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.
M/S New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by Its Br.Manager Vs. Vemula S ...
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 respondents husband Vemula Ashok during his life time obtained Janata personal Accident Policy on payment of premium of Rs.1200/-. The policy was issued w.e.f., 13.10.1997 and expired on 12.10.2007. The respondents husband who was working as Sub-Inspector of police died while discharging his official duties. After the death of her husband the respondent informed the incident to the appellant insurance company and requested to settle the claim of her husband for `4 lakh. The appellant insurance company had informed the respondent that it had cancelled the insurance policy w.e.f., 31.7.2002 and the premium was refunded for unexpired period of insurance and an amount of `240/- was retained to cover the risk under the policy and the sum insured was reduced to `1,00,000/- for a period of five years w.e.f., from 1.8.2002 to 31.7.2007 and the policy was cancelled as per the decision ta...
Postal Superintendent O/O Postal Department Kurnool Division Vs. Dr. K ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The postal Superintendent, Head Post office Kurnool has filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum whereby the District Forum directed him to refund the amount of `1,500/- sent by the complainant through telegraphic money order and also a sum of `5000/- as compensation and `1,000/- towards costs. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent had sent a sum of `1,500/- on 4.1.2005 through money order No.7014 to his daughter K.Sandhya Kumari studying at that time at Belgaum Medical College, Belgaum for which the appellant had collected an amount of Rs.103/-. The respondent has got issued notice dated 26.12.2006 stating that his daughter had not received the amount sent by him and filed the complaint. 3. The appellant had resisted the claim contending that the postal department had not been negligent and as per clause 81 of PO Guide the payee of the money order has to prefer complaint or claim r...
Kanukuntala Sujatha Vs. the Ing Vysya Bank MaIn Road, Village Chelvai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. Her complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the premise that she failed to establish the death of her husband as accidental death due to snake bite. 2. The appellants husband during his life time was an account holder with the first respondent bank. His A/c No. is 10525 and the first respondent bank had obtained insurance coverage for its account holders who include the appellants husband and the insurance coverage is subject to maintenance of minimum balance by the account holder to an extent of `1,000/- all through, debit of `100/- and the insurance coverage is for accidental death or disability. The appellant husband died on 17.3.2004. A case was registered in Cr.No.12 of 2004. The appellant had approached the first respondent bank claiming sum of `3 lakh as per the terms and conditions of the passbook issued in favour of her husband and she got issued notice on ...
Gampa Bhaskar Vs. Gudise Ravinder and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.107/2008 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 joined the opposite party scheme and invested amounts under the fixed deposit scheme introduced by their firm, Sri Vidya Chits and Finance (Registered) JagItial as he was assured by the opposite party that his deposit amount would be doubled. Opposite party issued the following F.D.Rs.Sl.NoFDR NoDeposited AmountMaturity AmountMaturity Date10550Rs.1,000/-Rs.2,000/-15.09.199720550Rs.1,000/-Rs.2,000/-15.09.199730550Rs.1,000/-Rs.2,000/-15.09.199740550Rs.1,000/-Rs.2,000/-15.09.199750550Rs.1,000/-Rs.2,000/-15.09.1997TotalRs.5,000/-Rs.10,000/- with a maturity date as 15-9-1997. After expiry of the maturity period, the complainant approached the opposite party but found the office closed, so he approached the opposite party who assured him that...
Sri. Koduru Subba Reddy and Another Vs. Sri. Mamidi Janardhan Reddy an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant approached opposite parties 1 to 3 for booking a house in their venture Neha Hills. Opposite party No.3 has undertaken the construction of foundations of the above said 26 houses at NEHA HILLS and entered into a development agreement with opposite parties 1 and 2 for 26 houses in Ac.32.28 Guntas in Sy. Nos.46/1, 87, 88 and 89 and the complainant after examining the specifications/schedule C of each house to be constructed therein desired to have a 4 Bed room house in 267 sq. yds. (Basement + Ground + First floor) admeasuring totally 4,332. sft. to be constructed by opposite party No.3 at a total cost of Rs.80 lakhs and 25% of the cost was fixed by opposite party No.3 for entering into sale cum construction agreement. The complainant paid Rs.17.2 lakhs through cheques dated 25-2-2008 for Rs.1 lakh, 13-3-2008 for Rs.13 lakhs 4-5-2008 for 3.2 lakhs to opposite par...
A. Bali Reddy Vs. Sri. Muneendra Financiers
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order of the District Forum in rejecting the complaint at the stage of admission on the ground that earlier complaints were filed before District Forum-I, Chittoor, subsequently at District Forum-II, Tirupathi and finally at Kadapa on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 3. The District Forum, Kadapa while returning the complaint, directed the same to be filed before appropriate forum. It is observed that the earlier complaint that were filed before Chittor and Tirupathi were returned. on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. When admittedly the respondent/opposite .party is a resident of Kadapa, the District Forum, Kadapa will have jurisdiction exfacie to take it on file. Sec11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as follows:- Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of th...
The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed the appeal on the premise that the District Forum had arbitrarily allowed the complaint directing it to pay the amount and benefits provided under Asha Deep-II Policy with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs. 2. The respondent had obtained insurance policy bearing No.681502047 in the year 1996 with commencement of the policy from 28.3.1996 for the sum assured `50,000/-. The premium was payable at `1035/- in every six months. The respondent did not pay two premiums and the policy was lapsed. On 16.5.2006 he was permitted to pay the premium with interest for revival of the insurance policy. 3. The version of the respondent is that in the first week of November 2006 he suffered from pain and swelling in his left scrotum for which he consulted Dr.Damodar Kasikar of Warangal. The doctor treated it for hydrocele. As there was no relief to the respondent, the doctor advised him t...
Dandu Ramachandra Raju Vs. Goodavalli Voilet Prameela Devi and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Already a common order was passed in both the appeals by this Commission dated 30-9-2011. Now the petitioner intends to clarify the said order on the ground that he issued a letter dated 25-10-2011 stating that he was ready to deliver the possession of the flats as per the order dt.30-9-2011 and simultaneously requested the respondents to register the flats which fell to the share of the petitioner but the respondents are not accepting and issued a registered notice and therefore, he intends the said order to be clarified. We are of the opinion that there is no need to clarify the order as it is explicit and we do not have power to review or clarify our own order by the virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Rajeev hitendra Pathan and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. reported in (2011) 8 SCLR 068, In the circumstances, these petitions are dismissed. There shall...
Bhusireddy Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. the Branch Manager Lic of Branch Offi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. Dissatisfied with the award of `5 lakh with interest from the date of complaint, the complainant has filed the appeal against the Life Insurance Corporation of India seeking interest from the date of death of the insured. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellants son during his life time obtained life insurance policy bearing No.602037442 on 28.10.2003 and he died on 11.5.2004. After the death of his son the appellant being nominee for the sum assured under the insurance policy, lodged claim which was not settled by the respondent corporation compelling the appellant to get issued notice through his advocate and thereafter file complaint in C.C.No.2 of 2006 which was disposed of by the District Forum on 4.5.2006 directing LIC to furnish claim forms to the appellant and settle the claim within one month thereof. 3. The appellant in compliance with the direction of the District Forum, submitted the claim form...
The District Manager, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation and Ano ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The A.P.State Seed Development Corporation has filed the appeal on the grounds that there was an agreement with the seed producer and supplier M/s Bisco Seed Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad which is responsible for crop failure on account of defective seed at any growth stage during the crop period and in the absence of seed producer the complaint could not entertained. The District Forum had not allowed the petition to add the seed producer as a necessary party to the proceedings. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent purchased 20 Maize Seed Tek 7408 variety for `70/- per kg from the first appellant. The seed was stated to have been sown in the land 1.53cents in Sy.No.512 at Kokkarancha village. On 5.10.2006 the respondent complained to the Mandal Agricultural Officer Kothapally and District Collector Kurnool about the loss of crop. After inspecting the field, the Mandal Agricultural officer submitted rep...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »