Andhra Pradesh Court June 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vemuri Bharathi Vs. M/S. Vijaya Credit Corporation and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1994
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...
M.H. Khan Vs. A.P. State Minorities Finance Corporation Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1994
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...
H.U.D.A. Vs. Lt. Col. Yogesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1994
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 ...
N. Subash Chander Reddy Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1994
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...
The Divisional Manager, L.i.C. and Another Vs. Nalla Raja Kumari and O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1994
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›