Andhra Pradesh Court November 2009 Judgments

Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Smt ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order ( As per the Smt Merla Shreesha, Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.94 of 2006 on the file District Forum Kurnool opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants husband S.Krupakar insured his life with opposite parties under policy bearing Nos.651591662 for Rs.25,000/-, 651616062 for Rs.50,000/-, 651616098 for Rs.20,000/- and 651615853 for Rs.25,000/-. The policy holder S.Krupakar died on 24.5.2002 due to chest pain and the death is a natural one. Thereafter the complainant submitted claim form as nominee to opposite parties but the opposite parties did not pay the policy amount inspite of several representations. On 20.3.2003 the opposite party no.3 repudiated the complainants claim on the ground that the policy holder suppressed the material fact regard his health. Hence the complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the policy amounts along with interest, compensation and costs. Opposit...

M/S.S.V.Projects (Pvt) Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Directo ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member). This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order of the District Forum dismissing its complaint. The complainant , a Private Limited company, claims to be the sub contractor of the original contractor by name K.V.Mohan Rao from whom this complainant secured a contract work relating to Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways)PH II Tirumala Velachevi- Kotturpuram elevated structure etc. It is claimed that by virtue of his status of being a sub contractor, he would step into the shoes of the main contractor, K.V.Mohana Rao, for dealing with the transactions relating to the work in question. The complainant claimed to have obtained several insurance policies to cover the risk in respect of 12 skilled employees, 15 unskilled employees and 8 more skilled employees working under the control of this complainant being the sub contractor. He claimed to have taken those policies initially in the name of K.V.Mohana Rao for the period f...

Sri M.Lokanadham Vs. the National Insurance Company Limited Rep. by It ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order(Sri K.Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order of the District Forum dismissing his insurance claim. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The complainant purchased a jersey cow and took out an insurance policy on 18-3-2003 furnishing risk coverage to the said animal. The said cow was allotted tag number NIA 3739. The said tag was lost during the course of grazing by the animal. In the said circumstances, the complainant claimed to have given a representation to the opposite party and with the knowledge of the opposite party a new tag was fixed on the animal bearing No.NIA 42430. To that effect, a certificate was also issued by the veterinary surgeon addressing the opposite party. The opposite party acknowledged the said letter on 17-6-2005. Later on 5-8-2005 the said cow suddenly died at about 5.00 p.m. He claimed to have approached the veterinary surgeon on the early hours of 06-8-2005 and on his verificat...

The Manager, M/S Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Kurnool Branch, Opp Zilla ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The three appeals arise out of the same order passed by the District Forum Kurnool in C.C.No.150 of 2006. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that: The complainant is an employee of the opposite parties no.1 to 3. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 deducted an amount of Rs.68/- per month from out of the salary of the complainant and remitted the same to the opposite partyno.4. The complainant met with an accident on 23.7.2005 whereby he sustained burn injuries. The complainant was shifted to opposite partyno.4 hospital where he was denied treatment on the ground that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 did not remit contribution. The complainant had taken treatment in Viswa Bharathi Hospital Kurnool. He had incurred an amount of Rs.one lakh for his treatment. The complainant has to incur Rs.2,000/- per month towards medical expenditure. The complainant has to undergo plastic surgery for his ear which requires an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. The c...

Mr.A. Krishnudu Vs. M/S.Madhu Nirman, Rep. by Its Managing Partner and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (K. Satyanand, Honble Member). This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant questioning the order of the District Forum consigning the proceedings to the civil court on the ground of inadequacy of evidence. The facts as stated are briefly as follows: Obviously, the complainant is the land owner, who entered into an agreement for development of his vacant land with the opposite parties, who are developers in the market for the purpose of constructing apartments meant to be apportioned between the land owner and the developer as per the agreement terms. Aggrieved by the inaction or alleged deficiency on the part of the developer to stick to the terms of the contract, the complainant filed this consumer dispute seeking compensation for the delayed execution of the project as also consequential damages and other deficiencies quantified at a total amount of Rs.14,00,000/- and odd with concomitant reliefs as interest and costs. The complaint came to be resisted by the o...

Samskar, Kotaiah Camp, Varni, Post and Mandal Nizamabad District Throu ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order ( As per the Smt Merla Shreesha, Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.84 of 2005 on the file District Forum Nizamabad the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant institution is a voluntary organization placed an order with opposite party no.1 for supply of Godrej Office table worth Rs.17,000/- by paying the entire consideration under receipt NO.53583 dated 5.9.2005 and the opposite party no.1 agreed to deliver the article at Bodhan through opposite parties no.3 and 4. The complainant has booked the consignment on To Pay basis. opposite party no.3 promised to deliver the goods in good condition within 10 days but to the surprise of the complainant, the article found to be damaged and in irreparable condition on the date of delivery. Therefore, the complainant refused to take delivery of the damaged table and also informed the same to opposite parties by way of written representation dated 17.11.2005 but in v...

M/S.Ganesh Apartments Residents Association (Regd.) Vs. M/S.Faquir Co- ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Sri K. 0Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order of the District Forum that dismissed its complaint. The brief facts as set out in the case are as follows: The complainant is a flat owners association calling itself M/s.Ganesh Apartments Residents Association. According to the association, it is representative of all the 18 flat owners and therefore entitled to prosecute the complaint on their behalf for the redressal of their grievances. The respondents were the builders and land owners. As a matter of fact, the flat owners were the members of the first opposite party, a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., The complainant association stated that each of the flat owners was entitled to an undivided share of 47 sq. yds. in the open land but the opposite parties executed sale deeds in respect of the undivided shares for a lesser extent variously in each case and the maximum short fall went up to 4.5. sq. yds. This according to t...

A.Krishna Kumar Vs. M/S Samatha Constructions

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order ( As per R .Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The complainant being not satisfied by the order passed by the District Forum-I , Hyderabad in C,D.No.67 of 2002 whereby the opposite party was directed to hand over the sale deed dated 8th September, 2001along with link documents in respect of the pent house as also the opposite party was directed to take steps for regularization of the plan in respect of the pent house. The complainant seeks for refund of an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest which amount was said to have been excessively collected from the complainant. Further, the appellant seeks for redeeming of mortgage of the pent house. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the opposite party promising that he had obtained technical clearance from HUDA, approval from Municipality, Malkajigiri for construction of residential complex, Jayanthi Apartments, submitted proposal to Malkajigiri Municipality for approval for construction of double bed room Pent house o...

Smt Nimmagadda Jyothsna Devi Vs. Manbhum Construction Company a Partne ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd day of April,2006 passed by the District Forum-I, Hyderabad whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. Briefly stated the material facts giving rise to the appeal are: The appellant is the owner of the land admeasuring 1200 sq.ft. with a house therein and situate at Nampalli locality of Hyderabad. The appellant entered into agreement dated 27th March, 1995 with the respondent to demolish the existing house and construct apartment therein in the premises for consideration of which 60% built up area was agreed to be taken by the respondent. The balance 40% of the built up area was agreed to be given to the appellant. Having constructed the apartments, the respondent, on 26th day of March,2001 delivered possession of the flat bearing door nos. 101,102,203,304,405,501 and 502 total area of which was 9,625 sq.ft. against the agreed a...

Sanghi Polyesters Limited Vs. the Superintendent of Central Excise and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(1)ALT492; 2009(172)LC39(AP)

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to declare that Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules') is not retrospective and for a consequential declaration that the demand of duty of Rs. 1,63,24,762/- with interest by respondent No. 1, as illegal and arbitrary.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under:The petitioner manufactures polyester yarn (textured and non-textured). The polyester yarn is liable for excise duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner purported to pay excise duty for the months of January, 2005 and February, 2005 through certain outstation cheques. Those cheques were dishonoured. The amount, which fell due by 5th February, 2005, was eventually paid by the petitioner through account current. Nearly three years thereafter, respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 01.05.2009 to the petiti...