Kerala Court March 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.
The Manager, Hdfc Ltd. Vs. Col.Sasi.G (Rtd.) Aashiyana
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/HDFC Bank in CC. 327/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a housing loan from the opposite parties and the same was remitted up to date. But on 20.8.08 he received a letter from the opposite parties that a sum of Rs.13,272/- is outstanding. On enquiries he was told that the same is with respect to an installment in the year 1999. He has pointed out that as per the letter of the bank dated 31.10.2000 his account is up to date till September 2011. He has sought for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that one of the cheques bearing No.849699 issued by the complainant for Rs.3,172/- dated 29.10.99 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Faizalabad was not realized and that the said installment became outstan...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Shahul Hameed
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.73/11 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,784/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/- with interest at 9%. 2. The matter is with respect to the repudiation of the mediclaim. The appellants/opposite parties were set exparte before the Forum. It is submitted that notice was issued only to the service provider and that the appellant was not aware of the existence of the proceedings. 3. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants/opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.3500/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the matter. The appeal stands posted for the Forum on 23.4.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
K.M. Basheer and Others Vs. the District Police, Thrissur and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, party respondents and also State Attorney. 2. According to the petitioners, they are representatives of a registered Trade Union of Varavattor Unit in Desamangalam Grama Panchayat. The petitioners, claiming to be the representatives of Varavattoor Trade Union in Desamangalam Grama Panchayat, have approached the Court seeking police protection on the ground that the 6th respondent and his supporters are interfering with the work of them when they were doing the loading and unloading of sand mining at Konavally Kadavu. According to them, when Konavally Kadavu was decided to be opened as per the decision of the Local Panchayat within the area of petitioners, a covered area of headload workers, the 6th respondent and his headload Workers Union members obstructed the loading work of sand from the river and prevented the petitioners and their workers to carry on the headload work. Therefore, the petitioners approache...
District Collector, Thrissur and Another Vs. Rosily Stephen
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties, the District Collector and Village Officer who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.300/- as cost in CC.919/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party/Village Officer did not allow her to pay land tax in respect of the property owned by her on the ground that there is RR action against her husband Stephan. If the tax receipt is received she would get Rs.50,000/- under I.A.Y Housing Scheme. In the version filed, 1st opposite party/village officer has denied that he refused to receive Rs.5/- as land tax. He had only asked to remit the amount as per the RR proceedings in respect of her husband as the 1st opposite party is bound to collect the arrears as per the RR Act. Evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P4. We find that the complainant cannot be treated as consumer as there is no consumer/service provider relationship betwee...
The Secretary, Kerala Road Transport Corporation Employees, Co-operati ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.927/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The demand notice issued by the opposite parties stands cancelled. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed loan of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties/Employees Co-operative Society on 3.7.2001 and that the same is to be repaid in 40 monthly instalments and that the repayment was completed before 6 months of his retirement. He retired on 30.1.2005. He has been issued with notice dated:24.9.2008 to pay Rs.37,000/- towards the loan amount of Rs.38,000/- was recovered from his gratuity and remitted to the loan account. It is also mentioned that Rs.5000/- has been collected as share value at the time of availing the loan. The same also has been credited to the loan account. It is contended that the opposite parties are not entitled to collect any amount or interest after his retirement. 3. The opposite parties have filed version that there is still a b...
The Service Manager, M/S Scooters India Ltd. and Another Vs. Sibi Chac ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in A.291/011 is the 1st opposite party/Manufacturer and appellant in A763/11 is the 3rd opposite party/dealer in CC 186/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to repair the vehicle involved, that is, Vikram 450 diesel autorikshaw to the full satisfaction of the complainant and also to pay 15000/- as compensation or to pay Rs.35000/- and also to pay Rs.3000/- as costs to the complainant and if the amounts are not paid within one month the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at 12 % form the date of default. 2. The case of the complainant is that the diesel autorikshaw purchased by him for Rs.1,45,000 is having manufacturing defects. According to him he purchased the vehicle after availing loan from the financiers. According to him the opposite parties were not having mechanic for the repair of the vehicle and spare parts were not available. According to him the vehicle is right now garaged because...
The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Gloria Benil
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENTThe appellants are the opposite parties /New India Assurance Company Ltd., in C.C. 245/10 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,285/- with interest at 12% and cost of Rs. 2,000/- It is the case of the complainant that she purchased the Wagon R car from one Krishnamoorthy on 4.12.2009. From the next day itself she had applied to the R.T.O. Irinjalakuda for transferring the R.C. in her name. The change of ownership was recorded and the R.C. returned only on 08.01.2010 . On 26.12.2009 the vehicle while in motion skidded and overturned. The vehicle was totally damaged. For repairs a sum of Rs. 1,80,668/- is required. He has claimed the same with interest as well as compensation of Rs. 20,000/- It is denied by the opposite parties that the transfer of the vehicle was intimated as required by law and the policy got transferred in the name of the complainant. It is also pointed out that the surveyor has rep...
Narayanan Kutty and Others Vs. the Ernakulam Medical Centre Hospital N ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complainants are the parents, brother and sister of the deceased Mr.Sajeevan who died on 26.11.98 in consequence to attempt to commit suicide by jumping from the top floor of the 1st opposite party hospital. The deceased at the time was admitted in the medical ICU of the above hospital. It is the allegation that the deceased was having psychic problems and was under treatment for the same and that the opposite parties did not take adequate care to see that the patient is kept under close guard. The deceased was a 2nd year Automobile Engineering student studying at the Polytechnic, Kalamassery. On complaint of fever he was taken to Dr.Varghese, Assistant Surgeon, GovernmentHospital, Vadavukode on 19.11.98. As there was no improvement on 20.11.98 he was taken to Karuna Medical Centre, Thripunithura and there from he was referred to a Psychiatrist and hence the patient was taken to the 1st opposite party hospital wherein he was admitted on 20.11...
Jacob @ Jaimon Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Basant, J. (i) In having returned to the scene of the crime with MO1, a dangerous weapon, within a short span of time after the initial incident, in an obvious attempt to defend his possession of the autorikshaw, against the attempt of the deceased and PW2 to take away the autorikshaw by force (or to cause mischief to the same), did the appellant forfeit his right of private defence? (ii) Did he have the right of private defence of his person and/or property against the deceased? (iii) Did he exceed such right of private defence? These, precisely, are the questions that are raised for our consideration in this appeal by Shri S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC and he faces a sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years. He is alleged to have caused the death of deceased...
Krishnankutty Vs. Veena M.G
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
1. In this appeal filed through his next friend under Sec. 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C., the appellant who was the sole defendant in O.S. 191 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Neyyattinkara, challenges the Judgment dated 12-11-2010 passed by the Subordinate Judge in the above suit. THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE 2. In the aforementioned suit instituted by the respondent herein she inter alia alleged as follows:- The plaint schedule property admeasuring 32 cents of land in Ottasekharamangalam Village was acquired by the defendant as per Ext. B1 sale deed dated 4-7-1983. On 16-07-2008 the defendant executed Ext.A1 agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property within three months thereof for a price fixed at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent. The total sale consideration payable was Rs. 3,84,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance. The plaintiff, on different dates, requested the defendant to measure out the property...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »