Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others

Decided On : Aug-31-2009

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 1 => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
			(int) 2 => 'Ambani Pioneer Offer',
			(int) 3 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 4 => 'Rs.5000/-',
			(int) 5 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 6 => 'the Reliance Capital Limited',
			(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 8 => 'Reliance Capital Limited',
			(int) 9 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 10 => 'Rs.2000/-',
			(int) 11 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 12 => 'Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 13 => 'SBI',
			(int) 14 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 15 => 'Rs.2000/-',
			(int) 16 => 'Rs.1500/-',
			(int) 17 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 18 => 'the District Forum'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
			(int) 1 => 'Palasa',
			(int) 2 => 'DD',
			(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 5 => 'no.4',
			(int) 6 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 7 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 8 => 'p.a.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '12',
			(int) 1 => 'two',
			(int) 2 => '31.10.2003',
			(int) 3 => 'two',
			(int) 4 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
			(int) 5 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '3',
			(int) 8 => 'A1 to A9',
			(int) 9 => '1 to 4',
			(int) 10 => '1 to 3',
			(int) 11 => '12',
			(int) 12 => 'two',
			(int) 13 => 'two',
			(int) 14 => 'two',
			(int) 15 => '31.10.2003',
			(int) 16 => '23.10.2003',
			(int) 17 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one month',
			(int) 1 => '3.3.2003',
			(int) 2 => '3.3.2003',
			(int) 3 => '15 months',
			(int) 4 => 'four weeks'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'fourth'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24%',
			(int) 1 => '12%',
			(int) 2 => '12%',
			(int) 3 => '12%',
			(int) 4 => '12%'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.3000/-',
			(int) 1 => 'Exs',
			(int) 2 => 'Demand Draft'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.2,000/-',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.60,000/-',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.2000'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1111166',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'F.A.No.123 of 2007  against C.D.No.40 of 2004, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam ',
			'appellant' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.L.V. Ram Mohan Rao',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2009-08-31',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'SMT. M. SHREESHA, HONâBLE MEMBER &amp; SRI K. SATYANAND , HONâBLE MEMBER',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Order (Per Smt M. Shreesha, Honble Member)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.40/2004 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam the complainant preferred this appeal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a Development Officer in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Srikakulam . The complainant applied for a cell phone connection of the opposite party attracted by the package offer namely âDheerubai Ambani Pioneer Offer introduced by the opposite parties and paid an amount of Rs.5000/- by way demand draft and also submitted 12 post dated cheques of Rs.1,800/- each in favour of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties issued a receipt-cum -acknowledgement dt.3.3.2003 and assured the complainant that the cell phone connection with handset will be given within one month time through fourth opp.party. Inspite of several requests the opposite parties failed to deliver the cell phone handset. Hence the complainant through letter dt.1.12.2003 requested the State Bank of India , Palasa to stop payment for the post dated cheques collected by the opposite parties informing about non issue of cell phone connection, but in the meanwhile the opposite parties have encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003. The opposite parties without issuing cell phone connection encashed the DD for Rs.5000/- and two post dated cheques for Rs.1800/- each and thereby caused deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- along with subsequent interest @ of 24% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.3000/- towards legal expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Authorised signatory of opposite parties 1 to 3 filed counter stating that they have duly dispatched the handset from Mumbai to the complainant, but the complainant did not receive the handset and made a telephone stating that he is not in town when the handset reached and requested not to send the handset till another phone call is made by him. As the post dated cheques were given to the Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity and as the fact of the non delivery of handset was not known to them, cheques were presented in due course and after knowing the fact of non delivery of handset they have stopped the encashment of the cheques and the complainant was assured to refund the collected amount. The opposite parties submit that the complainant did not approach them to collect the amount and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The opposite party no.4 though received notice did not contest the matter and remained exparte. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 documents filed on behalf of the complainant and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses including advocates fee of Rs.500/- </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The facts not in dispute are that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have organized a package offer and the complainant applied for a cell phone connection by paying Rs.5000/- by way of Demand Draft and issued 12 post dated cheques drawn in favour of the opposite party at Rs.1,800/- each but the complainant did not receive any handset and not receive the cell phone connection from the opposite party . It is the case of the opposite parties that they have dispatched the hand set to the complainant but the same could not be delivered as the complainant was not available and the complainant instructed over phone to dispatch the handset only after receiving the message from him. In the mean time two post dated cheques were encashed by Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity to which the cheques were handed over not knowing the fact of non delivery of hand set to the complainant. It is observed from the record that the respondents/opp.parties have not filed any material in proof of their contention that the handset dispatched through courier service. Neither the courier receipt nor any other documentary evidence has been filed by the respondents/opp.parties . Having admitted that two post dated cheques were encashed the act of the opposite parties in not delivering the hand set to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service for which the District Forum directed the opp.parties to refund Rs.8,600/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization. The appellant/complainant seeks for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2000/- awarded by the District Forum and claims compensation of Rs.60,000/-. It is appellants contention that the respondents/opp.parties encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003 and the cheque dated 23.10.2003 issued by him in favour of Life Insurance Corporation was dishonoured for want of funds in his account. The appellant/complainant further submits that he paid Rs.600/- towards stop payment charges to SBI and waited for 15 months for refund of the collected amount for which he seeks compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.30,000/- towards damages. We are of the considered view that the complainant has not established any substantiate grounds for the increase in compensation awarded by the District Forum. The District Forum already awarded interest at 12% by way of damages together with Rs.2000/- towards compensation. The actual loss suffered by the complainant for non delivery of the hand set has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence either in respect to his profession or any business loss suffered by him to necessitate increase in the compensation. The interest at 12% p.a. has already been awarded with reasonable compensation of Rs.2000 and also costs of Rs.1500/-. We see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum . </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1111166'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 1 => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
		(int) 2 => 'Ambani Pioneer Offer',
		(int) 3 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 4 => 'Rs.5000/-',
		(int) 5 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 6 => 'the Reliance Capital Limited',
		(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 8 => 'Reliance Capital Limited',
		(int) 9 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 10 => 'Rs.2000/-',
		(int) 11 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 12 => 'Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 13 => 'SBI',
		(int) 14 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 15 => 'Rs.2000/-',
		(int) 16 => 'Rs.1500/-',
		(int) 17 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 18 => 'the District Forum'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
		(int) 1 => 'Palasa',
		(int) 2 => 'DD',
		(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 5 => 'no.4',
		(int) 6 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 7 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 8 => 'p.a.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '12',
		(int) 1 => 'two',
		(int) 2 => '31.10.2003',
		(int) 3 => 'two',
		(int) 4 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
		(int) 5 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '3',
		(int) 8 => 'A1 to A9',
		(int) 9 => '1 to 4',
		(int) 10 => '1 to 3',
		(int) 11 => '12',
		(int) 12 => 'two',
		(int) 13 => 'two',
		(int) 14 => 'two',
		(int) 15 => '31.10.2003',
		(int) 16 => '23.10.2003',
		(int) 17 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one month',
		(int) 1 => '3.3.2003',
		(int) 2 => '3.3.2003',
		(int) 3 => '15 months',
		(int) 4 => 'four weeks'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'fourth'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24%',
		(int) 1 => '12%',
		(int) 2 => '12%',
		(int) 3 => '12%',
		(int) 4 => '12%'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.3000/-',
		(int) 1 => 'Exs',
		(int) 2 => 'Demand Draft'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.2,000/-',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.60,000/-',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.2000'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1111166',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'F.A.No.123 of 2007  against C.D.No.40 of 2004, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam ',
		'appellant' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.L.V. Ram Mohan Rao',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2009-08-31',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'SMT. M. SHREESHA, HONâBLE MEMBER &amp; SRI K. SATYANAND , HONâBLE MEMBER',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Order (Per Smt M. Shreesha, Honble Member)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.40/2004 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam the complainant preferred this appeal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a Development Officer in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Srikakulam . The complainant applied for a cell phone connection of the opposite party attracted by the package offer namely âDheerubai Ambani Pioneer Offer introduced by the opposite parties and paid an amount of Rs.5000/- by way demand draft and also submitted 12 post dated cheques of Rs.1,800/- each in favour of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties issued a receipt-cum -acknowledgement dt.3.3.2003 and assured the complainant that the cell phone connection with handset will be given within one month time through fourth opp.party. Inspite of several requests the opposite parties failed to deliver the cell phone handset. Hence the complainant through letter dt.1.12.2003 requested the State Bank of India , Palasa to stop payment for the post dated cheques collected by the opposite parties informing about non issue of cell phone connection, but in the meanwhile the opposite parties have encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003. The opposite parties without issuing cell phone connection encashed the DD for Rs.5000/- and two post dated cheques for Rs.1800/- each and thereby caused deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- along with subsequent interest @ of 24% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.3000/- towards legal expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Authorised signatory of opposite parties 1 to 3 filed counter stating that they have duly dispatched the handset from Mumbai to the complainant, but the complainant did not receive the handset and made a telephone stating that he is not in town when the handset reached and requested not to send the handset till another phone call is made by him. As the post dated cheques were given to the Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity and as the fact of the non delivery of handset was not known to them, cheques were presented in due course and after knowing the fact of non delivery of handset they have stopped the encashment of the cheques and the complainant was assured to refund the collected amount. The opposite parties submit that the complainant did not approach them to collect the amount and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The opposite party no.4 though received notice did not contest the matter and remained exparte. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 documents filed on behalf of the complainant and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses including advocates fee of Rs.500/- </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The facts not in dispute are that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have organized a package offer and the complainant applied for a cell phone connection by paying Rs.5000/- by way of Demand Draft and issued 12 post dated cheques drawn in favour of the opposite party at Rs.1,800/- each but the complainant did not receive any handset and not receive the cell phone connection from the opposite party . It is the case of the opposite parties that they have dispatched the hand set to the complainant but the same could not be delivered as the complainant was not available and the complainant instructed over phone to dispatch the handset only after receiving the message from him. In the mean time two post dated cheques were encashed by Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity to which the cheques were handed over not knowing the fact of non delivery of hand set to the complainant. It is observed from the record that the respondents/opp.parties have not filed any material in proof of their contention that the handset dispatched through courier service. Neither the courier receipt nor any other documentary evidence has been filed by the respondents/opp.parties . Having admitted that two post dated cheques were encashed the act of the opposite parties in not delivering the hand set to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service for which the District Forum directed the opp.parties to refund Rs.8,600/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization. The appellant/complainant seeks for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2000/- awarded by the District Forum and claims compensation of Rs.60,000/-. It is appellants contention that the respondents/opp.parties encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003 and the cheque dated 23.10.2003 issued by him in favour of Life Insurance Corporation was dishonoured for want of funds in his account. The appellant/complainant further submits that he paid Rs.600/- towards stop payment charges to SBI and waited for 15 months for refund of the collected amount for which he seeks compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.30,000/- towards damages. We are of the considered view that the complainant has not established any substantiate grounds for the increase in compensation awarded by the District Forum. The District Forum already awarded interest at 12% by way of damages together with Rs.2000/- towards compensation. The actual loss suffered by the complainant for non delivery of the hand set has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence either in respect to his profession or any business loss suffered by him to necessitate increase in the compensation. The interest at 12% p.a. has already been awarded with reasonable compensation of Rs.2000 and also costs of Rs.1500/-. We see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum . </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1111166'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 1 => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
			(int) 2 => 'Ambani Pioneer Offer',
			(int) 3 => 'the State Bank of India',
			(int) 4 => 'Rs.5000/-',
			(int) 5 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 6 => 'the Reliance Capital Limited',
			(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 8 => 'Reliance Capital Limited',
			(int) 9 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 10 => 'Rs.2000/-',
			(int) 11 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 12 => 'Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 13 => 'SBI',
			(int) 14 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 15 => 'Rs.2000/-',
			(int) 16 => 'Rs.1500/-',
			(int) 17 => 'the District Forum',
			(int) 18 => 'the District Forum'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
			(int) 1 => 'Palasa',
			(int) 2 => 'DD',
			(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 5 => 'no.4',
			(int) 6 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 7 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 8 => 'p.a.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '12',
			(int) 1 => 'two',
			(int) 2 => '31.10.2003',
			(int) 3 => 'two',
			(int) 4 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
			(int) 5 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '3',
			(int) 8 => 'A1 to A9',
			(int) 9 => '1 to 4',
			(int) 10 => '1 to 3',
			(int) 11 => '12',
			(int) 12 => 'two',
			(int) 13 => 'two',
			(int) 14 => 'two',
			(int) 15 => '31.10.2003',
			(int) 16 => '23.10.2003',
			(int) 17 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one month',
			(int) 1 => '3.3.2003',
			(int) 2 => '3.3.2003',
			(int) 3 => '15 months',
			(int) 4 => 'four weeks'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'fourth'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24%',
			(int) 1 => '12%',
			(int) 2 => '12%',
			(int) 3 => '12%',
			(int) 4 => '12%'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.3000/-',
			(int) 1 => 'Exs',
			(int) 2 => 'Demand Draft'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.2,000/-',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.60,000/-',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.2000'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1111166',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'F.A.No.123 of 2007  against C.D.No.40 of 2004, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam ',
			'appellant' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.L.V. Ram Mohan Rao',
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2009-08-31',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'SMT. M. SHREESHA, HONâBLE MEMBER &amp; SRI K. SATYANAND , HONâBLE MEMBER',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Order (Per Smt M. Shreesha, Honble Member)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.40/2004 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam the complainant preferred this appeal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a Development Officer in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Srikakulam . The complainant applied for a cell phone connection of the opposite party attracted by the package offer namely âDheerubai Ambani Pioneer Offer introduced by the opposite parties and paid an amount of Rs.5000/- by way demand draft and also submitted 12 post dated cheques of Rs.1,800/- each in favour of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties issued a receipt-cum -acknowledgement dt.3.3.2003 and assured the complainant that the cell phone connection with handset will be given within one month time through fourth opp.party. Inspite of several requests the opposite parties failed to deliver the cell phone handset. Hence the complainant through letter dt.1.12.2003 requested the State Bank of India , Palasa to stop payment for the post dated cheques collected by the opposite parties informing about non issue of cell phone connection, but in the meanwhile the opposite parties have encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003. The opposite parties without issuing cell phone connection encashed the DD for Rs.5000/- and two post dated cheques for Rs.1800/- each and thereby caused deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- along with subsequent interest @ of 24% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.3000/- towards legal expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Authorised signatory of opposite parties 1 to 3 filed counter stating that they have duly dispatched the handset from Mumbai to the complainant, but the complainant did not receive the handset and made a telephone stating that he is not in town when the handset reached and requested not to send the handset till another phone call is made by him. As the post dated cheques were given to the Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity and as the fact of the non delivery of handset was not known to them, cheques were presented in due course and after knowing the fact of non delivery of handset they have stopped the encashment of the cheques and the complainant was assured to refund the collected amount. The opposite parties submit that the complainant did not approach them to collect the amount and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The opposite party no.4 though received notice did not contest the matter and remained exparte. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 documents filed on behalf of the complainant and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses including advocates fee of Rs.500/- </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The facts not in dispute are that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have organized a package offer and the complainant applied for a cell phone connection by paying Rs.5000/- by way of Demand Draft and issued 12 post dated cheques drawn in favour of the opposite party at Rs.1,800/- each but the complainant did not receive any handset and not receive the cell phone connection from the opposite party . It is the case of the opposite parties that they have dispatched the hand set to the complainant but the same could not be delivered as the complainant was not available and the complainant instructed over phone to dispatch the handset only after receiving the message from him. In the mean time two post dated cheques were encashed by Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity to which the cheques were handed over not knowing the fact of non delivery of hand set to the complainant. It is observed from the record that the respondents/opp.parties have not filed any material in proof of their contention that the handset dispatched through courier service. Neither the courier receipt nor any other documentary evidence has been filed by the respondents/opp.parties . Having admitted that two post dated cheques were encashed the act of the opposite parties in not delivering the hand set to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service for which the District Forum directed the opp.parties to refund Rs.8,600/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization. The appellant/complainant seeks for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2000/- awarded by the District Forum and claims compensation of Rs.60,000/-. It is appellants contention that the respondents/opp.parties encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003 and the cheque dated 23.10.2003 issued by him in favour of Life Insurance Corporation was dishonoured for want of funds in his account. The appellant/complainant further submits that he paid Rs.600/- towards stop payment charges to SBI and waited for 15 months for refund of the collected amount for which he seeks compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.30,000/- towards damages. We are of the considered view that the complainant has not established any substantiate grounds for the increase in compensation awarded by the District Forum. The District Forum already awarded interest at 12% by way of damages together with Rs.2000/- towards compensation. The actual loss suffered by the complainant for non delivery of the hand set has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence either in respect to his profession or any business loss suffered by him to necessitate increase in the compensation. The interest at 12% p.a. has already been awarded with reasonable compensation of Rs.2000 and also costs of Rs.1500/-. We see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum . </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1111166'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 1 => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
		(int) 2 => 'Ambani Pioneer Offer',
		(int) 3 => 'the State Bank of India',
		(int) 4 => 'Rs.5000/-',
		(int) 5 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 6 => 'the Reliance Capital Limited',
		(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 8 => 'Reliance Capital Limited',
		(int) 9 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 10 => 'Rs.2000/-',
		(int) 11 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 12 => 'Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 13 => 'SBI',
		(int) 14 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 15 => 'Rs.2000/-',
		(int) 16 => 'Rs.1500/-',
		(int) 17 => 'the District Forum',
		(int) 18 => 'the District Forum'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Srikakulam',
		(int) 1 => 'Palasa',
		(int) 2 => 'DD',
		(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 5 => 'no.4',
		(int) 6 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 7 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 8 => 'p.a.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '12',
		(int) 1 => 'two',
		(int) 2 => '31.10.2003',
		(int) 3 => 'two',
		(int) 4 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
		(int) 5 => 'Rs.30,000/-',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '3',
		(int) 8 => 'A1 to A9',
		(int) 9 => '1 to 4',
		(int) 10 => '1 to 3',
		(int) 11 => '12',
		(int) 12 => 'two',
		(int) 13 => 'two',
		(int) 14 => 'two',
		(int) 15 => '31.10.2003',
		(int) 16 => '23.10.2003',
		(int) 17 => 'Rs.30,000/-'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one month',
		(int) 1 => '3.3.2003',
		(int) 2 => '3.3.2003',
		(int) 3 => '15 months',
		(int) 4 => 'four weeks'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'fourth'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24%',
		(int) 1 => '12%',
		(int) 2 => '12%',
		(int) 3 => '12%',
		(int) 4 => '12%'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.3000/-',
		(int) 1 => 'Exs',
		(int) 2 => 'Demand Draft'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.2,000/-',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.60,000/-',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.2000'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1111166',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'F.A.No.123 of 2007  against C.D.No.40 of 2004, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam ',
		'appellant' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Potnuru Venkata Rama Rao Vs. Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.L.V. Ram Mohan Rao',
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2009-08-31',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'SMT. M. SHREESHA, HONâBLE MEMBER &amp; SRI K. SATYANAND , HONâBLE MEMBER',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Order (Per Smt M. Shreesha, Honble Member)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.40/2004 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam the complainant preferred this appeal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a Development Officer in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Srikakulam . The complainant applied for a cell phone connection of the opposite party attracted by the package offer namely âDheerubai Ambani Pioneer Offer introduced by the opposite parties and paid an amount of Rs.5000/- by way demand draft and also submitted 12 post dated cheques of Rs.1,800/- each in favour of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties issued a receipt-cum -acknowledgement dt.3.3.2003 and assured the complainant that the cell phone connection with handset will be given within one month time through fourth opp.party. Inspite of several requests the opposite parties failed to deliver the cell phone handset. Hence the complainant through letter dt.1.12.2003 requested the State Bank of India , Palasa to stop payment for the post dated cheques collected by