Kerala Court May 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.
M/S. J.K. Tyres and Industries Ltd. Vs. Sri. K. Purushothaman and Anot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-09-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Appellant is the second opposite party in CC.71/10 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to replace the five tyres and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The appellant was ex-parte before the Forum. 3. It is submitted that the notice was not served. All the same and in view of the fact that the order cannot be treated as a considered one the same is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant.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 to contest the matter and dispose of the matter on merits. The matter stands posted before the Forum below on 21.6.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
Korea Electric Power Data Network Company Limited Vs. the Government o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-08-2012
The petitioner, a company established by the Korean Electric Power Corporation, which is a fully owned company of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P26 order dated 27.12.2010 issued by the State Government cancelling Ext.P17 Government order dated 4.9.2010, by which, the State Government had accorded sanction to the Kerala State Electricity Board to award the work of implementation of IT systems under Part A of the Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Program in the State of Kerala. The petitioner also seeks an order restraining the second respondent from terminating the work awarded to it or from re-tendering the work and a consequential direction to the second respondent to release the mobilization amount of Rs.18.94 Crores for which bank guarantee has already been furnished by the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. With a view to achieve loss reduction in the transmission and di...
K.P.K. Unnithan Vs. M/S Easland Enclave Apartment and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-08-2012
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.40/08 in the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. Complainants 2 and 3 were owners and residents of flat Nos.502 and 503 in the Easland Enclave apartments, Ernakulam. It is alleged that they had engaged the appellant in executing the work of leak proofing work on the terrace of the complainants. The appellant had assured the complainants that he was an expert in leak proofing work and used to effectively carry out leak proofing work with minimum guaranty of 5 years. It was accordingly the work was entrusted to him. The appellant received an amount of Rs.47040/- from the complainants as per bill dated 30.11.06 towards the terrace leak proofing charges. The leak proofing work done by the opposite party was a total failure and it served no purpose. The leak from the terrace has only aggravated. The failure of the appellant to rectify the defects despite demands resulted in the complaint. I...
The Chief Executive, Karthikappally Taluk Co-operative Agricultural an ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-08-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Co-operative Bank in CC.No.21/11 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint has been allowed directing to write off the alleged loan dues and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The opposite parties/appellant did not contest the matter. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the matter has been disposed of un-contested and is not a considered order although on account of the lapse on the part of the appellants the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as 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 parties to file version and contest the matter. The case stands posted before the Forum below on 21.6.12. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Kothanandan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party in CC No. 296/2000 who is aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,88,160/- with interest at 9% p.a from the date of complaint till payment with costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum below. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he was the registered owner of a Maruti car bearing Reg.No. TN/09 H 3699 and that the vehicle was covered under a comprehensive policy issued by the 1st opposite party for the period from 24.6.1997 to 23.6.1998 and that the vehicle was handed over to the 3rd opposite party who took the vehicle from Madras to his native place at Malappuram and that on 26.11.97 the vehicle was found missing from the house of the 3rd opposite party. It was his very case that, a case was registered before the Malappuram Police and on 20.11.1998 the police had filed a final report sta...
Sophiamma George, Kasamkulam House, Mannanam P.O., Kottayam Vs. the Br ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.50/2010 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint stands dismissed. It is the case of the complainant that the cheque for Rs.4.lakhs sent by her son from Irelanddated:25.11.2009 got encashed by somebody else. It is alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank in not verifying the signature to the complainant/account holder. He has sought for return of the amount of Rs.4.lakhs and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 2. The opposite party bank has filed version contending that the cheque was a bearer cheque and hence the same was encashed. It is stated that the bearer cheque can be encashed by the bearer and the alleged deficiency in service is denied. 3. The evidence adduced consisted by the proof affidavit filed by the respective sides and Exts.A1 to A5 and B1. 4. We find that Ext.A1 cheque is not a crossed cheque. The account number therein has been scored off and the portion ...
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Burnacherry, Kannur and Others ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.249/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. Bills issued by the appellants stands cancelled. Further it is directed that the amount of Rs.3000/- remitted by the complainant to be adjusted in future bills and also to reconsider the issue of additional connected load and to provide an opportunity to the complainant to be heard. 2. The matter is with respect to Ext.A2 and A3 bills issued amounting to Rs.16,943/- consequent to the inspection by the APTS. It was found that the complainant was running a home stay by name Suchee Home Stay, Burnacherry. Ext.B1 is the mahazer prepared by the APTS. It was found that there was 5 KW excess connected load. Applying Section 126 of the Electricity Act and Regulation 50 (5) and (6) of the Conditions of Supply the Board issued the additional bill for 12 months previous consumption at the rate of commercial tariff and for unauthorized additional load at 2 times of fixed ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sateesan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.47/07 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.74,240/- with interest at 9% from 15.2.2007 the date of complaint and cost of Rs.2000/- and that if the amount is not paid within one month the complainant will be eligible for interest at 12%. 2. The case of the complainant is that he sustained injuries on 17.1.2006 as hit by an autorikshaw resulting in fracture of left hand. He was an inpatient up to 12.3.2006 in various hospitals. He underwent open reduction and internal fixation and bone grafting. He has been paid only Rs.10,000/- although the policy coverage is Rs.1,25,000/-. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1.lakh towards the sum insured and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 3. Opposite parties have filed version contending that the complainant has been paid Rs.10,000/- to which alone he is entitled to. 4. Evide...
Tata Motors Ltd., Represented by Its- General Manager, Tata Motors, La ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-05-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The order passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in CC No. 121/08 to pay Rs.80,000/- towards the repair charges along with Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as compensation and cost respectively is under attack by the appellants/opposite parties in this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that a Tata Model 1109 bus was purchased by the complainant on 19.10.05 from the opposite parties which suffered defects on the very first day of running the vehicle in Dec. 2005. Thereafter frequent failure of oil/fuel injection system occurred and had to be repaired. The assurance of the opposite parties was not fruitful during the warranty period itself and the complainant had to spend Rs.60,000/- and was under pressure to cancel the bus trips due to breakdown of the vehicle for more than 74 days. The complainant sustained huge loss and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and filed complaint before the Forum below for replacement of the vehicle or to reali...
Consumer Protection Council of Kerala, Rep. by Its General Secretary a ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-05-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The Order of the dismissal of complaint in CC No. 244/08 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram is challenged by the 2nd complainant in this appeal. 2. The main crux of the case is that the 1st respondent, FCI withheld a portion of the C.P.F. on retirement due to the 2nd complainant who was its employee. The delay caused was for 3 months and the 2nd complainant filed the case for payment of interest for the delayed payment and compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is the very case of the complainant that a sum of Rs.4,50,762/- towards final payment of CPF which was sanctioned had been withheld by 1st opposite party for 3 months and the amount was disbursed only after a delay of 3 months. The complaint is filed for an amount of Rs.11,392/- towards interest and compensation for Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. 3. The contention of the opposite parties is that the 2nd complainant suppressed the actual facts of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »