Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments
Tengguo Wu, Director, Thoshiba India Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Sunny Is ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in CC No. 252/2010. 1st to 3rd opposite parties are the appellants and the complainant and opposite parties no. 4 and 5 are respondents in the appeal. 2. The Forum below ordered that the opposite parties are direct to give a defect free laptop to the complainant, by taking back the defective laptop, to the satisfaction of the complainant. If not possible the opposite party is directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.27,900/-, the price of the laptop. The opposite parties are ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost of the petitioner. The order shall be complied with within 1 month of the receipt of the copy of the order. All opposite parties are jointly and severely liable. If the order is not complied, as ordered, the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the award amount from the date of complaint till realization. 3. The appellant prefers this appeal from the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Marikar(Motors) Limited Vs. K.L. Chinamma and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/dealer in CC.255/07 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation and refund 10% of the actual price of the vehicle vide Ext.A3 with interest at 9% from the date fixed for the compliance of the order. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the Mitsubishi Lancer Diesel car from the 1st opposite party on 27.3.07 for a sum of Rs.7,91,000/- altogether. It is alleged that although it was represented that the vehicle is manufactured in the year 2007 in the form 21 sale certificate the year of manufacture is noted as 2006. Further it was found that the vehicle is 2006 model vehicle used for test driving/demonstration driving. Hence he has sought for replacing of the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.50000/-. 3. The 1st opposite party/appellant has contended that the particular vehicle was taken delivery as the same was readily availa...
Tag this Judgment!Sivarama Pillai Purushothaman Nair Gowri Nivas, Chathankary, Peringara ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. Claimant is the appellant. His land together with portion of a building was acquired for the purpose of widening of the M.C.Road. The property was in Ettumanoor village and was situated adjacent to the Mahadeva Temple at Ettumanoor. There were other cases also and the Land Acquisition Officer classified the properties acquired for the same purpose into categories-A, B andC . The appellant's property included in category B and awarded the value at the rate of Rs.1,27,778/- per Are. Even though several documents were produced by the appellant to support the appellant's claim that the land value at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Are (Rs.15 lakhs per cent), the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on any of the documents produced by the appellant. Finally relying on the basis document themselves, the learned Subordinate Judge would refix the land value at Rs.1,53,334/- per Are. Thus awarding to the appellant 20% more than what was awar...
Tag this Judgment!Kadeeja Umma Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by District Collector. P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
1. In this petition filed under Order- XLIV Rule 3 (1) read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. the petitioner seeks permission to file the proposed first appeal as an indigent person. 2. The Registry noted a defect to the effect that the petition as well as the proposed appeal should be presented by the party-in-person and not by the Advocate. To the said defect the Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted a reply contending inter alia as follows: The petitioner who was the plaintiff in the court below was permitted to file the suit as an indigent person. Since the petitioner has not ceased to be an indigent person even after the date of the decree appealed from and also since the petitioner has filed an affidavit to that effects as envisaged by Rule 3 (1) of Order- XLIV C.P.C. no further enquiry in respect of the question as to whether or not the petitioner is an indigent person is necessary in view of Rule 3 (1) above. 3. Thereupon the matter was referred by the Registry to the Bench for ju...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Rajan and Others Vs. Rathikumari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
“C.R” Ravikumar, J. 1. These Matrimonial Appeals between the same couple are intrinsically intertwined and hence, they were heard jointly. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to in this judgment as ‘the wife’ and ‘the husband’. 2. O.P.No.1076 of 2007 is, in fact, a suit filed by the husband mainly seeking for declaration of his exclusive title over plaint ‘A’ to ‘E’ schedule properties and for a decree directing the wife, the respondent therein, to assign her share in ‘E’ schedule property in his name. O.P.No.989 of 2008 was originally filed by the wife as O.P.No.1075 of 2008 before the Family Court, Ernakulam and was later transferred to Family Court, Kottayam and re-numbered as such. It is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the husband or anybody under him from trespassing into the property scheduled thereunder and committing waste as also from inducting stranger...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sarath Chandran Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, Rep. by S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to allow his daughter to pursue her studies in Class XII in the second respondent’s school. Mainly, it is contended that a detention from appearing in Class XII examination is objectionable. 2. The stand taken by the second respondent in their counter affidavit is that the petitioner’s daughter did not obtain the required 33% marks for Chemistry and Mathematics in Class XI examination and therefore she was not eligible to be promoted to Class XII. 3. This Court had passed an interim order dated 16.12.2011 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to allow his daughter to attend Class XII as an interim measure. Now the examination for Class XII is to start from the first week of March, 2012 and the petitioner seeks permission to appear for the examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that detention of a student is objectionable in law. The petitioner’s daughter is a bright student and in M...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Calicut, Rep. by Its Manager, Regional ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUDGMENT "C.R." Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is by the insurer. Valid insurance cover for a lorry belonging to the second respondent is admitted. The first respondent claimed that he met with an accident which falls under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, the `Act'). His allegation was that while he was unloading goods from the second respondent's lorry, a wooden plank of that lorry gave way injuring him, ultimately leading to paralysis. The testimony of the second respondent's representative clinchingly established the master and servant relationship between the respondents. The material evidence on record showed that the first respondent suffered the injuries, underwent treatment and that the competent Medical Board certified that he has 50% physical disability and that he suffers 100% occupational disability, having regard to the fact that he is a headload worker. The Commissioner passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to the Gove ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
1. The petitioner, the proprietor of a bakery, purchased a tempo traveller with a seating capacity of 17 passengers excluding the driver, manufactured by Force Motors, from the dealer at Mylapra in Pathanamthitta District on 20-10-2011. In the sale certificate, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, the address of the buyer is given as "Jagan Thomas, S/o Thomas Eapen, Thomson Bakery, VII/357, Niranam P.O., Kadapara, Thiruvalla-689581" and the dealer had described the class of the vehicle as, light motor vehicle contract carrier. The petitioner applied for registration of the vehicle on 25-10-2011 and produced along with the application, the original of Ext.P1 sale certificate, Ext.P2 tax invoice evidencing payment of value added tax, Ext.P3 certificate of insurance and Ext.P4 letter wherein he had declared that he intends to use the vehicle for personal use and requested that the vehicle may be registered as a private service vehicle for personal use. The third respondent returned the ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sathiyamma
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/Insurance Company in CC.143/07 in the file of CDRF, Alleppey. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- with interest at 9% from the date of claim and also to pay Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the cow purchased by her for Rs.17500/- and insured with the opposite parties for Rs.15000/- got afflicted with illness that made the cow unable to conceive. The claim submitted was repudiated and complainant has sought for claim amount of Rs.15000/- and interest. 3. The opposite parties have filed version admitting that the cow was insured as per Gosuraksha Cattle Insurance policy for the period from 8.9.06 to 7.9.09. The claim has been submitted on 27.3.07 on the ground that the cow became permanently disabled by endometritis and it is not in a position to conceive. It is contended that the illness was preexisting ie from the period 7.11.05. It is seen that insemination was done on 2....
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Chacko Vs. the Managing Director, Sree Uthradam Thirunal Hospit ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.274/06 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. The case of the complainant then aged 54 years is that he was admitted at the opposite party hospital on 16.4.2006 on account of severe chest pain and underwent by-pass surgery on 21.4.2006. He was kept in the ICU for 4 days out of the 9 days package. He has paid Rs.99,000/- for the surgery and a sum of Rs.11,382/- for the treatment charges up to the date of surgery. After surgery he was having severe pain on the back side, buttocks, thighs, elbows etc was told by the hospital staff that he had blanket allergy and will recover soon. On account of severe pain and uneasiness he requested for a water bed but instead was given water filled rubber hand gloves from which water spilled over which increased the pain. He has sustained serious burn injuries over the backside. According to him he was remained in the hospital for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »