Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by Its Branch Manager, Kayamkula ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.63/07 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of 14520/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint. towards the assured sum. 2. The case of the complainant is that during the period of the health insurance coverage of the opposite parties he underwent treatment from 22.8.06 to 5.8.06 in Aswin Ayurveda Nursing home on account of inflammation due to trauma, knee joint pain and back ache. The treatment expenses amounted to Rs.14520/-. The claim form was repudiated. The opposite parties have filed version contending that the reason mentioned in the claim form ie sustained injury by fall was found to be incorrect as in the certificate of the doctor it is mentioned that he had the same defect from childhood. The investigator has also reported that there was no fall from bike as alleged and that the treatment was for a pre existing disease that he wa...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Water Doctor Reptd. by Sunil Vs. Ahammed Makkai
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC 28/10 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to refund the price of the water softener amounting to Rs.62,766 and to pay 5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged defect of the Water Purifying System supplied by the opposite party for a sum of Rs.62,766/-. 3. The appellant was ex-parte before the Forum. 4. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the matter has been adjudicated un-contested the order cannot be treated as a considered one. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant.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 party/appellant to contest the matter and dispose of the matter on merits. 5. The case stan...
Tag this Judgment!Postmaster Ottapalam H.O. and Others Vs. P.N. Malini Rajagopal
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC 67/11 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.28,612/- the amount of interest acquired in the recurring deposit account of the deceased. 2. It is the case of the complainant that her husband had two RD accounts in the particular Post office and that she was the nominee. Her husband died on 16.12.04 and the claim for encashment was made on 3.5.2010. The part of the claim was rejected on the ground that only the principal amount with interest up to the date of death of the account holder is the eligibility. The total amount on the date of maturity would be Rs.1,83,776.11. Out of the above only a sum of Rs.1,55,164/- was paid. The balance amount due is Rs.28,612.11. It is seen that the opposite parties were made aware of the death of the depositor only on 3.5.2010 although he died on 16.12.04. The arrangement till then was that the amount acquire...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Other ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in CC No.211/08 before the CDRF, Kollam are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below in quashing Exts. P1 and P4 bills and to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he was running a metal crusher unit where he had availed an electrical connection vide consumer No. 19623 and that he was allowed a power allocation of 85 KW under the LT IV tariff and on 12.08.2008, he was served with a short assessment bill for Rs.39,115/- for the period from 1/04 to 8/04. It is his case that the bill issued was without any basis and he has further alleged that a bill for Rs.2,34,629/- was issued on 23.01.09 on the finding that there was unauthorized additional load in the premises of the complainant. The complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bills and pay compensation and cost. 3. The opposite parties in...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Sathish Chandran, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Koyilil Hospital Vs. Moh ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated : 31.05.04 of CDRF, Kannur in OP 274/01 is being challenged in this appeal by the 1st opposite party calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. As per the impugned order the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost to the complainant within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum below. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent/complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant had argued that there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party who was the orthopaedic surgeon of the 2nd opposite party hospital and who had treated the complainant consequent to an accident on 24.8.2000. It is his very case that as soon as the complainant was admitted, X-ray was taken and finding that there was dislocation on the elbow it was corrected ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Icici Bank Ltd., Kannur Branch, Kannur Vs. Kakkattu Naray ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 29.7.2011 in CC No. 148/09, the CDRF Kannur has directed the opposite parties to adjust the amount recovered by the opposite parties towards the second loan to the first loan and close the first loan and if any amount is there remaining as balance, the same shall be adjusted towards the 2nd loan with further directions to issue payment schedule afresh regarding the 2nd loan without fine or penalty to the complainant. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the 1st opposite party has come up in appeal calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had taken a personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party and that the repayments were made by transfer from his SB account towards the loan and that the remittances were prompt. It is submitted by him that as per the attractive offers of the oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Kalamassery, Rep. by General Manager Vs. the I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The dispute referred for adjudication was whether the demand for regularisation of the employees of the H.M.T. canteen as regular employees of H.M.T. Ltd. is justified. 2. The H.M.T. canteen is run by a Co-operative Society formed in the year 1985. It is alleged that the employees of the canteen that the Society is under the control of the H.M.T.Ltd, the Management. The employees of the canteen were workers in employment of the canteen even prior to the formation of the Society. After formation of the Society the Managing Committee of the Society is managed by H.M.T Ltd. The Managing Committee consists of four persons to be elected from general body and four persons from officers of the Management. Hence according to them, the employees of the canteen cannot be treated as employees of the Society but they are in effect employees of H.M.T Ltd. (Management). 3. The Management contended that the S...
Tag this Judgment!Sumith and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This writ petition is at the instance of the petitioners who are mentally retarded children, represented by their guardians. The subject matter of dispute is the alleged denial of admission for them for the academic year 2011-2012 in the Shilpa Special School, Palluruthy, of which the seventh respondent is the Principal. 2. Elaborate arguments have been heard on both sides. The resolution of the dispute requires consideration of the facts in some detail and therefore initially I shall refer to the factual aspects. 3. According to the petitioners, the classes for the academic year 2011-2012 started on 15.6.2011. The school is managed by a Society called "Shilpa Society for the Mentally Handicapped" represented by the sixth respondent Secretary. They are getting grant from the Central Government. Even though it is alleged in the writ petition that they have been receiving grant from the State Government and the Cochin Corporation, the same was found not corr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Francis Vs. Preethi Roslin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
R. Basant. J. Mat. Appeal No.75 of 2008: (i) Has not the appellant succeeded in proving that his wife/the respondent was pregnant through another when she entered matrimony with him? (ii) Is he not entitled for a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 19 of the Divorce Act on the ground that his consent for marriage is vitiated by fraud? (iii) Is it fair, just and reasonable to expect him to produce still better evidence to substantiate his claim? These questions are raised for our consideration by Sri.S. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel for the appellant in this appeal. 2. Facts are simple. Parties are Christians by religion. Theirs was a traditional arranged marriage in accordance with the customary religious rites. The betrothal took place on 05-05-2003. The marriage was solemnized on 17-05-2003. They lived together with ample opportunity for physical access after their marriage. It was realised that she was pregnant. Doctor was consulted. Urine test confirmed pregnancy. U...
Tag this Judgment!Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
1. First respondent P.K. Basheer was declared elected to 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency in the election held on April 13, 2011. He was the candidate of Indian Union Muslim League with the election symbol 'ladder'. He was supported by the United Democratic front Indian National Congress and Indian Union Muslim League and similar parties constituting the United Democratic Front. Petitioner was an independent candidate who contested the election with the symbol 'baloon'. Second respondent was the candidate of Communist Party of India supported by the Left Democratic Front. Third respondent was the candidate of Bharathiya Janatha Party. Respondent No.4 was one of the candidates. Though respondents 5 to 7 had filed their nominations, they had withdrawn their candidature before the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers. Sixth respondent, in addition was also the Chief Election Agent of the first respondent. First respondent who secured 58,698 votes as against 47452 vote...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »