Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the complainant/appellant is entitled to the benefits of Agriculturists Debt Relief Scheme sponsored by the Central Government. 2. The District Forum found that the borrowing was on 12-11-1988 and that the debt became only overdue on 12-11-1989 and the scheme is only applicable to those debts that are overdue as on 2-10-1989. It also found that this particular village was not declared as drought affected area in 1988-89. It accordingly dismissed the application. 3. This appeal is devoid of merits. Firstly, this Forum cannot direct the bank to apply the debt relief scheme. Moreover, according to the District Forum, conditions for application of the benefits of such scheme are not satisfied in this case. We, therefore, see no substance in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The District Forum passed an order allowing the complaint in part directing the Opposite Party No. 4 to recover from Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3; and Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 are directed to pay to Opposite Party No. 4 the amount due towards instalments from August, 1987 to July, 1988 with interest on unpaid instalments. The Opposite Party No. 4 is directed to recover from Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay to the Opposite Party No. 4 the remaining amount of loan said to be still due by the complainant in his loan account maintained by Opposite Party No. 4 and the Opposite Party No. 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,000.00 towards the costs of the complaint. 2. It is a case where there is an agreement to provide televisions to the employees. According to the case of the complainant, from the first Opposite Party they have purchased the televisions on instalment basis. The loan was supposed to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainants case is that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 4.9.1987 and also another sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 2.1.1988. After maturity of the deposits the Opposite Party issued 3 post-dated cheques for Rs. 17,171/-. But these cheques bounced back, therefore, the complaint was filed for the recovery of the entire amount due under the said deposits on the date of maturity with subsequent interest. The Opposite Party took the plea that this is a money transaction and the relationship is that of the creditor and debtor. Relying on the documents filed by the complainant the District Forum held that the complainant deposited the amount and the Opposite Party is liable to pay and so the complainant is a consumer and comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. It, therefore, directed the payment of Rs. 17,171/-with interest thereon from 30.6.89 and Rs. 21,870/- with interest thereon from 31.7.89 and costs of Rs. 1000/- In this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant whose complaint was dismissed in CD. No. 142 of 1991 preferred this appeal. His case was that he contributed for 3 Memberships in Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme and paid towards those 3 Memberships a sum of Rs. 10,840/-. But the opposite party in spite of his claim did not refund the amount. The opposite party took a plea that he is not the person, that is running Anand Enterprise Money Circulation Scheme but it was run by Tadakamalla Sharavan Kumar, a cousin of the opposite party. It is also their case that the complainant borrowed Rs. 18,000/- from the opposite party, that is, Rs. 6000/- each membership and paid only Rs. 10,840/- and he has to pay the balance of the amount. The complainant was examined as PW1, no documents were marked on behalf of him. On a consideration of the evidence the District Forum held that the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that the opposite party is a proprietor or partner of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant purchased Videocon Video Cassette Player from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 13,500/-. It is the case of the complainant that immediately thereafter display of the picture was in a zig-zag condition. According to him, he went to the shop on 14.5.1992 and even then the display of the picture was still in a zig-zag condition. Under instructions of the shop man he went to Tirupathi for rectification of the defect. According to him, he went 12 times to the shop of the opposite party as well as to other places as directed by him, he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1000/-. He therefore prayed for replacement of the set or otherwise to pay him a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in addition to costs incurred by him of Rs. 1000/- and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The District Forum observed that even during the pendency of the case, the opposite party did not agree to undertake repair to the set. It therefore directed the opposite party to replace the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The case of the complainant as seen from the complaint is as follows : The complainant obtained the Portfolio management services for investment in shares from the opposite party i.e. Aneja Financial Consultancy Services. The opposite party promised to sell and purchase shares on her behalf by investing the amount received from the complainant and also promised to advance loan in equal amount paid. The complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- towards investment. The opposite party promised that he will make windfall profits and investor can become a millionaire within 3 to 6 months and promised to advance a loan of Rs. 25,000/-. The opposite party neither invested the amount paid by the complainant nor advanced any loan and the complainant sustained loss of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) due to negligence of the opposite party. Complainant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with interest from the date of award till realisation, and costs. 2. The version o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. Inspite of adjourning the case theCounsel for the appellant is not present. We have gone through the records. The latest analysis Ex. X3 report by the Regional Public Health Laboratory shows, Floride content was 1.6 mgs. per litre, as against the maximum permissible limit is 1.5 mgs. per litre. This report is dated 21.1.91. The earlier reports Exs. B1and B2 show that the Floride content was less that 1.5 mgs. per li tre, bu t they are the reports of the year 1989 and 1990. We are therefore inclined to place reliance on latest report Ex. X3. According to the Ex. X3 the Floride content is more than the permissible maximum of 1.5 mgs. Evidently the water is harmful for the people who drink. The case of the municipality is that the said water is being supplied to the locality, not through taps, but from a particular point. The District Forum therefore, rightly placed reliance on the latest report Ex. X3. We, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the ...
Tag this Judgment!