Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, Pesident: 1. The District Forum passed an order on 13.4.1993 in C.D. No. 909 of 1992 directing the petitioner herein to return the service charger of Rs. 542/-, repair charges of Rs. 2,800/- interest at 12% on 542/- from 8.7.1991 and costs of Rs. 500/-. As the opposite party i.e. the petitioner herein failed to comply with the order, Execution Petition No. 103/1993 was filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum passed an order on 25.11.1993 punishing the opposite party with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On 8.4.1994 the petitioner deposited. Rs. 2,000/- representing the fine. He also deposited Rs. 2820/- being the balance of the amount payable by the opposite party to the complainant, to the credit of the C.D. 909 of 1992 that is the main case, and the same is in deposit in the District Forum. 2. Aggrieved by the order in the Execution Petition this Revision is preferred. Since the opposite party has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. In C.D. 1195/90, the District Forum passed the following order: The petitioner Ch. Krishna Murthy filed this application contending that he has been working as Standing Counsel for the opposite party since 1987. Number of the cases filed against the opposite party were disposed of in Lok Adalat. Decrees were also passed. He is entitled to the statutory fees. Inspite of repeated demands, made by him the necessary statutory fees was not paid to him. Opposite Party made their appearance and admitted that they would pay the fees. Petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the statutory fees to the complainant as per rules within two months from this day. 2. No appeal has been preferred against the said order in the C.D. which became final. As the amount was not paid as directed in the C.D. the complainant filed E.P. No. 7/93. In the said E.P. on 10.9.93, the District Forum directed the respondent/judgment debtor to pay l/6th of the leg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum passed in CD. No. 984/93 whereby the Opposite Party-appellant herein was directed to rectify the originals Exs. A. 1 to A.3 so as to make the maturity amounts shown therein payable on 16.11.2008, 8.4.2008 and on 16.11.2008 respectively. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly stated as are follows : The Unit Trust of India framed a Scheme called Rajyalakshmi Unit Scheme and issued brochure Ex. A 4 stipulating the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The Scheme as set out in the brochure and published is in the following terms; 1. The Scheme; The Scheme provides for an investment that will grow 21 times in 20 years. Thus, Rs. 1,000/- invested in the name of a female child below the age one year will become Rs. 21,000/- after 20 years and Rs. 10,000/- will become Rs. 2.1 lakhs. Depending upon the age of the child for whom the investment is made the maturity value will vary from a minimum of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. In C.D. Nos. 51/93 and 84/93 the opposite parties are the same. But the complainants are different. Since the nature of the relief claimed is one and the same and the questions that have to be decided are also common, we consider that these two C.D.s cart be disposed of by a common order. 2. There is one complainant in C.D. 51 of 1993 and seven complainants in C.D. 84 of 1993. Their case is that they have deposited certain amounts with the opposite party i.e. M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, the partnership firm of which opposite parties 2 to 10 are partners. But the opposite party i.e. Partnership firm, did not repay the amount to them on maturity of the deposit amount. In certain cases the initial deposits were renewed for further periods. The only contention is that even after maturity of those deposits the opposite parties inspite of demand did not repay the amount. Hence these complaints are filed for a direction to the opposite parties i.e. part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant is carrying on business in manufacturing of deep-well hand pumps under the name and style of M/s. Himaira Engineering Enterprises in Unit No. 54, Industrial Guild, Mallepalle, Hyderabad, and was registered as a Small Scale Industry. He filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties i.e. (1) A.P. State Minorities Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad; (2) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad; and (3) State Bank of India, Mallepalle Branch, Hyderabad to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of damages or compensation for their failure to render adequate and proper service to the complainant in compliance with the directions issued by the Government. 2. The complainant, who belongs to a minority community, applied on 21.3.86 to the first opposite party i.e. the Minorities Finance Corporation for financial assistance to be arranged from approved banks. The Minorities Finance Corporation on 29-4-86 i.e. the document N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant is the owner of a BEC Model 460 Drilling rig mounted on truck ATL 8500. The said machine was insured with the opposite party during the period 5.4.90 to 4.4.91 for a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/-. When the rig machine was operating in Ranchi area of Bihar State, on 27.5.90 the rig was in transit in Pithoria of Sibal area. Due to failure of brakes in ghats area it fell down into the valley and caught fire, bunt, leaving scrap impossible of repairs. Mr. P. Satyanarayana, the driver of the rig lorry reported on the same day about the accident to Kanka Police Station and a panchanama was conducted by the police on 28.5.90. The complainant came to know of the accident on the morning on 28.5.90. Immediately, he contacted the Divisional Office and reported the matter and a Surveyor was appointed for conducting preliminary survey. Survey was conducted and report was filed in the Divisional Office at Ranchi by the Surveyor. The Road Transport Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. These two appeals arise out of a common order passed in C.D. No. 623 of 1990 dated 30.4.93 by the District Forum, Hyderabad. C.D.A. No. 300/93 was preferred by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad i.e. the opposite party and the other appeal, C.D.A. No. 314/94 was preferred by the complainant i.e. Lt. Col. Yogesh for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum. 2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party, herein after called HUDA for the sake of convenience, issued a prospectus Ex. A.1 wherein they offered allotment of residential plots at various places including Mushk Mahal residential complex wherein they offered 320 plots under various categories for allotment. The complainant deposited ernest money deposit of Rs. 2000/- on 3.1.1990 and applied for allotment of HIG plot in Mushk Mahal residential complex in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The lots were drawn on 25.2.90 and the complainant was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The facts that are not in dispute are, the complainants husband one Malla Reddy took Jeevanmitra policy with Double Accident Benefit from the Opposite Party. The policy commenced from 15-4-88 and the complainants husband paid the first premium. Unfortunately before the second premium fell due on 15.4.89, the complainants husband on 13.2.89 at about 9 p.m. died due to accident. The complainant preferred the claim. Along with the claim she submitted the Medical Attendants Certificate by a Doctor. In column 5 (b) of the said certificate it was clearly mentioned that the patient has consumed alcohol. This may be considered as the cause for the accident. In the investigation report also it was mentioned that the complainants husband was smelling of alcohol. Hence the Opposite Party offered to pay a sum of Rs. 82,480/- towards the claim of the complainant under the policy, being the benefit under the policy and also one accidental benefit. The said sum was...
Tag this Judgment!