Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)311; 2011(4)KLJ374; 2011(4)KHC203; 2011(4)KLT412

1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Basant, J.-(i) Should the driver of a passenger autorickshaw (LMV-motor cab) possess a further authorisation/badge in addition to the driving licence to drive the said vehicle? (ii) Even when the said vehicle is being used personally by the driver for his personal purposes (other than to carry passengers), should/can such authorisation be insisted? (iii) Whether the mere non availability of such authorisation amounts to infraction of the conditions of the policy of insurance under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)? (iv) In the facts of the case odes that infraction amount to breach within the meaning of Section 149(2)(a) of the Act? (v) Assuming that there is a breach, can that infraction/breach be held to be a breach attracting application of Section 149(2) of the Act applying the rule of main purpose and the concept of fundamental breach referred to in para.102 (vi) of National Ins...

Minita Daphne Netto and Another Vs. Marget Benedict Rodrigues and Othe ...

Court: Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. An issue regarding valuation of subject matter of the suit for the purpose of court fee is raised for a decision. 2. The question arose in O.S. No.1473 of 2004 of the court of learned First Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam filed by the petitioners for a declaration of their right of kudikidappu over the suit property-three cents out of the four cents scheduled in the plaint and the structure thereon and for consequential prohibitory injunction. For the purpose of valuation, petitioners valued the relief of declaration at `10,000/- being the market value of the property and paid court fee under Sec.25 of the Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, “the Act”). The relief of prohibitory injunction was valued at `500/- and court fee was paid under Sec.27(c) of the said Act. Respondents in paragraph 8 of their written statement challenged the valuation made by the petitioners. Learned Munsiff embarked on an enquiry as provided under Sec.19 of t...

P.K. High School and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The first petitioner is the Manager of a High School and petitioners 2 to 5 are teachers working therein. As the proposal for approval of appointment of the teachers stands rejected, the Writ Petition has been filed. Ext.P7 is the order under challenge. The reason stated therein to reject the approval is that the Manager has to absorb a protected teacher in the high school section, as it is newly upgraded one. 2. Petitioners 2 and 4 have been appointed by promotion from the post of U.P.S.A. as H.S.A (Physical Science) and H.S.A. (Natural Science). The said vacancies arose when Shri V.Sivan, H.S.A. (Physical Science) retired on 30.6.2008 and Shri A.K. Sreekumaran, H.S.A. (Natural Science) retired on 31.3.2009. In the consequential vacancies petitioners 3 and 5 have been appointed as U.P.S.As. with effect from 1.7.2008 and 1.6.2009 respectively. 3. The petitioners’ case is that petitioners 2 and 4 are claimants for promotion under R.43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. Various Government ...

Eswara Pillai Premachandran Nair Vs. M/S.Apple a Day Properties Apple ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service with respect to the agreements for purchase of flats from the opposite parties. 2. It is the case the complainant that altogether he has paid a sum of Rs.11,00,300/- for the flat in Big Apple Apartment flat complex proposed to be constructed by the opposite parties. It was the cost of the flat depletes by the opposite parties. It was agreed to hand over the flat after construction on 23.11.08. So far, the agreement has not been complied with. The complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.3,36,408/- towards a studio apartment in Apple Suit Project. It was agreed to hand over the flat on 30.6.10. The complainant has complied with all the conditions of the agreement. So far the flat has not been hand over. 3. The opposite parties stood ex-parte. 4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P12 documents were marked. 5. We find that the complainant has produced the payment receipts and the re...

The Manager, T.V.S.Finance and Service Ltd. Vs. Basheer.P.M., and Anot ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the 1st opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 are the complainant and 2nd opposite party in CC.278/09 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in taking the hypothecated vehicle by force and thereby causing financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50000/- and also the cost of the vehicle amounting 38000/-. 2. Before the Forum below, Exts.A1 to A9 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 3rd February 2011 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to return the motor cycle (TVS victor GLX) bearing reg.No.KL14 G-2504 of the complainant in the same condition when it was repossessed and on receipt of the veh...

Branch Manager Catholic Syrian Bank Kombidinjimakkal and Another Vs. S ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in CC.214/07 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in his failure to return the title deed which was deposited by the complainant with the first opposite party for availing a loan of Rs.25,000/- under SGSY Scheme. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They took the contention that the complainant had not deposited his title deed for availing the aforesaid loan under SGSY scheme. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC.214/07. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and an officer of the opposite party/bank was examined as RW1. Exts.P1, P2 and R1 to R3 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on reco...

M/S Bannari Infoteh Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Sashidhara Rai and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 11.10.10 of CDRF, Kasargod in CC.28/08 that the 1st opposite party in the above said complaint has come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order of the Forum below. By the impugned order the appellant is under directions to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.14000/- being the purchase cost of the RSL with cost of Rs.3000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment is also liable to be paid to the complainant. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had purchased a road speed limiter from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and that it was fitted in the stage carriage vehicle owned by him and it became defective due to manufacturing defect. It was also his case that even tho...

CochIn Devaswom Board, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Deputy Director, ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT849; 2011(4)KLJ880; 2011(4)KHC719

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The Cochin Devaswom Board is governed by the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. By Act 5 of 2007, Section 127A was inserted into the Act. That provision reads as follows:- “127A. Appointment to be made through Kerala Public Service Commission-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the rules or in the byelaws made thereunder relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of officers and employees of the Board, all appointments of officers and employees in the Administrative Service of the Board, for which direct recruitment is resorted to, shall be made from a select list of candidates belonging to Hindu religion furnished by the Kerala Public Service Commission in accordance with the law made for the exercise of this additional function by the Kerala Public Service Commission. A Hindu member/members of the Public Service Commission may discharge the function of conducting interview in...

Citi Bank Na, Near City Hospital and Others Vs. Robinson John and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated:29.5.2006 of the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.614/05. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties in getting deposit of Rs.4,41,012/- by making the complainant to believe that the said deposit is towards the one time investment having the added benefits of insurance coverage, loan facility etc; that the complainant received a renewal premium notice dated:28.4.2005 from M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd for effecting deposit of insurance premium; that the complainant came to understand that the deposit of Rs.4,41,012/- effected was not as one time investment. Hence the complainant filed the complaint in CC.614/05 to refund of the said sum of Rs.4,41,012/- with interest and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The 1st opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the payment of Rs.4,41...

Bhuvanendran Nair Vs. Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

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 CC No. 67/08 order dated : 15.6.10. 2. The complainant is the appellant who prefers under the dismissal order of the complaint by the Forum below, respondents are the opposite parties. 3. The complainant insured his car with the opposite parties during the period between 20.3.08 to 19.3.09. On 25.3.08, the car met with an accident at Omalloor at around 5 am, and the same sustained huge damages. The matter was informed to the opposite party and to the Pathanamthitta police. The car was taken to Focuz Motors, Kozhencherry and the insurance surveyor came and assessed the damages. The GD entry and all other relevant records were handed over to the surveyor and he gave instruction to workshop authorities to repair the vehicle. After two days the opposite party intimated the workshop to stop the entire repair work for reasons unknown to the complainant. The complainant issued a letter on 26...