the opposite parties informing about non issue of cell phone connection, but in the meanwhile the opposite parties have encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003. The opposite parties without issuing cell phone connection encashed the DD for Rs.5000/- and two post dated cheques for Rs.1800/- each and thereby caused deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- along with subsequent interest @ of 24% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation , to pay Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.3000/- towards legal expenses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Authorised signatory of opposite parties 1 to 3 filed counter stating that they have duly dispatched the handset from Mumbai to the complainant, but the complainant did not receive the handset and made a telephone stating that he is not in town when the handset reached and requested not to send the handset till another phone call is made by him. As the post dated cheques were given to the Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity and as the fact of the non delivery of handset was not known to them, cheques were presented in due course and after knowing the fact of non delivery of handset they have stopped the encashment of the cheques and the complainant was assured to refund the collected amount. The opposite parties submit that the complainant did not approach them to collect the amount and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The opposite party no.4 though received notice did not contest the matter and remained exparte. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 documents filed on behalf of the complainant and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund an amount of Rs.8,600/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses including advocates fee of Rs.500/- </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The facts not in dispute are that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have organized a package offer and the complainant applied for a cell phone connection by paying Rs.5000/- by way of Demand Draft and issued 12 post dated cheques drawn in favour of the opposite party at Rs.1,800/- each but the complainant did not receive any handset and not receive the cell phone connection from the opposite party . It is the case of the opposite parties that they have dispatched the hand set to the complainant but the same could not be delivered as the complainant was not available and the complainant instructed over phone to dispatch the handset only after receiving the message from him. In the mean time two post dated cheques were encashed by Reliance Capital Limited which is a separate entity to which the cheques were handed over not knowing the fact of non delivery of hand set to the complainant. It is observed from the record that the respondents/opp.parties have not filed any material in proof of their contention that the handset dispatched through courier service. Neither the courier receipt nor any other documentary evidence has been filed by the respondents/opp.parties . Having admitted that two post dated cheques were encashed the act of the opposite parties in not delivering the hand set to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service for which the District Forum directed the opp.parties to refund Rs.8,600/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from 3.3.2003 till the date of realization. The appellant/complainant seeks for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2000/- awarded by the District Forum and claims compensation of Rs.60,000/-. It is appellants contention that the respondents/opp.parties encashed two post dated cheques dt.27.8.2003 and 31.10.2003 and the cheque dated 23.10.2003 issued by him in favour of Life Insurance Corporation was dishonoured for want of funds in his account. The appellant/complainant further submits that he paid Rs.600/- towards stop payment charges to SBI and waited for 15 months for refund of the collected amount for which he seeks compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.30,000/- towards damages. We are of the considered view that the complainant has not established any substantiate grounds for the increase in compensation awarded by the District Forum. The District Forum already awarded interest at 12% by way of damages together with Rs.2000/- towards compensation. The actual loss suffered by the complainant for non delivery of the hand set has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence either in respect to his profession or any business loss suffered by him to necessitate increase in the compensation. The interest at 12% p.a. has already been awarded with reasonable compensation of Rs.2000 and also costs of Rs.1500/-. We see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum . </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Reliance Infocomm Services, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, (a Division of Reliance Industries Limited) and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1111166'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORG: District Forum, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ambani Pioneer Offer, the State Bank of India, Rs.5000/-, the District Forum, the Reliance Capital Limited, District Forum, Reliance Capital Limited, District Forum, Rs.2000/-, the District Forum, Life Insurance Corporation, SBI, the District Forum, Rs.2000/-, Rs.1500/-, the District Forum, the District Forum

NORP: Srikakulam, Rs.30,000/-

GPE: Srikakulam, Palasa, DD, p.a., Mumbai, no.4, p.a., p.a., p.a.

CARDINAL: 12, two, 31.10.2003, two, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.30,000/-, 1, 3, A1 to A9, 1 to 4, 1 to 3, 12, two, two, two, 31.10.2003, 23.10.2003, Rs.30,000/-

DATE: one month, 3.3.2003, 3.3.2003, 15 months, four weeks

ORDINAL: fourth

PERCENT: 24%, 12%, 12%, 12%, 12%

PERSON: Rs.3000/-, Exs, Demand Draft

PRODUCT: Rs.2,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs.2000