Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
V. Sridhar Goud Vs. Magma Shrachi Finance Corp. Ltd., Rep. by Its Bran ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
Smt. M. Shreesha, Member: Aggrieved by the order in CC 137/2009 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a lorry in the year 2002 for eking out his livelihood and took a loan from opposite party No.1 for Rs.3,35,000/- on 31-8-2005 and opposite party No.1 kept the original R.C.book and entered into an agreement with the complainant herein, as per which the complainant has to repay the loan in 34 equal instalments at Rs.14,176/- per month by 30-6-2008. The complainant paid till July, 2007 an amount of Rs.2,81,904/- as against Rs.3,11,872/- and he was due Rs.29,968/- by July, 2007. On 14-8-2007, opposite party No.1 seized the lorry and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 29-9-2007 and promised to pay the balance Rs.50,000/- in a months time but the opposite party No.1 did not release the lorry and the complainant lodged a complaint at the P.S. Bollaram....
Dandu Anjaneya Raju Vs. Citi Bank, Rep. by Its Manager, Credit Card Di ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) Both counsel filed a compromise memo stating that the matter has been settled outside the court and hence requested permission to withdraw the appeal as withdrawn. Permission accorded. In the result this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs....
M/S.SuchirIndia Developers (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. Vakada Lakshmi Par ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
Both parties filed a compromise memo stating that the matter has been settled outside the court and hence requested permission to withdraw the appeal as withdrawn. Permission accorded. In the result this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs....
Chavva Bala Yengamma Vs. the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) The District Forum in C.D.No.37/2003 vide its order dt.19.1.2005 dismissed the complaint without costs. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred F.A.No.410/2005 which was dismissed by this Commission. Aggrieved by that order the complainant preferred R.P.No.2691/07 before the National Commission wherein the Commission observed that the State Commission after noting the case pleaded by the parties arrived at the conclusion without discussing the evidence or recording the findings on the basis of the evidence and remanded the matter back to the Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants husband namely Chavva Chinna Venkata Reddy, S/o.C.V.Nagi Reddy had taken insurance policy, the risk commencing from 15.4.98 for a period of 15 years, the sum assured being Rs.5 lakhs. On 12.9.98 the policy holder died in his native village on account of jaun...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The short question involved in the subject matter of the appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the amount claimed by the legal heir of the insured where the insured holding a learners license without being accompanied by a person holding driving license to drive such vehicle died in the accident. 2. The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent obtained insurance policy in respect of his Motor Cycle bearing registration number AP-04N-5392 for the period commencing from 27-0802007 and expiring on 26-08-2008. The respondents nephew while riding on the Motor Cycle on 27-11-2007 met with an accident when a Tractor coming in opposite direction hit the Motor Cycle resulting the death of the rider of the Motor Cycle and damage to the vehicle. The respondent shifted the Motor Cycle to Harun Bajaj Motor Show Room and lodged claim with the appellant insurance company. The claim was repudiated ...
Uti Technology Services Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Shri L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.305/2008 on the file of Dist Forum-1, Visakhapatnam , the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased 1530 units from the opp.party at Rs.10/- per unit under Senior Citizens Unit Plan, 1993. A Membership Certificate dt.30.4.99 was issued and as per the Scheme the complainant and his spouse are eligible for medical treatment upto Rs.5 lakhs after completion of 54 years. In the meantime, the complainant received an intimation letter from opposite party requesting the complainant to opt for alternative Scheme in lieu of UTI SCUP 1993. But the complainant submits that he wanted to be retained in the Senior Citizen Unit Plan 1993 only and did not send his consent letter. Opposite party did not send the Identity Card cum Log Book even after completion of 55 years of age of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant misplaced the orig...
D.C. Funds Rep. by Its Foreman, Yerra Venugopala Rayudu Vs. Vadlamuri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.106/2007 on the file of District Forum-II, East Godoavari, Rajahmundry, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant joined as a subscriber in a chit run by the opp.party for chit value of Rs. 1,35,000/- and paid first instalment on 18.11.1999. The complainant paid Rs.35,900/- upto 7.11.2000. Subsequently as the opp.party has not run the firm regularly the complainant stopped payment of further instalments and demanded for refund of amount already paid by him, but the opp.party failed to refund the amounts collected in the capacity of Foreman. Finally the complainant got issued registered notice dt.4.7.2007 demanding for refund of the chit amount which was received by the opp.party for which no response given. The complainant submits that the opposite party being the Foreman as defined in A.P.Chit Fund Act, 1971 he is the trustee of th...
Pallapu Venkateshwarlu Vs. the Lic of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manage ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member: 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He has filed the appeal challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Forum in C.C. No. 128 of 2008. Version of the Appellant 2. The appellants wife Smt. Lachamma during her life-time obtained insurance policy bearing No. 687477 128 from the first respondent for sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000 for a period of 20 years with the commencement of the policy on 28.3.2006. The official of the respondent Corporation after receiving the proposal from the appellants wife made inquiry regarding her occupation, age, health condition and paying capacity. After satisfying itself with the inquiry, the respondent Corporation has issued the insurance policy. The appellants wife appointed him as her nominee for the benefits conferred on her by the insurance policy. The appellants wife at the time of obtaining the insurance policy was hale and healthy and she never complained of any ailment. The appellants wife...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager, Prak ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 24U-8880 which was given to the Civil Supplies Department on hire basis. The vehicle was insured with the appellant vide policy bearing No.612801/31/06/01/00001743. The respondent had paid Rs.7514/- towards premium and the policy is valid from 27.9.2006 to 26.9.2007. The vehicle was authorized to transport the goods. On 13.2.2007 the lorry met with an accident by hitting to a toddy tree while after unloading the rice bags it was returning to Nalgonda carrying the labourers. As a result of which the lorry got completely damaged. The Nalgonda Rural police registered a case in Cr.No.14/2007 under Sec.337 of IPC. The damage was estimated at Rs.4,34,900/- by Md.Chand Auto Mechanical Works, Nalgonda. The respondent got repaired the damaged lorry by spending `2 lakh. The matter was reported to the appellant company which repudiated on 9.10...
M/S Sai thertha Builders, Rep. by Its Propritrix Vs. Manda Ramakrishna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party builder has filed the appeal challenging the order of District Forum which directed the opposite party to deliver 100 sq.ft of proposed shop room to the respondent and pay a sum of `10,000/- towards compensation. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent purchased admeasuring 300 sq.ft on the ground floor along with undivided and unspecified share of land measuring 20 sq.yards in PRIME ROSE PALACE at Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam for a consideration of `2,25,000/-. A construction agreement as also sale deed were executed by the appellant on 10.7.2001 in favour of the respondent. In additional to the sale consideration, the appellant had collected a sum of `1,00,000/- for providing additional facilities. 3. The respondent has contended that additional accessories were not provided though the appellant had collected the sum of Rs.one lakh from him. The respondent found only 200 sq.feet of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »