respondent has produced previous policy copy which would show that the date of inception of the previous coverage is 30.3.03. Hence we find that from the above date 2 years have elapsed with respect to the date...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Hemalatha Raveendran

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated:20.4.2007 of CDRF, Palakkad in CC.113/06 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order, the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.38,348/- with cost of Rs.1000/- within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest at 12% per annum for the whole amount of Rs.39,348/- from the date of order till realization. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she is the owner of a vehicle bearing No.KL-9/53399 and that the vehicle had an insurance coverage with the opposite party and that on 30.3.2006 the vehicle met with an accident. It is stated that the opposite party deputed a surveyor and the surveyor has inspected and filed...

Dr. G. Suvarchala, Gynaecologist Vs. Azhikodantakath Jameela

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in O.P. 411/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in doing the L.S.C.S + bilataral tubectomy on the complainant on 1.9.1999 at J.J.S. Nursing Home, Kannur. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 2,92,279/- with cost. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged negligence and deficiency in service. It was contended that there was no negligence or deficiency in service in doing the L.S.C.S and bilateral tubectomy on the complainant on 1.9.1999 and in treating the complainant at J.J.S. Nursing Home. It was also contended that the surgery and further treatment were conducted with utmost care and caution and after observing all the formalities and conducting investigations; that there developed Urethro Vaginal Fistula not due...

The Proprietor Omega Travels and Another Vs. Sreejith

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Travel agency in CC319/2010 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to refund the amount collected for air fare from Delhi to Jammu and also pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is a person working in the military service at Jammu Kashmir that he entrusted the opposite parties/appellants for flight tickets from Bangalore to Jammu via Delhi. The opposite party had collected Rs.6500/-. He traveled from Bangalore to Delhi in the flight as arranged by the opposite parties but from Delhi to Jammu there was no booking. He had to arrange fresh air tickets from Delhi to Jammu and also he could not join duty in time. 3. It is the case of the opposite party/appellant that they are not dealing in arranging flight tickets and that as suggested by them the complainant had obtained ticket from Akbar Travels. It is also mentioned th...

Mrs. V.P. Pankajavally Vs. C.V. Damodaran Unni and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the first opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 are the complainant and second opposite party respectively in OP.No.440/04 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in selling the Total Sleeping System to the complainant on a consideration of Rs.92,820/-. The complainant alleged that he purchased Japan Life Total Sleeping System on the assurance given by the first opposite party for getting relief of the ailments of complainants wife, but no relief was obtained and the ailment of complainants wife have been aggravated. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party who acted as distributor of the Japan Life Total Sleeping System. Thus, the complainant prayed for refund of the price of the said sleeping system by taking back the same by the first opposite party. He also claimed compensation of Rs.5,000/- with...

The National Bankers(Reg.), Rep.by Managing Partner Vs. Jayakumar and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party in CC.201/09 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants and the 1st opposite party is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.23000/- at 9% interest and cost of Rs.750/-. 2. The appellant was ex-parte before the Forum. 3.The case of the complainant is that he was the subscriber in the kuri run by the opposite party and that he had remitted 46 installments and thereafter it was found the opposite party institution is not working. He has sought for the return of the amounts deposited. 4. The counsel for the appellants has pointed out that in connected cases numbering 24 disposed of by the forum by a common order the 1st appellant has been exempted. It is the case of the appellant that the particular outfit is run by one Vimala and that the 2nd opposite party has noting to do with the above organization. He has sought for an opportunity to contest the matter. It is admitted that he received notice from the Forum ...

Noushad Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Sub Inspector of P ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT301; 2011(4)KHC198; 2011(2)KLD719

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Alleging that the girl described in this writ petition is illegally detained in Mahila Mandiram, Kollam and that she is in love with him, the petitioner sought issuance of a writ of habeaus corpus. Pursuing that complaint, by now, he is among those arrayed as accused persons, for having visited that girl with offences relating to her body, including rape of a minor and also providing a chain of sexual assaults and activities prohibited by the laws. 2. Investigation by police appears to reveal a case where a minor girl was raped and presented to many persons who also sexually exploited her, including by rape; for financial gain by such presentation having been done by those who attained control over her by inducing, luring and otherwise securing and keeping her with them, may be, by force, threat, deception, fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, including by calculated deprivation of the adolescent victim, among other things, by lascivious promp...