Kerala Court August 2011 Judgments

James Joseph Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

1. Challenge in the Writ Petition is against Exts. P4 and P6. 2. Exts. P1 and P2 show that from 1979 onwards, the petitioner was licenced to store safety fuse and gunpowder. As the licence period was expiring on 31.3.2010, the petitioner applied for its renewal by submitting Ext.P3, which was rejected by Ext.P4 order, on the ground that the Explosives Rules, 2008 did not permit the sale of gunpowder and safety fuse from a shop. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the first respondent invoking the appellate power under R.121 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. The appeal was also rejected by Ext.P6 order, reiterating the ground mentioned in Ext.P4. It is in these circumstances, challenging Exts.P4 and P6, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was doing business only in safety fuse and relied on R.83 and Schedule IV of the Explosives Rules, 2008 to substantiate his contentions. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents an...

Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Insurance Ombudsman and O ...

Court: Kerala

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1024/2010 assailing the judgment dated 14.12.2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. Having heard either side, the delay is condoned. 2. The appellant is a Public Limited Company engaged in Life Insurance and other activities. Responding to the offer by the appellant the 2nd respondent took a Life Insurance Policy on 30.6.2006 with 20 year Level Term Plan. Ext.P1 is the copy of the policy document. Mode of payment of premium is annual. Premium payable is Rs.4,810/-. First instalment was collected on 22.6.2006. Thereafter, in 2007 and 2008 premiums were remitted and accepted by the appellant at the above rate. Immediately before the payment of the 4th instalment of premium, the appellant issued Ext.P2 notice dated 24.5.2009 requiring the 2nd respondent to remit Rs.5305.43 of w...

The Manager, Indusind Bank Limited Vs. Pradeep Achuthan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Financier bank in CC.135/08 in CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to furnish fresh repayment schedule and statement of account after giving credit to the entire amount repaid by the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. The dispute is with respect to the alleged case of not providing the repayment schedule of the loan availed for Rs.3,65,000/- which is to be repaid 47 installments starting from 7.2.07 and ending on 7.11.10. The complainant had alleged that the amounts are not properly accounted and that the amount of Rs.33000/- mentioned as insurance deposit which is included in the agreement is to be clarified etc. The opposite parties disputed the allegations and has contended that the complainant remitted only 17 instalments and the last remittance was on 7.6.08 and that too in an irregular manner. The complaint has been filed in December 2008. It is poin...

C.V. Mathew Vs. M/S. the Marine Product, Export Development Authority

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the complainant and respondent is the opposite party in OP.82/03 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in effecting sale of 1 lakh prawn seeds to the complainant on 29.11.02. It was alleged that the opposite party sold the prawn seeds without lowering the salinity of the hatchery water so as to match with the pond water of the complainant and that due to the said deficiency in service, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- being the price of the prawn seeds which the complainant purchased from the opposite party. Hence, the complainant claimed compensation for the said deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged negligence and deficiency in service. It was contended that the complainant was told about the salinity of the hatchery water and...

M/S. Crystal Properties, Rahmans, Judge’s Avenue and Another Vs. ...

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, Ernakulam in OP No. 479/2004. The appellant 1 and 2 prefers this appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The 1st respondent is the complainant and 2nd and 3rd respondents are the 3rd and 4th opposite parties in the above OP. 2. This appeal prefers under the directions of the Forum below that the opposite party 1 and 2 are directed to comply with Ext. A6 agreement or in the alternative refund Rs.7,35,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint (25-9-04) till realization. The opposite parties shall also to pay Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the complainant. 3. This case is originated from the defect of building which the complainant purchased with a plot named as Villa (after the construction and hand over the villa) from the opposite parties. The complainant is having a strong case that it was agreed that the construction would be completed with in 8 months...

Union of India Rep by Secretary and Others Vs. V.K. Raveendran Achary ...

Court: Kerala

Petitioners are the respondents in O.A.25 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Respondents herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. Respondents entered the service of the petitioners as Engineering Assistants. In between 24.9.1988 and 30.9.1990 they were promoted as Assistant Engineers. As per Schedule II of the Recruitment Rules, they are entitled to be promoted in the junior time scale on completing three years period as against 50% quota for promotees. Because of the administrative reasons, the DPC was not convened for a pretty long period and ultimately, on 29.4.1999 respondents were promoted on ad hoc basis and they were continuing in service. While so, on 24.4.2007 they were regularized. They represented before the petitioners to regularize their service with effect from the date of ad hoc promotion. But the request was turned down. As against the order declining to give regular promotion with effect from the date of as hoc promotion,...

National Aviation Company of India Ltd. Vs. S. Abdul Salam and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)4; 2011(4)KLJ235; 2011(3)KHC761; 2011(4)KLT72

“C.R.” RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. An Air India Express on an International Flight from Dubai crashed on landing at the Bajpe International Airport at Mangalore on 22.5.2010 killing 158 and injuring the remaining 10 of the people on board including crew. The cause of the air crash is found to be pilot error and the National carrier does not dispute their liability for payment of compensation to the victims irrespective of whether claim is based on negligence of the carrier or not. Air crash victims on International flights are paid compensation based on International Conventions held periodically and India is a signatory to all such Conventions. The provisions of the last Convention which is the Montreal Convention of 1999 are also adopted in India by incorporation of the same as Third Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (hereinafter called "the Act") and by making necessary amendments to the said Act which came into force from 1.7.2009. The Montreal Convention of 1999 w...

C.A. Indira and Others Vs. the State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner were temporary appointees under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules’). They were appointed as Junior Public Health Nurse at various Primary Health Centers under the Health Department. In the year 1999 their services were terminator. Similarly situated persons assailed the order of termination. Ultimately the said matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. The entitlement of such person for appointment was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as per Ext.P1 order dated 22.4.2003. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The appeals and the writ petition were disposed of as hereunder:- “1. The services of those appellants/petitioners, whose services were terminated after filing the special leave petitions, will be regularized in terms of the order dated 11.7.2001 extracted above. 2. The services of those appellants/petitioners, whose se...

M/S.Attinkara Electronics and Another Vs. James M.T, Saji Bhavan and A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal.548/11 is the opposite party and appellant in Appeal.552/11 is the complainant in CC.155/10 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellant/opposite party in Appeal.548/11 is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant with interest at 10% from the date of the order. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged defective Air Conditioner supplied by the opposite party. It is the case of the opposite party that the manufacturer has not been impleaded. The grievance of the complainant is that the amount of compensation ordered to be paid is very much at the lower side. 3. We find that the Forum has noted that the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to substantiate his allegation with respect to the alleged defects of the Air Conditioner. The opposite party/appellant has contended that the manufacturer ought to have been a necessary part. The complainant/respond...

O.M. Muhammad Sakeef Vs. Orbit Services, Control Panel

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.391/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to remit a sum of Rs.5,225/- to the opposite party. The Forum has permitted the complainant to withdraw R.2,000/- deposited as per the direction of the Forum for releasing the laptop. 2. The respondent/opposite party stood ex-parte before the Forum. 3. It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted to the laptop to the opposite party on 16.8.08 for repairs with respect to the absence of sound while working. He was advised by the opposite party that the laptop has to be serviced in full and that there shall be a guarantee for one month. On the promised date of return he went to the opposite party and paid the amount and on checking the laptop it was found that there was no display. Hence as directed by the opposite party the laptop was entrusted with the opposite party who told that within 5 or 6 days the computer shall be rectified a...