Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-21-2005
Reported in : II(2006)ACC713; 2006(1)KLT393
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether the acceptance of the premium and the proposal for an insurance policy by themselves create a concluded contract? Whether the loss of the insured boat, without proving that the loss was due to one of the perils insured against, will enable the insured to claim the insured sum? These are the questions to be resolved in the appeal.2. Plaintiff in O.S .No. 63/92 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kochi is challenging the dismissal of the suit in this appeal. Respondents are the defendants. The fishing boat by name 'Kadalthuruthu' was insured with first respondent New India Assurance Company Limited for the period 28-10-1988 to 27-4-1989 under Ext A-2 policy. The policy was not renewed before the expiry of the period. Appellant submitted Ext.B-2 proposal on 11-5-1989. Under Ext.A-2 policy the boat was insured for Rs. 2,00,000. Under Ext.B-2 proposal, appellant claimed the sum assured at Rs. 2,50,000. A premium of Rs. 4,168 was paid on 18-5-1989 for whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-16-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT523
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The revision petitioner challenges the appellate order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.A 16/2000 preferred by her against the order of the Estate Officer, Union Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram dated 21-1-2000 calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate the premises in question on or before 10-3-2000 under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 - Central Act 40/1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act' for short.)2. The admitted facts leading to the order passed by the Estate Officer can be summarised as follows:One Sri. Vasudeva Kurup who was the father of the revision petitioner was the tenant in respect of a shop room bearing building No. T.C. No. 26/112 in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram City. O.P. B.R.C. No. 254/1970 was filed by the then landlord of the building against the said Vasudeva Kurup for eviction of the premises on the ground of sub lease falling unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-07-2005
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR950]; (2006)3LLJ81Ker
J.M. James, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether an employee under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in short 'the Act', is entitled for the benefit of extended sickness, even when such an employee, due to the wage limit, had gone out of the insurance contribution coverage, for a particular period, because of the application of Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, in short 'the Rules'.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an Assistant Spinning Master in Eurospin Industries Ltd., at Chelembra, Kozhikode District. He was an insured employee under the ESI Scheme from June 8, 1993. However, he had gone out of the Insurance coverage from April 1, 1995 to December 31, 1996. Thus, there was no contribution made by him towards the ESI Scheme, and hence, he is not entitled for any benefit. On January 1, 1997, he came within the insurance coverage by virtue of application of Rule 50 of the Rules, and pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-17-2005
Reported in : 2006ACJ432; AIR2006Ker125; [2006(2)JCR501]; 2005(4)KLT977
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. When the above Miscellaneous First Appeal came up for hearing, a Division Bench, consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.A. Abdul Gafoor and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, noticed that there is apparently conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches on the question canvassed by the appellant -- the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, namely, whether compensation could be awarded separately on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity. The learned Judges were of the view that since the question is raised most often, an authoritative pronouncement on the issue is required to be made. The question has been referred for consideration of a Full Bench, in the above context.2. Sri. V. Hariprasad, first respondent herein, aged about 18 years, sustained an amputation injury in a motor accident, which had occurred on 13.11.1993, whereby his right hand had been chopped of from the shoulder. Evidently the trauma and loss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-17-2005
Reported in : I(2006)ACC539
M. Ramachandran, J.1. When the above Miscellaneous First Appeal came up for hearing, a Division Bench, consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice, K.A. Abdul Gafoor and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, noticed that, there is apparently conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches on the question canvassed by the appellant-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, namely, whether compensation could be awarded separatly on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity. The learned Judges were of the view that since the question is raised most often, an authoritative pronouncement on the issue is required to be made. The question has been referred for consideration of a Full Bench, in the above context.2. Sri V. Hariprasad, first respondent herein, aged about 18 years, sustained an amputation injury in a motor accident, which had occurred on 13.11.1993, whereby his right hand had been chopped of from the shoulder. Evidently, the trauma and loss suffer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-11-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Ker46; 2006(1)KLT294
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) 23174/20051. The petitioner, an Association of the residents of Shastri Nagar Colony, near Eranhipalam in Kozhikode, has filed this Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by the steps taken by the 1st respondent Calicut Development Authority, to sell 58 cents of open space in that colony, to the Lakshadweep Administration. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The 1st respondent acquired 13.09 acres of land and developed it into a housing colony and the members of the Association were sold plots, having various extents, as per Ext.P3 and similar sale deeds. In the said colony, two plots have been set apart as open spaces, having an extent of 42 cents and 58 cents respectively. Ext.P2, the approved lay out plan of the colony, would show that they are meant for parks, play ground and nursery school. The open space on the eastern side, which was set apart for parks and nursery school, is now presently used as a basket-ball court and play ground for chi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-05-2005
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC469; 2005(4)KLT391
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Insurance Ombudsman has rejected the complaints filed by Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Limited under Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998, (for short 'the Rules') claiming an amount of Rs. 9,44,551/- with interest from the United India Insurance Company Limited and also Rs. 10,94,404/- with interest from the National Insurance Company Limited. Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi dismissed both the complaints stating as follows:'On an examination of the allegations in the complaint and the cause title of the complaint, I find that the insured is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and hence the Insurance policy cannot be said to have been taken on 'Personal Lines' or in other words, in an 'Individual Capacity' as defined in Rule 4 (i) and in Rule 4(k) of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 and as such, the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint and grant the relief.'2. Petitioner, a pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-17-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT539; (2006)ILLJ814Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether incentive payments voluntarily paid by the employer at three months' interval is wages as defined under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The period for which the demand was raised is 1-10-1989 to 31-3-1992. The Employees' Insurance Court held that the above payments are not wages under Section 2(22) of the Act and the demands were set aside. E.S.I. Corporation questions the same in this appeal. Wages are defined under Section 2(22) of the Act as follows:'(22)'wages' means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment express or implied, were fulfilled and includes any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out, strike which is not illegal or layoff and other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months, but does not include--(a) any contribut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-11-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT584; (2006)ILLJ544Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee in view of Section 93A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment'), covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11-12-1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext.B2 dated 21-12-1987, Ext.B4 dated 20-5-1988 and Ext.B20 dated 2-6-1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed after notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were deman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-11-2005
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR1209]
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and d...
Tag this Judgment!