Kerala Court April 2014 Judgments
E.V. Saji Vs. the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.237/2013 in the CDRF, Thrissur. His complaint was rejected by the Consumer Forum at the stage of admission holding that the complaint was barred by limitation in view of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The allegations on which the complaint was founded in brief were the following. The complainant was the owner of Tata Sumo Car bearing Reg.No.KL-8-KA-1809 and the vehicle was insured with the second opposite party. On 25.03.2002 three unidentified persons hired the car saying that they were going to Kottayam Medical College. One Suresh Babu, was the driver of the vehicle and the vehicle was hired from the taxi stand near the KSRTC bus stand, Thrissur. It appears that nothing was heard of the vehicle and the driver subsequently and hence the brother of the driver namely one Mohanan approached the Thrissur East Police Station and lodged complaint. Based on his complaint Crime No.125/2002 was regist...
Tag this Judgment!Lissy Wilson, Memuriyil Veedu, Omallor Village, Kozhencherry Taluk Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC 97/2011 in the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta seeking modification of the order of the Forum dated August 21, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant entrusted the construction work of 2 rooms in the upstair of her house to the opposite party by agreement Ext.A2 dated. 10/05/2010 for Rs.1100/- per square feet. The opposite party has agreed to use only quality materials for construction. But the opposite party used poor quality materials for the construction as a result of which cracks developed in plastering, door frames and door panels. Therefore complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest and cost. 3. The case of the opposite party before the Forum was of total denial. He contented that he has used good quality materials and the defects alleged in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Kottakkal Kunhalimarakkar, Higher Secondary School, Kottakkal and Anot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 415/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated July 31, 2013. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for getting admission to +1 regular course for his son. On the instruction of the 1st opposite party, 2nd opposite party collected Rs.5,000/- from the complainant towards admission charge. After completing the admission when enquired it was found out that it is not a regular course, but a parallel course. Therefore complainant claimed refund of Rs.5,000/- paid by him at the time of admission, but 2nd opposite party refused and stated that complainant is entitled to the refund of caution deposit of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint c...
Tag this Judgment!Mariamma Koshy, Retd.Principal Vs. Nagarajan and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member The appellant was the second opposite party in CC.No.237/2007 in the CDRF, Kollam. The second complainant is the son of the first complainant. The second complainant had applied for admission in VHSE course in Govt Model Higher Secondary School, Thevally, Kollam. The first opposite party was the Director Department of VHSE and the second opposite party was the Principal of the Govt Model Higher Secondary School, Thevally, Kollam. It is alleged in the complaint that the second complainant got memo for admission from T.K.D.M.Govt VHSS Higher Secondary School, Kadappakkada, Kollam. He attended the interview there on 29.06.2007 and got admission for M.S.Course. He had remitted Rs.950/- as admission fee and submitted original certificates there. Then the second complainant got memo for admission from the school of the second opposite party with direction to appear for interview for M.L.T and MOBE courses. The complainants attended the interview with pho...
Tag this Judgment!Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. and Another Vs. T.F. Mariyan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
A. Radha, Member Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.463/11 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of opposite party cable service and the subscription was paid on annual basis. The service has to be provided till 30th September 2011. While so, the cable service was stopped on 10th July 2011 and was not rectified even on several requests made by the complainant. The channels were provided by Analog Mode. The complaint is filed to revive the cable T.V connection and for other reliefs. 3. The opposite parties admitted the stoppage of transmission to the complainants residence. The reason for stoppage was due to the conversion of analog mode of transmission to digitalized mode. The digitalization of cable transmission was in lieu of the direction by the TRAI. It is stated that the complainant had not furnished the address proof and ID proof as pre-requisites for the installation of set top box, free...
Tag this Judgment!Basheer Kutty Vs. the Secretary, District Co-operative Bank and Anothe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.289/2009 in the CDRF, Kollam. He had availed a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the opposite party bank. The loan was secured on his property having an extent of 4.15 acres and a building there on. The loan was repayable with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. It is alleged in the complaint itself that since the complainant could not make prompt repayments there were accumulated arrears to the bank. Hence the opposite parties filed arbitration proceedings before the Arbitrator under the Co-operative Societies Act as ARC No.127/2007 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,16,983/- including interest of Rs.2,19,983/- and an exparte order was passed allowing recovery of Rs.9,16,983/- with the agreed interest for the principal amount. The complainant took up the matter in revision before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The Co-operative Tribunal modified the order and allowed the bank to realize a sum of Rs.7,16...
Tag this Judgment!The Postmaster, Irinjalakuda Head Office Vs. C.V. John
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
V.V. Jose : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in CC.No.490/08 dated 03.01.2013 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The case of the complainant is as follows. Complainant purchased a Kissan Vikas Pathra from the respondent on 27.04.2002 with a promise of doubling the amount after 5 years. The respondents denied payment in double after the promised 5 years and told that the period of maturity was changed to 8 years for doubling the amount. The reduction of interest and extension of maturity period was not intimated to the complainant and hence this complaint. 2. The version filed by the respondents admitted the purchase of Kissan Vikas Pathra on 27.04.02 and issued the Certificate No.10906. The amount will be doubled only on 27.12.09 as the revised maturity fixed by the Government of India with effect from 01.03.2002. This was noted in the reverse page of the Kissan Vikas Pathra by a rubber stamp. As per Section 11 of Savings Certificate Act 1959 no suit or legal procee...
Tag this Judgment!Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and Another Vs. S. Girish and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President Both these appeals arise out of the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzhain C.C.123/2011 dated August 27, 2012. Appeal 966/12 is by first opposite party and appeal 44/13 is by the 2nd opposite party. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro GL car bearing regn.No.KL 29C/3207 from second opposite party for Rs.3,70,000/- on 06/11/2010. The second opposite party did not provide the car with ATS power windows. Therefore on 21/12/2010 3rd opposite party who is an employee of 2nd opposite party took the vehicle for first service and for providing the car with power windows. When the car reached at Kayamkulam it met with an accident and the car was completely damaged. The request of the complainant to replace the damaged car with a new one was rejected by 2nd opposite party. The car was insured with the 4th opposite party, M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance C...
Tag this Judgment!Philip Mathew Vs. Director of Public Instruction
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE29H DAY OF APRIL20149TH VAISAKHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 3464 of 2014 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONER:- ---------------- PHILIP MATHEW, H.S.A, HOLY FAMILY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, RAJAPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. RESIDENCE AT:MANIPARAMBIL HOUSE ERAVIMANGALAM.P.O, NEAR CHAKKIRIMUKKU KOTTAYAM-686 613. BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-2.2. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF SCHOOLS ARCHEPARCHY OF KOTTAYAM, CHAITHANYA PASTORAL CENTRE, THELLAKOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 630.3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERALEDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL R1 & R3 BY SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL...
Tag this Judgment!Basheer Abdulla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE29H DAY OF APRIL20149TH VAISAKHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 10115 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- BASHEER ABDULLA4381, MAVATHODI HOUSE, VETTUKKATTIRI VALLATHOLE NAGAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM -676 505.3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE TIRUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM -676 505. R1 RO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2904-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 10115 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- E...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »