Kerala Court January 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gopinathan Vs. the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and Other ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Shri. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The complainant in C.C. 312/07 before the CDRF, Kollam is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the Forum below. It was the case of the complainant that he was having an electric Connection from the opposite parties under LTI(a) tariff and that his tariff was changed to LT VI (c) arbitrarily by the opposite parties and a bill for Rs. 14,357/- was issued to him on 28.10.2007. Alleging deficiency in service in issuing such a bill and in changing the tariff, the complainant prayed for directions to cancel the bill and to change his tariff to LTI(a) itself. The opposite parties in their version contended that the tariff was changed to LT VI from Tariff I(a) on the basis of the Inspection Report of the Regional Audit Office of the Kerala State Electricity Board and that the complainants son was using 200 Watts of connected load for running a commercial establishment. It was further submitted that the opposite parties ...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baiju G.S, Baiju Bhavan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.341/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 9% on the date of complaint and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. The matter is with respect to the claim submitted regarding personal accident cover to the owner of the vehicle. The claim with respect to the total disability was repudiated. 3. Evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.P1 to P14 and Ext.D1. 4. As per Ext.D1 specimen of the conditions of the policy for loss of one limb or sight of one eye the scale of compensation is 50% of the sum insured. The sum insured is Rs.1.lakh. As per Ext.P12 disability certificate the medical board has assessed the disability as 60%. The disability is due to Optic Atropy to right eye. Evidently as per the policy for loss of vision of one eye the scale of compensation is 50%. Hence th...
Jyothis Project and Another Vs. K.S. Saviour
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.124/11 in file of CDRF, Kottayam who are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 10% from the date of maturity till realization. The appellants/opposite parties were exparte before the Forum. Opposite parties have sought for an opportunity to contest the matter. 2. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost to the complainant as well as to pay the deposit amount, ie Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of deposit. On payment of cost and deposit of the above amount the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the matter. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 28.2.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
Cox and Kings Ltd. and Another Vs. Joseph Abraham and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.457/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.86,000/- to the complainants together with 12% interest from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.2000/-. The matter is with respect to the appropriation of the advance amount paid for a tour to Europe launched by the opposite parties/appellants. The tour was proposed to be held on 4.6.09. The complainants had to cancel the tour on 4.5.09 as the visa application was rejected by the U.K. Boarder Agency. Out of the amounts deposited in advance only Rs.2,21,667/- was refunded. 2. The contention of the opposite parties/appellants is that as per the terms of the agreement it was a condition that cancellation charge of Rs.40,000/- per person and reservation charge of Rs.3000/- per head will be forfeited. It is contended that the rejection of the visa application was on account of the fault of the complainants. It ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. T.K. Devassukutty
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYAHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in OP.550/01 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the assured sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost vide common order in OP.550/01 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. 2. The complaint is with respect to the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the injury sustained in the accident is not covered by the terms of the policy. Consequent on the accident in a quarry on 30.10.2000 the complainant was having a Jeevan Raksha Group Insurance Policy of the opposite parties/appellants. According to the certificate of the doctor he has sustained 50% disablement of the left hand. The appellant paid only the medical expenses of Rs.4792/-. 3. The opposite parties have contended that as per the terms of the policy the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Ext.R1 policy specifically provides that the coverage is limited t...
The Manager Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. K. Sidde ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.127/06 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.81,500/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and also to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Minidor Bajaj Tempo on 17.02.2006 from the opposite parties fixing the sale price of Rs.1,20,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash and the balance amount was provided by the opposite parties as loan. At the time of the transaction it was agreed to hand over the vehicular documents within 7 days from the date of agreement and also to provide the insurance and road tax documents. The complainant is engaged in the business of supply on hire goods like tables, chairs, tarpaulin, utensils etc. For want of the vehicular documents the vehicle was stopped by the traffic police and imposed fine on him. Repeated requests for the s...
The Proprietor, Mtm Hospital, Madan Nada and Another Vs. A. Jayakumari ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties the hospital and the doctor respectively who are under orders to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10000/- with interest at 12% in OP.304/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. 2. The case of the complainants/wife and husband is that the 1st complainant aged 42 and having 2 children consulted the 2nd opposite party doctor who is also the family doctor on 16.7.02 as outpatient she felt weakness of the body and that he advised her to get admitted on the following day ie on 17.7.02.. On the above date she was admitted as inpatient and after blood test etc it was advised to arrange O+ve blood for transfusion. On the next day that is on 18.7.02 a close relative of the 1st complainant one Sunil with the same blood group donated blood. At about 11AM blood transfusion started under the supervision of the 2nd opposite party. After sometime the patient had shivering and headache. The sister of the complainan...
K. Sudhakaran Vs. the Manager (Services), M/S Popular Vehicles and Ser ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.84/2010 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed for default. It is submitted by the Revision Pettiioner/complainant that he was present before the Forum on the particular day. But he went out for a short duration and in the meantime the complaint was dismissed. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is setaside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum will issue notice to the opposite parties and dispose of the case on merits. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 29.02.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
Sagara Beach Resort Vs. State of Kerala Rep.by Secretary, Taxes (A) De ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is the 3rd round of litigation in the same matter, wherein the challenge is against the denial of bar licence (FL- 3) under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules for the petitioner to run a bar in the three star hotel constructed at Kovalam, which is a prime tourism centre. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.C.C.Thomas for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner constructed a three star hotel at Kovalam with Rs.9 crores borrowed from M/s. Kerala Financial Corporation, and under the loan agreement itself, the petitioner has to repay Rs.20 lakhs per month to clear the debt taken from the KFC alone. Ext.P3 Application for FL-3 licence was submitted on 09/07/2010. After conducting enquiry, application was turned down by Ext.P12 order dated 19/07/2011on the sole ground that there is violation of CRZ (Coastal Reserve Zone) Regulation in the construction of the hotel. However, when this order ...
Abdul Kharim and Another Vs. Saraswathy Amma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
1. Petitioners, who are not parties to the decree put in execution, moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to resists the execution of a decree of injunction obtained by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 7. In violation of the decree, the judgment debtor, as against whom the decision was rendered by the court on merits, has removed a gate, was the case of the decree holders to apply under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceed against him. At that stage, the petitioners moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure setting forth a case that the property in which the plaintiffs/decree holders imputed violation of the decree of injunction had already been dedicated to the public and as members of the public they have interest in the subject matter so involved and their right and interest have to be adjudicated before proceeding further with the execution. The learned Munsiff taking note that possession ov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »