Andhra Pradesh Court July 2010 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.
Saladi Veera Veni and Others.Vs. Visakhapatnam and Others.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the petitioners for the death of the husband of petitioner No.1 due to electrocution, as illegal and arbitrary.I have heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Krupachand Gogineni, learned counsel representing Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2 and mother of petitioners 3 and 4. Her husband-Sri Rambabu came into contact with a live wire on 23-3-2005, while he was on his fields, and died instantaneously due to electrocution. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking compensation for his death. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have denied their liability for payment of compensation to the petitioners. It is stated that when the 11 KV Conductor was snapped and w...
The Md, Tribal Cooperative Marketing Devp.Vs. Meda Venkata Kumara Swam ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
The appellant herein is the Management of a Cooperative Marketing Federation known as M/s Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Limited (in short called as 'TRIFED'), who filed this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent seeking to assail the correctness of the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11906 of 1999, dated 3-10-2007 allowing the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the respondent/employee of the appellant herein setting aside the impugned orders dated 4-7-1996 dismissing him from the service.In the above appeal, initially the Division Bench of this Court while admitting granted interim suspension of the orders of the learned Single Judge as per orders in WAMP.No.2126 of 2007 dated 17-12-2008. On the application filed by the respondent employee in WAMP.No.1013/2009 seeking to vacate the said interim order dated 17-12-2007, and since the counsel on either side requested the main appeal itself to...
Saladi Veera Veni and Others. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distrib ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the petitioners for the death of the husband of petitioner No.1 due to electrocution, as illegal and arbitrary.I have heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Krupachand Gogineni, learned counsel representing Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.Petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2 and mother of petitioners 3 and 4. Her husband-Sri Rambabu came into contact with a live wire on 23-3-2005, while he was on his fields, and died instantaneously due to electrocution. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking compensation for his death.In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have denied their liability for payment of compensation to the petitioners. It is stated that when the 11 KV Conductor was snapped and was...
Sri D.V. Satyanarayana Vs. the Managing Director Sri Rampriya Chit Fun ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No.603 of 2003 whereof the appellant in F.A.No.1468 of 2008 is the opposite party and the appellant in F.A.No.1219 of 2008 is the complainant before the District forum. F.A.No.1469 of 2008 is taken as the lead case wherein the facts as represented by the parties are that the 1st opposite party is a company registered under the Companies Act, dealing in Chit Fund Business and the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are the branch offices of opposite party no.1. The complainant joined as a member in the chit group namely 1) RVL D3 B/7 for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and 2) RVL F3 B/32 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant became a successful bidder in the auction held by the opposite party no.2 in respect the chit RVL D3 B/7 and he agreed to forego an amount of Rs.65,000/-. The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.1,35,000/- which was not paid to the com...
Kalisetti Devi and Others Vs. the Zonal Manager South Central Zonal Of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order dated 6.8.2007 in C.D.No.37 of 2006 by the District Forum Vizianagaram whereby their complaint was dismissed. The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the complainant no.1 is the wife, complainants no.2 to 4 are the minor daughters and complainant no.4 is the mother of deceased late Ramakrishna. The deceased RamakKrishna was in service under Government as attender. The deceased Rama Krishna insured his life under policy bearing No.692681930 and 692680060 since 24.6.2004 by collecting premium of Rs.390/-. The insured died on 25.8.2004 due to jaundice. The complainants being the legal representatives of the deceased submitted a claim application to the opposite parties for payment of the insurance amount of `1,00,000/-. The opposite parties by letter dated 31.3.2005 repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that the deceased Rama ...
S. Balaram Vs. M/S. the Mithra Agencies and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
(As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member) The unsuccessful complainant in CC 80/2008 filed this appeal questioning the legality and propriety of the order in dismissing the complaint claiming refund of excess amount of Rs.43,870/- said to have been collected by the respondent at the time of sale of Maruthi Car. The facts of the case are that he purchased Maruti 800 AC car from the opposite parties 1 and 2 after availing loan advanced by ICICI Bank, Hyderabad on 24.04.2007. According to the complainant, there was a discrepancy with regard to the amount mentioned in the invoice issued by the first opposite party. The value of the car in question was Rs.2,15,043/- out of which Rs.25,000/- was given as discount. On collection of the total amount including life tax would comes to Rs.1,86,832/- but not Rs.2,15,043/- as worked out by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Apart from it, the opposite parties have collected insurance premium on a sum of rs.2,15,043/- but not on the actual price of the ...
Vinod Sanghi @ V.K. Sanghi and Another Vs. the General Manager
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
Oral Order: R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member: The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2009 in C.C.No.366 of 2008 by the District Forum-I, Hyderabad whereby their complaint was dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainants are senior citizens who purchased journey cum reservation ticket on 13.3.2008 for travel on 26.4.2008 by train no.2723, AP Express and was issued ticket no.29881628 with waiting list no.18 and 19. On 9.4.2008 a ticket was purchased for Smt Surendrabala Sanghi to travel through the same train on 26.4.2008 to New Delhi was issued confirmed ticket No.29991516 in B3 coach. The case of the complainants are that issuing of confirmed ticket for a person applying much later after 26 days particularly when the ticket holders are senior citizens is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The railway rules provide lower berth for senior citizens when available but they were provided berths no.35 and 4...
State Bank of India and Others Vs. Sri D.Subba Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The state Bank of India which is the opposite party no.1 in C.C.No.338 of 2007 and CC No.337 of 2007 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the orders passed by the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam. Both the appeals have been filed assailing the orders passed in CC 338 of 2007 and CC No.337 of 2007 whereby the District Forum has passed award granting compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in CC No.338 of 2007 and Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in C.C.No.337 of 2007. The facts of both the cases being identical in nature, the two appeals have been taken up for disposal by a common order. F.A.No.1617 of 2008 is taken as the lead case. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant had submitted application form along with DD bearing No.253534 dated 8.9.2005 for Rs.250/- to the opposite party no.1 fo...
Dr. K.V. Rama Vs. Bandi Veeraiah and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite party in C.C.54 of 2002 on the file of District Forum Khammam is the appellant. The facts of the case as narrated by the complainants is that the complainant approached the opposite party for loss of absolute sight of right eye. The opposite party examined the complainant on 18.8.2001 and stated to him that a cataract operation has to be done in order to restore his sight. The opposite party performed the cataract surgery of the right eye of the complainant and charged `1500/- towards the expenses of the surgery. After the surgery pain and pus was formed in the right eye of the complainant within a period of week days. The complainant approached the opposite party and complained about the same. The opposite party applied ointment and prescribed tablets and also eye drops. The complainant used the same but did not get any result. Thereafter the complainant lost sight and the eye ball. The complainant was also losing the l...
K.S. Choudary Director and Another Vs. M. Yadaiah Father of Scheme Hol ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
Oral Order (As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite party in C.C.94 of 2007 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad is the appellant. The facts of the case as narrated by the complainants are that the complainants purchased 4 teak plants in the name of their children in the scheme floated by the opposite parties no.1 and 2. According to the terms of the scheme the opposite parties no.1 and 2 will either sell the trees or pay the profit on the wood of the tree after a period of 20 years. The complainants paid `4,000/- for four trees and accordingly the opposite parties allotted four trees in the names of the children of the complainant even tree certificates were issued. After five years, the complainant, realized that no trees were grown nor office of the opposite parties was located at the address given by them. The complainants tried to contact the opposite parties no.1 and 2 but in vain. Finally, the complainants got issued notice in response to which the opposite ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »