Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments

Prasanna Sasi, Ayodhya Ayikadu Vs. Ajith K.G., Muringa thekkathil

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite party against the order in OP No. 174/07 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The Forum below directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and also to return excess amount of Rs.26,000/- collected and a further payment of Rs.20,500/- spent for Truss work along with compensation and cost of Rs.5,000/- and 1,000/- respectively, failing which the complainant will be entitled interest at 14% till realization. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 12.12.04 for constructing a residential building for an estimated cost of Rs.11,75,000/- on condition to complete the work within 10 months. It is the very case of the complainant that the quality of the work was poor and on the house warming day the leakage was found out. The defect could be rectified only after providing truss work over the building which came to Rs.40,000/-. The allegation of the complai...

The Proprietor, M/S.Cindrella Salwar Castle, Jetty Road, Mullackal Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Proprietor, Cindrella Salwar Castle who are under orders to refund an amount of Rs.875/- and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.250/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that a churidar purchased from the opposite parties got tom after the first washing itself. The yarns of the same got untied and went woefully unusable. The shop keeper refused to refund the amount. 3. The opposite parties have filed version denying the allegations. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.A1 5. We find that as noted by the Forum, the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to dispute the case set up by the complainant. In the circumstances, we find that conclusion other than the one reached by the Forum is possible. Hence we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. There is no scope for admitting the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Office will forward a copy of this order t...

Muhammed Haji, Cheriyaram Kottil Vs. R. Suresh Kumar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT The complaint is filed for cononation of delay of 525 days in filing the complaint. 2. In the affidavit filed by the complainant, it is stated that he is a permanent resident of and presently working at Moosambi in Africa. He had entrusted the opposite party who is an electrical contractor the electrification of his shopping complex at Edappal on 8.7.05. According to him, the opposite party abandoned the work on 31.5.08 after receiving considerable amounts from him. According to him, he has sustained financial loss amounting to Rs.50 lakhs. He could not file the complaint in time as he was working abroad and during the short visits to his native place he was engaged with family matters and trying to complete the construction of the shopping complex. 3. The opposite parties have filed objection pointing out that he had submitted a bill for Rs.2.5 lakhs to the complainant and also issued a legal notice. After receiving the legal notice, the compla...

A.P. Sugathan Vs. Duty Doctor Esi Hospital, Kadappuram, Alappuzha (Dr. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.87/05 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was a worker in Mat and Mattings in Cherthala having ESI benefits. According to him on 10.1.2005 he consulted an ESI doctor on complaints of body pain and fever. He was examined by the doctor and after blood tests he was admitted suspecting typhoid. He was administered paracetmol injection on the left arm by the duty nurse. He felt irritation at the time of injection itself. Subsequently his hand became stiff and there was swelling. He was referred to MCH, Alappuzha on the same day. There he was an inpatient at MCH upto 25.1.2005. His left shoulder portion got completely paralysed and there was severe swelling and inflammation. At one point of time it was even proposed to amputate the hand. He still having numbness of the left hand and is unable to do any work. The complication was occasioned on ...

V. Reji and Others Vs. M/S.City Bank, Credit Card Centre, Reptd. by th ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in CC.56/06 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The complainants are the LRs of the deceasedun Cap. Anil Prakash who was working at the Kerala Aviation Training Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. He was having a credit card of City Bank from the year 2000. He died in an air crash at Hyderabadon 29.12.04. The credit card holder had the protection of Suraksha Credit Shield and Suraksha Personal Accident Benefits. The deceased was remitting the premium periodically. Subsequently, he joined Andhra Pradesh Aviation Academy. The first opposite party had sought for the relevant records for settling the death benefits. On 8.4.05 the second opposite party, the Manager of the Customer Care wing of the first opposite party has informed that the air accident Insurance has been withdrawn from the New India Insurance Company and for further clarifications the first complainants/wife may contact...

Dr.Bhavadasan, Superintendent, Amala Medical College Hospital Vs. Hema ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the second opposite party in CC.104/11 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur who has been set ex-parte. 2. The application to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed. 3. It is submitted that the matter is still pending before the Forum. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum in IA.681/11 is set aside. The Forum is directed to permit the petitioner/second opposite party to contest the matter. Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum....

M.P.Ramakrishnan Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Majo ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.23/01 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the electricity connection with respect his petrol bunk he was served with an exorbitant bill amounting to 105069.37/- which is back assessment from 9/98 for 6 months and thereafter for the excess energy consumed beyond the units covered by the provisional invoice card. It is the contention that the meter was faulty since April 1999 and that the same was intimated to the opposite party on 28.4.2000. It is also pointed out that the monthly bills were regularly paid. The additional bills issued are based on the readings in the faulty meter. It is also contented that the area is a low voltage area. The complainant has also installed diesel generator which is used from 4PM to 11PM. Hence the real consumption of the electricity is reduced to a half. The additional bill was issued on 25.1.01 for the perio...

Sebastian K. Antony Kavumbhagom Vs. Manager, St.Albert's College, Erna ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLT133(SN)(C.No.129)

Ramkumar J. Proceedings impugned in this petition In this petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 63 of theMahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the University Act" for short), the petitioner, who was formerly working as senior grade lecturer in Malayalam in the St.Alberts College, Ernakulam challenges the judgment dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dismissing University Appeal No.3 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. THE PETITIONER'S CASE 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- The petitioner is a senior grade lecturer in Malayalam and was the Head of Department in St.Albert's College, Ernakulam with 24 years of unblemished service. St.Albert's College is an aided college under the Government of Kerala and affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. The first respondent is the Manager and the 2nd respondent is the Principal of t...

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prasanna Kumari

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.195/11 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The opposite parties have been directed to pay the claim as per norms. 2. The case of the complainant is that his vehicle insured with the opposite parties met with an accident on 12.11.2010 and that vehicle was totally damaged and is beyond repairs. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was sold to one Abdul Riza Sulaiman on 8.11.2008. It is the contention of the complainant that although an agreement was executed the sale did not take place and that the vehicle has remained in the name and possession of the complainant. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,78,500/-. 3. Opposite party have filed version contending that the complainant does not have any insurable interest as the vehicle has been sold. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A3. 5. The Forum has noted that the RC, ie Ext.A1 is in the name of the complainant, so also Ex...

Kerala State Electricity Board,(Kseb), Major Section and Another Vs. P ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC1103/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The Forum has allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite parties/appellants to return the excess cash deposit charges levied as well as the excess service charges and 20% of extra charged for the alleged non installation of sufficient capacitors with interest at 12% from the date of payment of the amount by the complainant till realization and also directed to pay cost of Rs.750/-. 2. The complainant is the Managing Partner of the Firm an SSI unit in rubber products and having industrial electricity connection with the opposite parties. It is alleged that for the period from 7/01 to 2/02 KSEB has collected a sum of Rs.85,944.40/- towards 20% additional charge for insufficiency of the capacitors installed. It is contended that the complainant has informed as per the letter dated 1.3.02 that the capacitors were already installed and has sought for r...