Andhra Pradesh Court April 2010 Judgments

Chief General Manager (Telecom) and Others Vs. S.V.V.S. Automobiles, R ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite parties are the appellants. The appeal is challenge to the order passed by the District Forum which passed the award against the appellants for refund of a sum of Rs. two lakh with interest, as also compensation and costs. The facts of the case are that the complainant submitted tender with a demand draft for Rs.2 lakh enclosed thereto on 27th June, 2003 for the cellular service dealership. The deposit of Rs.2 lakh was refundable. The opposite parties confirmed the bid of the complainant on 19-12-2003 subject to submission of the relevant documents by the complainant before 30th December, 2003 and the show room to be ready by 20th January, 2004. On account of his daughters marriage, the complainant could not submit the documents till 3rd June, 2004 and after submitting the documents he has requested the opposite parties to finalize the process of the allotment for which there was no response from the opposite parties. The...

Dr. D. Ramu Vs. Venkata Malla Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order :(Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant approached the opposite party on 8.1.1995 complaining pain in the back and the opposite party advised for admission on 20.1.1995. The complainant was advised to undergo tests on 21.1.1995 at Surya Pathological Laboratory, Godavarikhani and Venkateshwara Diagnostic Centre, Godavarikhani where he spent Rs.5,000/- and submitted a report to the opposite party who stated that he was suffering from Spondylolisthesis in L5 and S1 and loose posterior each of L5 and performed an operation on 21.1.1995 and asked the complainant to come on 28.1.1995, 5.2.1995, 18.2.1995, 25.2.1995 and 12.3.1995 and prescribed some medicines but the pain did not reduce. Once again on 25.3.1995 the complainant was asked to get C.T. scan done and go to NIMS. The complainant went to Kamineni Hospital on 5.5.1995 and got the C.T. scan done and paid Rs.5000/- and the report showed the evidence of Spond...

Teegala Nooka Satyanarayana Setty Vs. Devarapalli Rajesh Martin

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite party is the appellant. The appellant challenges by way of filing the appeal the order passed by the District Forum on the ground that the complainant has not paid the amount in installments as per the schedule as also the amount of Rs.1,15,120/- towards the extra work that has been mentioned in the report of the advocate commissioner. The opposite party by mistake has filed the supplementary agreement entered into with Hymathi instead of filing the supplementary agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant has admitted vide the rejoinder ExA9 that he was due certain amount for the extra or additional work carried out by the opposite party. The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased an extent of 34 sq.yards together with the foundation of residential flat bearing no.S1 in second floor through registered sale deed dated 26-12-2002. The complainant entered into construc...

Doctor N. Narayana Vs. Y. Srinivas Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.240/2003 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant suffered from fever and headache and went to the opposite party hospital on 21.2.2002 and the opposite party prescribed some medicines because of which he developed number of patches on his body and he visited opposite party again on 25.2.2002 but the opposite party did not prescribe any anti-allergy medicines and the infection spread all over his body. Once again the complainant visited the opposite party hospital on 27.2.2002 at 11.00 a.m. with a swollen body with acute black colour and breathing difficulty. The complainant was shifted to Karimnagar and consulted Dr.A.Laxminarayana at 4 p.m. who stated that the condition of the complainant is critical and was advised tobe shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad on 28.2.2002 at 6 p.m. where he was treated...

M/S. Country Vacations and Another Vs. T.L.N. Shastry and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Typed to the dicatation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.246/2006 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants entered into a purchase agreement on 21st August, 2002 with opposite party No.1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, for purchase of Resort, unit type, season and purchase price and make them ready by the end of March, 2002 after receipt of the total purchase price. The complainants submitted that according to the agreement, he will be issued a Membership certificate in respect of the weekly period(s) referred in the agreement relating to the apartment type and apartment number. The complainants submitted that they paid total purchase price and administration charges which costs Rs.86,000/- i.e. purchase price Rs.76,000/- plus administration charges Rs.10,000/- vide receipt Nos.007588 and 007565 on 25th and 23rd Au...

The Business Manager Vs. R.K. Roy

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite party is the appellant. The appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum contending that the postal article in dispute has reached the US and was delivered to the addressee and received by Mary Hardy. The envelope was received by Mary Hardy at the given addressed as mentioned in the envelope. The complainant is a business man and the consumer dispute relates to the business based on profit. Article 21 Section K of the constitution of EMS-Universal Postal Union is not applicable to the facts of the case as there was no theft or loss recorded on delivered item. As per rule 66B of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, the liability of the postal department in case of delay in delivery of speed post article beyond the norms determined by the department of posts from time to time, the compensation is equal to composite speed post charges paid in the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of contents or damage...

M.S. Prakash Rao Vs. White House Marbles and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.97/2006 on the file of District Forum, West Godavari at Eluru, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Makarana Semi Allzeta Makarana Slabs and Green marbles from 1st opposite party on 11-2-2005, 14-2-2005 and 22005 for Rs.74,604/- and got fixed the marbles in his apartment by investing huge amounts towards labour charges etc., It is his case that soon the marbles not only developed change of colour but also cracks amply suggesting that the supplied marble was of inferior quality and defective. The complainant submitted that he spent huge amounts towards labour and that he sustained loss because of supply of defective marbles and demanded the opposite parties to compensate the loss but in vain. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.74,604/- with interest and Rs.35,000/- towards expenditu...

V. Sarojini Devi and Others Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank Rep. by Its Branc ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Oral Order: R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member: The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereof the complaint was dismissed as barred by limitation. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that Doctor Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao was the deposit holder of the opposite party bank. He had no children. He and his wife Sarojini died on 31st May,1993 in an accident leaving behind them the mother of Venkateshwer Rao namely Sundaramma who expired on 25th April, 1990. The complainants no.1 and 4 are the daughters of late Sundaramma. She executed Will dated 25th January,1990 bequeathing her properties in favour of the complainants no.1 to 3. The complainants no.1 to 3 filed O.P.No. 885 of 1990 and a suit in O.S.No. 8 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which were decided by a common judgement dated 28th July,2000 whereby the suit was decreed and the O.P was partly allowed leading to filing of C....

State Bank of India Vs. K. V.S. Suryanarayana

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

(Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party bank against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 1 lakh with interest right from August, 1993 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he was retired from service on 31.7.1990. Later he was appointed as Member, A.P. Administrative Tribunal from 1991 1994. While in the year 2005 while he was going through his old papers, pension papers etc. he found a letter written by him on 30.8.1993 addressed to the Branch Manager of the appellant bank that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was standing to his account No. 6 under Central Government Officers Retirement Fund and retirement deposit fund. As he intended to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- he requested the bank and issued cheque for the said amount on Andhra Bank, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Later he forgot that he was having account with the appellant bank, and tried to locate t...

Ch. Shivudu Vs. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Govt. of An ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2010(3)ALT279

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order being CCLA's Ref. No. P5/335/2010, dated 12.04.2010, of the first respondent. By the said order, while admitting the revision petition filed by the second respondent and calling for the lower Court records, the first respondent granted status quo orders till 12.08.2010 and posted the matter for further hearing on 12.08.2010.2. The writ petition is filed virtually for a writ of Prohibition on the ground that under The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (the Act) the Commissioner is not vested with any powers of revision against the order of the Joint Collector and that said revision only lies to the High Court under Section 91 of the Act.3. It is the case of petitioner that his father Chinna Mallaiah was a protective (sic. protected) tenant of Narayana Prasad in respect of land admeasuring Acs.19.02 1/2 guntas, who was granted a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. The respondents...