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.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Branch Manager Lalape ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay the amount covered under the policy with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2) The case of the complainants in brief is that late Kurnala Humkara Venkata Rama Gupta husband of complainant No. 1 and father of complainant No. 2 took Janatha Personal Accident policy (JPA) for Rs. 5 lakhs covering the period from 12.11.1997 to 11.11.2012. While so on 5.4.2001 while drawing water from a well he suddenly slipped and fell into it and died. On a report the police registered it as a case in crime No 70/2001 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. Finally they referred it as accidental death. When they claimed the amount by furnishing all the documents the insurance company did not settle the claim despite several notices, and therefore they claimed the said amount with interest togethe...
A.P.S.R.T.C .Employees Thrift and Credit Co-operative Society Vs. V.Ra ...
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.205/2008 on the file of District Forum-II, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an employee of A.P.S.R.T.C. and retired as Asst. Depot Clerk and during his services he joined as a Member of opposite party Society. At the time of retirement on 31.5.2008 the complainant submitted all the required documents to the opp.party as per rules for processing and settlement of claim. After retirement the complainant received a letter from the opp.party office dt.25.6.2008 vide ref. no.CCS 11/108791 RTD wherein it was stated that his claim was settled for Rs.1,66,682/- , but he was surprised to receive a cheque for Rs.1,32,085/- only for which no details were furnished. The complainant immediately brought the fact of short fall of Rs.34,597/- as against the settled claim amount of Rs.1,66,682/- to the notice of opp.p...
Md. Abdul Majeed Vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.) 1) Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that this matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission. 2) This is a revision preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum in dismissing his petition filed to appoint an IRDA approved surveyor to assess the claim. 3) The complainant filed a complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,40,600/- towards accidental damage caused to the vehicle with interest @ 24% p.a., together with costs of Rs. 10,000/- 4) During the course of enquiry he filed the above application alleging that his vehicle was met with accident. On that he made claim for Rs. 3,23,200/- however the respondent insurance company reduced the claim amount to Rs. 82,600/-. The surveyor has given a biased report and therefore he sought for appointment of another surveyor not associated with the insurance c...
Y. Ashok Vs. Kun Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Manager and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
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 purchased a Chevrolet car from R1 authorised dealer of R3 manufacturer for his business to eke out his livelihood. On receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs on 3.8.2004 R1 dealer delivered the vehicle, which he got it registered. R2 authorised servicing centre has been servicing the car regularly. While so on 18.2.2008 the vehicle started giving trouble, noise was emanating. When he took the car to R2 for getting the defect rectified it has given a quotation/order for Rs. 25,000/- for engine noise check up with a promise that it would return on 26.2.2008. When he went to R2 for taking delivery it demanded Rs. 49,194/- towards repairing charges. The vehicle was not delivered as the amount was not paid. In fact on 25.6.2007 when he entrusted the vehicle for servicing and replacement of bulb R2 charged Rs. 986/-. The cost of the bulb was only Rs. 345/- in t...
B.Krishna Reddy. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Subrahmanyam, and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression 'contempt of court' may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. If orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. (Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries1; Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu2). Every one, howsoever high he may be, is bound to implement orders of Court. Those who disregard Court's orders do so at their own pe...
B.Krishna Reddy Vs Smt. Pushpa Subrahmanyam and 5 ors
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1.Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression 'contempt of court' may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. If orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. (Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries1; Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu2). Every one, howsoever high he may be, is bound to implement orders of Court. Those who disregard Court's orders do so at their own per...
B.Krishna Reddy Vs. Smt. Pushpa Subrahmanyam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression 'contempt of court' may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. If orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. (Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries1; Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu2). Every one, howsoever high he may be, is bound to implement orders of Court. Those who disregard Court's orders do so at ...
A. Yadaiah Vs. the Branch Manager Andhra Bank
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
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 was having an S.B. account with the respondent bank with a facility of ATM card. He secured education loan from his employer. APSRTC issued a cheque for Rs. 35,250/- which he deposited in his account on 8.6.2007. On 11.6.2007 he went to the bank and withdrew a sum of Rs. 28,000/- from his account keeping a balance of Rs. 8,601.75. It was entered in his pass book by the cashier. While so the bank has been coercing him to repay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that they had paid an excess of Rs. 10,000/-. This was all false. All of them hatched a plan to knock away his Rs. 10,000/- putting him under apprehension and fear. On 13.6.2007 when he went to ATM to withdraw balance the respondent bank gave a transaction slip transaction declined as insufficient funds. Yet on another occasion ledger balance dt. 14.6.2007 showed that he was hav...
The Junior Telecom Officer (Groups) Bsnl Dharmavaram (Vandm) and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties BSNL against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to rectify the bill, restore connection and pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he has a local public telephone booth allotted to him under LPT scheme to eke out his livelihood. Later they converted the said connection under Village Public Telephone (VPT). The appellants charges Rs. 0.50 per unit and pay commission at 50% on every bill. While so on 3.3.2004 the appellants had sent a bill for Rs. 36,973/- for 548 calls. In fact his bills never exceeded Rs. 1,000/- per month. The appellants ought to have issued the bill for Rs. 159/- viz., (548 units @ Rs. 0.50 ps = 274.00 commission @ Rs. 0.25 ps. = Rs. 137/- + S.T. Rs. 22/- = Rs. 159/-). Despite his representation to rectify the bill no action was taken and due to this he suffered mental agony. This constitutes deficiency ...
Karri Prakash Vs. T.N.Rajyalakshmi and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
Oral Order ( per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President.) This is a revision preferred by opposite party against the order of the District Forum in I.A.No.19/2011 in C.C.No.12/2009 dismissing his application to send it to a handwriting expert for second opinion. The complainants filed the complaint against the revision petitioner to return the gold ornaments and for damages and costs. The opposite party resisted the complaint alleging that the said ornaments were returned and obtained an acknowledgement marked as Ex.B2. When the complainant contested that the signature does not belong to her, it was referred to an handwriting expert for comparison. The expert opined that the disputed and admitted signatures did not tally. Thereupon the opposite party filed I.A.No.19/2011 to send those disputed documents to another expert for second opinion. The District Forum after considering the contentions dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition came to be prefe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »