Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

Managing Director, Indian Airlines and Another Vs. U.G.Prasad

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.503/06 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing a seat in the flight. So, the complainant claimed compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that they issued confirmed tickets to the passengers including the complainant but they also issued confirmed tickets with the expectation that there will be cancellation of the tickets. It is also contended that it is the usual practice prevailed in the filed regarding issuance of air tickets with OK status. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1 and witness ...

Postmaster General and Another Vs. Smt.Ayesha Haleema Kanndoth

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC.105/2011 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- with interest at 9% from the date of the order. 2. The matter is with respect to the loss of parcel containing precious material. According to the complainant she is proficient in playing the musical instrument called vichithraveena which is played by only few people and she had forward a parcel containing CDs of the TV interviews etc for considering her entitlement for a cultural award from the DravidianUniversity. The same was not received by the addressee. 3. According to the opposite parties the article could not be traced. Opposite parties relied Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act that liability is limited to double the postal charges. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1;Exts. A1 to A11 and B1 to B6. 5. We find that ...

R. Santhosh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner is presently working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Health and Family Welfare Department. When vacancies in the category of U.D.Clerks arose in the Department in the year 1999, the petitioner was temporarily promoted as U.D.Clerk with effect from 22.2.2000 as per Ext.P1 order. The contention of the petitioner is that he was given temporary promotion taking into account the fact that his seniors were not test qualified at that point of time. Subsequently, Ext.P2 order dated 14.9.2001 was passed by the third respondent whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of L.D.Clerk and the fourth respondent was promoted in his place. I do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions any further on account of the admitted position that despite such reversion and the consequential promotion of the fourth respondent, the petitioner had not called in question the said action in any legal proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as U.D.Clerk with effect ...

Narayani and Another Vs. Sreedharan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)400; 2011(4)KLJ544; 2011(4)KLT107(C.No.118)(SN); 2011(4)KHC321; 2012AIR(Ker)72; 2011(4)KLT118(SN)

Defendants in O.S.333/1996 on the file of Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda are the appellants. Plaintiff is the respondent. Suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties and allotment of one half share due to the respondent. Plaint schedule properties are 14 cents in survey No.119/1 and 26 cents in survey No.119/2 of Annallur village of Mukundapuram Tauli. Respondent would contend that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to first appellant and her husband Govindan, parents of the respondent and second appellant. Though under Ext.B1 settlement deed, the properties were agreed to be enjoyed jointly by the first appellant and Govidnan, Govindan assigned his one half right over the plaint schedule properties to the respondent under Ext.A1 sale deed dated 25/2/1995 and hence respondent has one half right in the plaint schedule properties. Respondent sought separation of his one half share contending that he is not willing to continue joint possession. Firs...

Sahira Basheer Vs. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Represented by Its ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT169; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)134; 2011(4)KHC192

1. Disqualification of the petitioner in the selection for LPG distributorship under the ‘open’ (women) category in Kasaragod district, with reference to Ext.P1 Notification and Ext.P2 application, for not maintaining the amounts in deposit in the Bank for a minimum period of three months, so as to assess the financial capability of the candidate concerned as stipulated in Clause 14 (particularly clause 14.2) is the issue involved. 2. The first respondent ‘Company’ issued Ext.P1 notification dated 27.12.2007 inviting applications for LPG Distributorship under the particular category for the area as aforesaid. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application. After considering the credentials of the applicants, the respondent Company prepared a list of empanelled candidates wherein the petitioner was ranked as No.2, while rank No.1 was assigned to one Sindhu Joseph. 3. The placement given by the respondent Company was stated as w...

The Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum Vs. t ...

Court: Kerala

"CR" 1. Ext.P1 Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, ordering reinstatement of the concerned workman, (who was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement by the Management) with continuity in service and all attendant benefits, is under challenge in this writ petition filed at the instance of the Management Bank. 2. The petitioner Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent workman by placing him under suspension w.e.f. 08.08.2001, pending enquiry, in respect of the complaint received from a lady cashier and two other employees of the Bank in connection with the misconduct committed by the worker on 01.08.2001. The basis for the complaint was that the workman, who was employed as attender in the Cash Department of the Bank at its Fort Branch, Thiruvanathapuram was not co-operating with the work in the Department, by not obeying the instructions of the Cashier in assisting for counting and bundling the ‘Notes’, when the lady cashier had to ...

K.S. Nissam Vs. Premji Joy and Others

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. In a claim for compensation for loss of earnings and reduction in earning capacity consequent to physical disability, is the Tribunal justified in deducting from the monthly earnings any portion as personal expenses of the victim? This question is raised in this appeal. 2. The claimant/injured is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 06.09.2006. He was working as a Meter Reader when he suffered the injuries. While undergoing treatment, he was promoted as a Sub Engineer under the Kerala State Electricity Board. He had suffered multiple injuries including multiple fractures. Fracture of the right temporal bone with extradural haematoma and subarachnoid haemorrhage is the main injury. There was fracture of the neck of left femur. There was fracture of ribe 3 to 9 on the left side. There was fracture of scapula also. He had to undergo treatment as an inpatient for 41 days in two spells. He allegedly s...

K.S. Saju Vs. State of Kerala, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)88; 2011(4)KLJ38; 2011(3)KHC862; 2012CrLJ57(NOC)

1. These Bail Applications are filed by the Managing Director (K.A.Saju) and the Director (Rajeev Kumar Cheruvara) of Apple A Day Properties Private Limited under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. More than 100 Crimes were registered against the Petitioners alleging offence under Section 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the Crimes. The petitioners were not available for arrest for about two months. They surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kanjirappally, which is not the jurisdictional court. They were produced before the jurisdictional courts on production warrants and their arrest was recorded on different dates. In a large number of cases, the period of sixty days are over from the date of the arrest of the petitioners. In those cases, default bail is being granted to them under the proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per a separate common Order....

P.T. Jose Vs. Sri. Antony and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 7th opposite party in CC.1360/04 in the file of Thrissur. The complaint stands allowed and the opposite parties including the appellant is under orders to make the payment as prayed for by the complainant. 2. It is the case of the complainant/7th opposite party that he was never a partner in the 1st opposite party firm and that the true extract of Register of Firms produced by him were not considered by the firm. The appellant has produced in appeal a copy of the same. It is seen from the above document that the name of the appellant is not seen therein. In the above document only the name of one M.A.Jose is mentioned as one of the partners whereas the appellanmt/7th opposite party is P.T.Jose. The address is also different. In the circumstances order of the Forum against the appellant/7th opposite party is set aside. The rest of the order is set sustained. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Office will forward the c...

Dr. Cherian Vs. the Secretary, Kseb, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and An ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.31/2010 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 2. The dispute is with respect to the legality of the energy bill issued by the opposite party. The Forum has noted that the complainant ought to have filed objections the provisional bill and as the complainant has not filed the objection and the bill remained only a provisional bill the Forum has no jurisdiction. 3. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that it is mentioned in the provisional bill itself that in case objection is not filed within 7 days the bill attains finality. We find that the bill has become final although for not filing objection by the complainant. We find that finding of the Forum that the Forum has no jurisdiction cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to dispose of the matter on m...