Kerala Court August 2011 Judgments

The Manager, Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd., Vs. Asanarukunju

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Revision petitioners are the opposite parties/Financiers/respondents in IA19/11 in CC 175/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The revision petition is filed disputing the order of the Forum that arbitration clause in an agreement is not a bar to the jurisdiction of the CDRF. It is the case of revision petitioner that the agreement wherein arbitration clause is incorporated has been signed after knowing fully with respect to the terms of the agreement including the arbitration clause and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. We find that as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the jurisdiction of the Forum is in addition to provisions of any other law. The legal position in this regard is well settled vide a number of decisions of the National Commission and the apex court. Hence we find that there is no manifest illegality in the order of the Forum There is no scope for admitting the revision petition. The revision peti...

State of Kerala Vs. M/S. Kalyan Tourist Home

Court: Kerala

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The only question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing the application for compounding and in granting compounding facility to the respondent to pay turnover tax on liquor under S.7(1)(b) of the K.G.S.T. Act after the closure of the relevant assessment year. We have heard Government Pleader for the State and the counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following: The respondent is running a bar hotel. During 2008-09 he was liable to pay turnover tax on liquor at 10% under the K.G.S.T. Act and was also liable to pay tax on sale of cooked food at 4% under the KVAT Act. Both the K.G.S.T. Act and the KVAT Acts respectively provide for compounding facility for payment of tax on liquor and cooked food respectively. The respondent obviously had to file applications for compounding before separate authorities under both the statutes. Under the compounding scheme provided under S...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Balachandran and Others

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J. 1. All these four appeals are preferred by the common appellant/insurance company. Three persons were travelling in a Maruti car. They were proceeding along the road from South towards North. The road had a width of 8 metres. According to them, the insured vehicle/lorry which was proceeding in front, suddenly, without showing any signals, was rashly turned to the right had side. Attempt was made to avoid the accident, but the driver of the car could not avoid collision. The car hit on the right rear wheel of the lorry. The car suffered damage and the three occupants of the car suffered personal injuries. Altogether four claims were staked before the tribunal-three for compensation for personal injuries suffered and the fourth for the damage suffered by the car. 2. The driver and the owner of the insured vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant/insurance company alone resisted the claim. It was contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the ...

K.P. Davis Kanjirathingal House Vs. P.K. Abdul Latheef and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the complainant in CC No. 918/2003 before the CDRF, Trissur who is not satisfied by the order dated 28-12-2010 where by the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as cost with in 1month for the date of receipt of the order filing which the complainant is entitled to 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization. 2. The complainant approached the Forum stating that he had purchased one photocopier machine, one computer and connected products from the respondent on 22.11.02 and that the products became defective and those did not function as per the specifications. It is the case of the complainant that though he made to several complaints to the opposite parties regarding the defects and though the defective laminator was taken away by the opposite party for repairs the defects were not cured and the laminator was not returned till the date o...

P.K. Sumam and Others Vs. the Secretary M/S. Kalliyoor Service Co-oper ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainants in OP No. 390/2005 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram who are aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below by the order dated 16-04-2010. 2. The case of the complainants before the Forum below was that the 1st complainant was the widow of late K.J. Raju who passed away on25-08-2002 and 2nd and 3rd complainants were the children of the 1st complainant and deceased K.J. Raju and that the said Raju had availed a gold loan for Rs.11,000/- on 2.01.2000 by pledging gold ornaments weighing 44.500 grams with the opposite party. It was alleged that though the deceased Raju had remitted the interest and renewed the loan for another period and after the death of said Raju though the 1st complainant had approched the opposite party for taking the gold loan ornaments in December 2002, the opposite party informed the 1st complaint that the gold ornaments were auctioned for adjusting the gold loan account....

Federal Bank Ltd., Aluva Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Kerala

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Bank seeking to quash Ext.P13 communication and for appropriate directions to the first respondent. The entire dispute relates to the transfer of accumulations of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, Family Pension Fund, Administrative charges, Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and EDLI administrative charges of the employees of the petitioner Bank as well as interest payable to them. 2. The background of the dispute as averred in the writ petition is the following. The petitioner is a Banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act which is engaged in the business of banking. It has got branches spread over the entire State of Kerala as well as other different States all over India with more than 5000 employees on its rolls. Earlier, the branches of the petitioner Bank were confined within the State of Kerala. It was covered by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’)....

The Branch Manager the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C. Sukumara Pa ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in OP. 505/2001 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.75,816/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is the Managing Partner of the match industry which was covered by the Fire and Allied Perils Policy of the opposite party that there was a fire accident on 10.5.2000 at 1.30 am and that the entire building, machineries and stocks were fully destroyed. It is mentioned that the Fire Force Department assessed the loss at Rs.10.lakhs. The opposite parties allowed only Rs.2,18,925/- whereas, a further sum of Rs.9.7.lakhs was claimed. 3. The opposite parties have contended that there was a full and final settlement and a sum of Rs.2,18,925/- was paid. It is denied that the damage as alleged was sustained. The loss was assessed by the compete...

Dr. Purushothaman Consultant Ortho Surgeon Vs. Narayanankutty Vilakkat ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 21.4.2010 of CDRF Thrissur in O.P.No.374/02 that the present appeal is filed by the 2nd opposite party. By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and 2,500/- as cost with in 2 months from the date of the receipt of the order failing which the opposite parties are also liable to pay 12% interest till payment. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had sustained injury due to a fall in his house on 9.7.2000 and was taken to the 1st opposite party hospital where he was treated by the 2nd opposite party. He was treated on 10.7.2000 also and had to incur a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as a treatment expenses. It is alleged his that due to the negligent act of the 2nd opposite party, Doctor, the functioning of right hand became defective and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is essential as a cost of t...

M/S. K.K. Builders Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT900; 2011(3)KHC791

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P12 order passed by the 2nd respondent-Excise Commissioner, for a declaration that the petitioner-firm is entitled to get FL-3 licence/bar licence as per R.13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules as per Ext.P2 application and also for a direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to issue FL-3 licence to the petitioner-firm as per Ext.P2 application. 2. It is averred in the Writ Petition that as per BOT agreement executed between the petitioner-firm and the Kannur Municipality, the firm constructed Central Bus Terminal Complex, Thavakkara, Kannur and that as per the agreement, the firm is the concessionaire and entitled to operate inter alia commercial space in the complex and to charge, collect and retain revenues from fees collected for use of the commercial space by licensees. It is said that the commercial space in the complex was completed and started functioning. Thus the structure includes a guest house building shown in the plan attach...

The Chairman-cum-managing Director and Others Vs. TitIn P. S/O. Late V ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT409; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)379; 2011(4)KLJ436; 2011(4)KHC201

The respondents in O.A.No675/2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench assails, the order dated 27.5.2011, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. The father of the respondent, V.Pushkaran, who died on 13.10.2005, was a Telephone Mechanic under the petitioners. Seeking employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme the respondent who is one among the three legal heirs, preferred an application before the petitioners along with requisite performa and consent from other legal heirs. The petitioners declined the request by Annexure-A1 order assailing which the respondent moved the Tribunal below. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27.5.2011 allowed the petition and directed the petitioners to reconsider the application filed by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, this petition was filed. 2. We have heard Smt. I. Sheela Devi, The learned standing counsel for the petitioners, peruse...