Kerala Court May 2012 Judgments
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Org ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-21-2012
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties in CC.130/03 of CDRF, Kannur. The complainants were workers under the 2nd opposite party Central State Farm, Aralam. Their services were terminated as per VSS during 2001. They were subscribers of Employees Provident Fund. The 1st opposite party is administering the EPF accounts of the complainants and is liable to pay EPF benefits to the subscribers. The benefits granted to the complainants after retirement were allegedly very low. 2. The CDRF, Kannur allowed the complaint in part with respect to complainants 2,4,5 and 9. The other complainants were not granted any relief. Apart from enhancing pension no other relief was granted. The said order is challenged by the opposite parties. The opposite parties allowed pension of Rs.503/- to the 2nd complainant. Admittedly she was born on 22.6.41 and her date of retirement was on 21.6.99 on attaining 58 years of age. She had past service of 16 years and pensiona...
Tag this Judgment!Kseb, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram, Reptd. by Its Secretary and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-18-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the Opposite parties/KSEB in CC 168/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. 2. The bill issued by the opposite parties amounting to Rs.55461/- stands cancelled. The appellants have been directed to issue a fresh bill on similar lines as in the direction of the Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 19.1.2010 in the matter of Kerala State Small Industries Association Vs. KSEB as against the statute. 3. The dispute is with respect to the bill issued for the unauthorized connected load for the period from 6/2007 to 6/2008. The bill is dated 20.10.08. The complainant had filed CC.299/08 earlier and the Forum had directed to hear the complainant and issue fresh order. It is thereafter the present bill has been issued which is challenged. 4. The contention is that it was found that there is an unauthorized connected load of 24 KW on inspection by the APTS. A bill was issued mistakenly limiting the amount of fixed charges to 1.5 times wher...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Saswathikananda Mission Hospital Reptd. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-16-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/hospital in CC.17/08 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellant/first opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to return 50% of the treatment expenses collected by the first opposite party vide Ext.A2 series bills with interest at 7% per annum from the date of complaint and also cost of Rs.2,500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is a head load worker that on 14.4.07 he sustained stab injuries on the abdomen and was taken to the first opposite party hospital wherein he underwent surgery. He was an inpatient up to 27.4.07. He was having severe pain at the operation site after 3 and 4 days of the operation. At the place of operation there was infection. Puss was squeezed out and medicines were administered. Subsequently on 12.5.07, he got admitted at the above hospital for the above problems and was an inpatient up to 16.5.07. There was puss on the site....
Tag this Judgment!Thankamma, Mohan Vihar and Another Vs. Aravind Eye Hospital and Post G ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-16-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant in Appeal-206/09 is the complainant in OP.343/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram and the appellant in Appeal-228/09 is the hospital that is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost to be paid within 2 months failing which with interest at 9%. 2. The complainant said to be a poor lady aged 65 years has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hospital/Aravind Eye Hospital and Post Graduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Thirunelveli for having lost her vision to the left eye in consequence to the cataract surgery undergone at the opposite party hospital. The opposite party had conducted an eye camp at Thiruvananthapuram on 4.7.02 and the complainant who was examined was found to be having cataract for which she was advised to undergo an operation to the left eye. She was taken to the 1st opposite party hospital on 5.7.02 and intra ocular lens was implante...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Star Parppada Nirmana Unit Vanitha Swayam Sahaya Sangho ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-16-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in CC 353/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is the Secretary of a Vanitha Swayam Sahaya Sangam consisting of 13 women members that they have started a Parppadaka Nirman Unit at Koliyacode. It was decided to install modern machineries for the making of Parppidakam. The loan of Rs. 3,43.980/- was availed from the Union Bank of India, Pirappancode Branch. The complainant purchased a semi-automatic parpidakam dough shoot cutting machine, water cooling system, powder mixing unit etc. from the first and second opposite parties on 12.10.04 and a sum of Rs.2,45,700/- and Rs.98,280/- was paid. The machineries were purchased through the third opposite party, the authorized agent of the first and second opposite parties. The machineries were installed on 21.11.04. On the next day onwards, certain mechanical defects to one of the machines was ...
Tag this Judgment!Safer Altaf, S/O Mohammed Vs. K. Anilkumar and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-16-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party /contractor in CC.72//09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- for completing the construction work and pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainants/husband and wife is that the first complainant, on 19.4.07 entered into an agreement regarding the construction of a house having an area of 1163 sq.ft. It was agreed that the construction will be over within 6 months. The amount agreed to be paid is Rs.4,50,000/- excluding the wooden works. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,95,000/-. Before completing the construction, the opposite party left for UAE. Subsequently, he returned. The complainant informed him that he will be initiating legal proceedings against the opposite party. The opposite party requested to permit him to complete the construction. Thereupon on 19.3.08, another agreement was entered into and as pe...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Abhilash Vs. Kerala High Court Represented by Its Registrar Gener ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-11-2012
Sankaran, J. 1. Since the questions involved in the three writ appeals and in the two writ petitions are identical, these cases were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The writ appeals were filed by the writ petitioners in the respective writ petitions. Hereinafter, the appellants in the three Writ Appeals are also being referred to as petitioners. 3. The petitioners applied for selection to the post of Munsiff Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service pursuant to the notification dated 31.1.2012. A candidate has to fill up the prescribed application form. Clauses (g), (h),(k) and (m) of paragraph-15 of the notification read as follows: "(g) All the columns should be filled up by the candidate in his/her own hand. Do not fill up any column by dashes or dots or any other marks or leave any column blank. If any column is not applicable, write 'not applicable' against that particular column. (h) Full and correct information shall be furnished against...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.T.R. Bhavani and Another Vs. Shijina and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-11-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in A.312/09 is the 2nd opposite party Gynecologist and the appellant in 332/09 is the 1st opposite party hospital in CC.9/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant/hospital is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and the appellant/doctor is directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/-, within one month form the date of the order failing which with interest at 12% from the date of default and a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that since 15.2.06 she was consulting the 2nd opposite party doctor from the initial stages of 1st pregnancy and necessary tests were done as directed by the doctor. She was told that there is no particular problems. On 3..10..06 she had a fall in the bath room . On 5.10.06 she consulted the doctor and was again told that everything is alright after an ultra sound scan. The expected date of delivery was 12.10.06. She got admitted on 11.10.06. At 8.30pm on 12.10.06 medici...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co; Ltd. Vs. V. Chandran and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-10-2012
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC No. 39/2011. The opposite party No. 1 is the appellant and the respondents are the complainant and 2nd opposite party respectively. 2. The opposite party /appellant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that to pay Rs. 20,000/- @ 9% from 18.12.07 till the date of payment less Rs.3,919/- which they already paid. We directed to the Forum below that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable to pay this amount and it also directed them to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. 3. In short, the complainant is having a case that the 2nd opposite party canvassed an insurance policy which offered by the 1st opposite party to the complainant at the time of proposal; the 2nd opposite party agent made the complainant believe that he will get Rs. 40,000/- if he remitted Rs. 20,000/-as a single premium. Subsequently he received a letter demanding premium. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Motors Ltd., Passenger Car Business Unit and Another Vs. Dr. A.P. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-10-2012
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 209/08 dated : 11.07.2011. The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant respectively. 2. The appellant prefers this appeal from the direction that the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party to replace the vehicle with a new one of the same classification to the complainant by taking back the defective old one or pay the cost of the vehicle paid by the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of the petition within one month of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest p.a from the date of default. 3. In short, the complainant who purchased an Indigo CS LS BS III car from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.4,43,933/- on 15.09.2008. On 14.10.08 while the complainant and his wife were travelling in the vehicle from their house ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »