Andhra Pradesh Court April 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.
D. Raveendra Rao Vs. the Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of Opel car insured with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- covering the period from 21.2.2004 to 20.2.2005. While so on 20.7.2004 the vehicle met with accident. On a report the police registered it as a case in crime no. 106/2004. He spent about Rs. 1,63,513/- for purchase of spare parts, incurred Rs. 67,200/- towards labour charges in all Rs. 2,30,713/-. The insurance company offered Rs. 30,512/- towards full and final settlement which he did not agree. On that he issued legal notice claiming the said amount and since no action was taken he filed the complaint claiming the said amount with interest, and costs. 3) The insurance company resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy and that vehicle met with accident it alleged that on receipt of report it has appointed a surveyor to assess the...
Dr. N. Ranganayakulu Vs. the Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance C ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of a car and the same was insured with the respondent insurance company for the period commencing from 1.1.2007 to 1.1.2008. While so when he was going on his car it met with accident on 15.6.2007 at 8.00 p.m. Immediately the same was informed to the insurance company on phone. On that the respondent insurance company informed that it would send one Mr. Kumar, surveyor to enquire about the accident and estimate the damages. Two days there after one Mr. Srinivas an employee of the insurance company directed him to get it repaired and it would pay the amount. Despite his repeated letters the respondent did not give any reply. Finally he got issued a registered notice for which the insurance company gave reply stating that it did not receive any communication. In fact he had spent Rs. 30,805/- and got the car repaired, and theref...
United India Insurnace Company Ltd. Vs. Gurunadha Swamy Rice Industrie ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company, opposite party, against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 4,14,960/- together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a partnership firm doing business in rice. It had purchased machinery for sorting out the fine quality of rice milled in its mill for Rs. 49,74,000/- on 7.2.2002, and got it insured and has been renewing periodically viz., from 1.12.2006 to 30.11.2007. While so on 28.3.2007 one of the feeder ejectors (84 Nos) failed and was not working and the same was informed to service engineer which has Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC). He inspected the machine and opined that three feeders were failed and asked to replace immediately. The said fact was informed to the insurance company enclosing the inspection report of the service engineer. The insurance company appointed a surveyor and loss assessor Sri A.P.C...
Majji Padma Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Branc ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
Oral Order: D. Appa Rao, President: 1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the owner of a poultry farm established under PMRY scheme for which she had taken a standard fire special perils policy from the insurance company and got it renewed from 19.11.2001 to 18.11.2002 for Rs. 9,25,000/-. While so on 29.7.2002 there was heavy rain and winds due to which poultry was collapsed causing damage of property worth Rs. 71,000/-. The said fact was informed on which the respondent insurance company took photographs and estimated the damage but did not inform as to the exact settlement that was made despite their repeated reminders. Therefore she filed the complaint claiming Rs. 71,000/- under the policy together with interest, compensation and costs. 3) The insurance company resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy it alleged that on receipt of information it had appointed a surveyor. While confirming the alleged loss he fou...
Mohd RaziuddIn Vs. Sri Kusumahara Enterprises and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum. The complainant has filed the appeal being dissatisfied with the findings recorded by the District Forum that his complaint has no merits nor any substance. 2. The appellant placed an order dated 6.2.2005 with the respondent no.3 company for purchase of furniture worth of `49,559/- and paid an amount of `10,000/- to the first respondent at their shop at Exhibition Grounds Hyderabad. The appellant placed the order for the furniture and articles manufactured by the respondents no.2 and 3 and subsequently he had paid an amount of `40,000/- through demand draft dated 2.3.2005. The first respondent through their local agent M/s Trimurti Enterprises Nizamabad delivered the goods that were ordered by the appellant. Ten days thereafter, on 25.4.2005 the appellant addressed letter to the third respondent complaining that he had not received the dressing table and the Es...
Keerthi Kumar JaIn Vs. the District Collector
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
1. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notificationRoc.No.292/2007/G2(SW), dated 18-5-2007 and proceedings Roc.No.G2/292/2007(SW) dated 24-12-2008 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, (for short "the Act") vide proceedingsRoc.No.G2/292/2007/SW, dated 5-1-2009. 2. The petitioner is the owner of Ac.5-43 cents of land in Sy.Nos.463/1B,463/1C, 463/1D, 463/2A, 463/2B, 463/2C, 463/2D, 463/2E, 463/2F, 463/2G, 463/3A, 463/3B1 and 463/3C1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on18-5-2007 for acquiring the said land along with other extents belonging tothird parties for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The petitionerfiled W.P.No.12091/2007 questioning the said notification. The said WritPetition was dismissed on 18-1-2008 with liberty to the petitioner to fileobjections under Section 5-A of the Act. 3. The petitioner has accordingly...
Keerthi Kumar Jain. Vs. the District Collector,west Godavari.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
1. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification Roc.No.292/2007/G2 (SW), dated 18-5-2007 and proceedings Roc.No.G2/292/2007 (SW) dated 24-12-2008 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short "the Act") vide proceedings Roc.No.G2/292/2007/SW, dated 5-1-2009. 2. The petitioner is the owner of Ac.5-43 cents of land in Sy.Nos.463/1B, 463/1C, 463/1D, 463/2A, 463/2B, 463/2C, 463/2D, 463/2E, 463/2F, 463/2G, 463/3A, 463/3B1 and 463/3C1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 18-5-2007 for acquiring the said land along with other extents belonging to third parties for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12091/2007 questioning the said notification. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 18-1-2008 with liberty to the petitioner to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has accordingly submitted his objections. However, by the impugned proceedin...
The District Collector,west Godavari, Vs the District Collector,west G ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
1.This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification Roc.No.292/2007/G2(SW), dated 18-5-2007 and proceedings Roc.No.G2/292/2007(SW) dated 24-12-2008 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short "the Act") vide proceedings Roc.No.G2/292/2007/SW, dated 5-1-20092.The petitioner is the owner of Ac.5-43 cents of land in Sy.Nos.463/1B, 463/1C, 463/1D, 463/2A, 463/2B, 463/2C, 463/2D, 463/2E, 463/2F, 463/2G, 463/3A, 463/3B1 and 463/3C1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 18-5-2007 for acquiring the said land along with other extents belonging to third parties for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12091/2007 questioning the said notification. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 18-1-2008 with liberty to the petitioner to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has accordingly submitted his objections. However, by the impugned proceedings, de...
Keerthi Kumar JaIn Vs C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy. J.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
1.This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification Roc.No.292/2007/G2(SW), dated 18-5-2007 and proceedings Roc.No.G2/292/2007(SW) dated 24-12-2008 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short "the Act") vide proceedings Roc.No.G2/292/2007/SW, dated 5-1-2009. 2.The petitioner is the owner of Ac.5-43 cents of land in Sy.Nos.463/1B, 463/1C, 463/1D, 463/2A, 463/2B, 463/2C, 463/2D, 463/2E, 463/2F, 463/2G, 463/3A, 463/3B1 and 463/3C1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 18-5-2007 for acquiring the said land along with other extents belonging to third parties for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12091/2007 questioning the said notification. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 18-1-2008 with liberty to the petitioner to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has accordingly submitted his objections. However, by the impugned proceedings, ...
Ge Country Wide Consumer Financial Services Limited, Vijayawada Branch ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.140/2008 on the file of District Forum-II, Krishna , the opp.parties peferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is working as U.D.C. in All India Radio Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam Dist and she approached opp.parties in the month of March and April 2004 with a view to purchase a Bajaj Pulsor Blue Colour Motor Cycle and opp.parties have provided finance for the above said vehicle bearing no.AP-AP-16-AK-7835 in the month of April,2004 and the said loan amount is repayable in 22 instalments at Rs.2,521/- per month. The complainant had paid the instalments regularly without any default. Due to illhealth and financial crisis the complainant could not pay the 23rd instalment but she paid the 24th instalment. On 8.7.2006, opp.parties came to the complainant and forcibly took away the said motor cycle without adhering to the request of the complainant. On 28.7.2008 the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »