Andhra Pradesh Court January 2011 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.
M/S Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital Behind Hari Hara Kala Bhavan and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
(Typed to the dictation of Smt. M.Shreesha , Honble Member.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.918/2005 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital as he had throat pain, shortness of breath and Dysphagia and was attended by opposite party No.2. After conducting tests and basing on UGI Endoscopy findings, opposite parties have diagnosed that there was left pyriform fossa and three pieces of pyriform fossa were sent for histopathology test. The complainant was discharged on 16-7-2005 with an advise to come for review after a week with HPE report. On 23-7-2005, the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 along with HPE report who informed that there are features of focal micro invasive squamous cell carcinoma and advised to get admitted in the hospital as he had to undergo Radiotherapy as out patient and Chemotherapy as in patient. The...
M/S Siddardha Seeds and Another Vs. Kommineni Narasimha Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent purchased from the appellant no.2 four bags of black gram seeds, each bag weighing 4 kgs of LBG-645 bearing lot no.V40 on 6.11.2006 for a consideration of `1,440/-. The seeds were produced and manufactured by the appellant no.1. The respondent had sown the seeds in the month of November 2006 in his fields. The respondent claimed that no crop was yielded as assured by the appellants and he had reported the matter to the appellants and the Agricultural Officer, Thallade. The respondent claimed an amount of `95,000/- towards the expected loss of yield and `5,000/- towards compensation. 3. The appellants contended that the respondent has to bring it to the notice of the appellants in case there has been any defect either in the germination of in budding stage, within 45 days therefrom. The seeds are required to be sown in one and half acre ...
The Service Manager Jyothi Motors, Authorised Dealer Piaggio Vehicles ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) Op1 the authorised dealer preferred F.A. 683/2003 the manufacturer Op2 itself preferred F.A. 723/2003 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to pay Rs. 1,18,475/- together with interest, compensation and costs. 2) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression and to obviate confusion. 3) The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased a Piaggio pick up van from Op1 dealer manufactured by Op2 for Rs. 1,18,475/- after borrowing an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from SBI while he paid remaining amount of Rs. 18,475/- in cash. It was hypothecated with the bank. A warranty of 180 days was given. While so, after three months of use the vehicle started giving trouble and the reason was engine oil was burning. When he approached Op1 he attended on it by doing bore and returned. In fact it would be done after 50,000 Kms of its running. In view of the trouble he could not use it regular...
Smt. Vitthala Usha Rani and Another Vs. M/S. Vishal Projects Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
Oral Order: D. Appa Rao, President: 1) This is a complaint filed by the complainants the daughter and her mother respectively for execution of sale deeds for the houses on plot Nos.. B14 and B13 besides compensation and costs. 2) The case of the complainants in brief is that the opposite party builder offered to sell two houses on plot Nos. B14 and B13 for a sale consideration of Rs. 18,75,000/- each. They agreed and entered into two separate agreements of sale on 12.1.2006. They paid Rs. 4 lakhs each. Balance of Rs. 14,75,000/- is payable as per schedule viz., Rs. 5,90,000/- each before completion of slab work, Rs. 1,47,500/- before completion of brick work. The builder has agreed to construct the houses within 12 months with a grace period of three months. In the event of delay in construction it had agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month while they were liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards electricity charges and other extra works if any. Accordingly on 21.2.2006 they paid Rs. 6 lakhs. O...
The Manager, Airtel Show Room and Others Vs. Kavalapara Sankaranarayan ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member: Oral: 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant Nos. 1 and 2 applied for four Air Tel connections under the category of (Plan 249 CORP/Retail/CUG) by paying Rs. 2,046 each. The opposite party No. 1 had assigned connection Nos. 9849335819 and 9866667548 to the complainant No. 1 and connection Nos. 9866667546 and 9866668547 to the complainant No. 2. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the second complainant along with the complainant Nos. 3 to 5 had filed request forms on 20.10.2005 opting to travel from Hyderabad to Delhi with the first option departure schedule on 22.11.2005. They had paid Rs. 442 through Demand Draft dated 8.10.2005. The opposite parties had not given any response despite several calls made and e-mails sent and reminder dated 14.11.2005 followed by the notice dated 6.12.2005. 3. The opposite parties resisted the claim contending that the co...
Uti Technology Services Ltd. Rep. by C. Kasi Manager and Others Vs. Ku ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member: Oral: 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The parties are referred to as they had been arrayed in the complaint. 3. The factual matrix of the case as narrated by the complainant is that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs. 20,000 with the opposite parties for purchase of 2000 units @ Rs. 10 per unit on 16.10.1999 in the name of her minor daughter, Chandrika Nehta, under UTI Childrens Gift Growth Fund Unit Scheme. The opposite party issued a certificate bearing No. 308960030003637 on 16.10.1995 to the complainant for the amount of Rs. 20,000 for 2000 units. The date of maturity of the units is 19.7.2016 and the rate of dividend is 14% per annum. The opposite party No. 1 had sent intimation letters to the complainant with the details of dividend accrued to the account of her daughter during each financial year till 30.6.2001. The opposite party No. 1 stopped sending the intimation letter thereafter. The complainant had learnt that UTI Chil...
The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Near Head Post Office Vs. Smt K ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the complainants no.1 is the wife and the complainants no.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Kunapareddy Rama Rao who was the driver of Sri M.B.S.Apparao @ Srini of Palakollu for the lorry bearing No.AP 37T 6867. The husband of the first complainant involved in an accident when he was driving the said lorry and died in Government SGGSM Hospital Nanded on 8.11.2000. The owner of the vehicle obtained insurance policy bearing No.432607/701/PA/2000/33 dated 14.2.2000 from the opposite party covering the personal accident risk of the driver of the vehicle. After the death of her husband, the first complainant, being his wife, lodged claim with the opposite party for settlement of the claim. The opposite party instead of settling the claim closed the claim as No Claim. The complainant made a representation to the insurance Om...
Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd., Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. M/s Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd., is the appellant in both the appeals. The appeals arise out of identical circumstances and similar facts and as such they are proposed to be disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the complainant on 12.7.2005 purchased 15 packets of Mahyco Hybrid Tejaswini chilly Seeds for `2775/- to sow them in his agriculture land in an extent of Ac.1-20gts in Sy.No.148/AA/2 of Chinmandava Village of Chintkani Mandal. At the time of purchase the opposite party no.1 assured them that the seeds supplied by him would yield 20 quintals per acre. The complainant sowed the seeds by using the pesticides and fertilizers as required by recommended practice. In spite of taking all precautions and application of the manures, the crop was not grown up properly and there was no budding. The complainant intimated the same to Mandal Agricultural Officer and also to the opposite...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›