Andhra Pradesh Court January 2013 Judgments
Kannaiah Mandadi (Died) and Another Vs. Residents of Gollapalli.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.942 o31. 01.2013 Kannaiah Mandadi (died) and another Residents of Gollapalli. Counsel for appellants: SriP.V.Vidyasagar Counsel for Respondents : Sri S.V.Muni Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred JUDGMENT: The small dispute pertaining to the right of residents of one Village to use the road to have an excess to the neighbouring village, did not assume finality for the past 31/2 decades. The respondents, i.e. the residents of Gollapalle Village, filed a representative suit, being O.S.No.344 of 1976 in the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Chittoor, against the appellants, for the relief of mandatory injunction. They pleaded that, in the passage, shown as AB in the plaint sketch, the appellants encroached into the portion marked as MNOP, and obstructed the use of passage. It was pleaded that the passage was in existence from time immemorial and by purchasing an undivided share in the neighbouring land, the appellants put the disp...
Tag this Judgment!N.Sankar Reddy. Vs. N.Rami Reddy (Died) and Others.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.6363 o31. 01.2013 N.Sankar Reddy. N.Rami Reddy (died) and others. Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy Counsel for respondents: Sri R.Dheeraj Singh HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred: ORDER: Way back in the year 1998, the sole petitioner herein filed O.S.No.1148 of 1998 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor against K.Rami Reddy and Sivalinga Reddy, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual Injunction in respect of the suit schedule property viz., an extent of about half acre of land in different survey numbers of Varathur Village, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. During the pendency of the suit, Sivalinga Reddy died and his legal representatives i.e., respondents 3 to 9 herein were brought on record, by filing I.A.No.810 of 2004, which was ordered by the trial Court on 18.08.2004. Rami Reddy is said to have died on 31.07.2001. The petitioner was not aware of that fact. However, he did make a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Narasimha Reddy Vs. Kuchakula Surendar Reddy and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) The above applications are filed by O.P. No. 3 praying to re-call the common order passed by this Commission in C.C. No. 3/2010 and C.C. No. 3/2010 on 9.3.2011 on the ground that the order was obtained by playing fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. 2) The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant filed written arguments resisting the applications and contended that the petitioner was in the habit of filing one application or the other in order to avoid compliance of orders of this Commission. He further contended that this Commission has no power to review/recall its own order in the light of dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar reported in CDJ 2011 SC 792. He prayed that heavy costs be imposed for dragging on the matter by relying Apex Court judgement in Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Vs. Union of India reported in 2011 STPL (Web) 618 SC. 2) It i...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C. Sharath Babu Vs. Dr. K. Venkat
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful opposite party as against the orders dated 16.11.2010 in CC 153/2008 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 06.03.2008 the complainant who is a retired Veterinary doctor approached the opposite party/Medical practitioner for check up to his left eye. Accordingly, the OP examined him and advised for scanning and after such a scanning he informed the complainant that his lift is fit for cataract operation. Then on 10.03.2008, the complainant paid Rs.11,000/- to the OP towards operation fee and such a cataract operation was done to his left eye and it was bandaged. Soon after the operation, the OP informed the complainant that a mistake has been committed during his operation and thereby a piece of cataract has gone towards retina and directed the compl...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) This appeal is directed against the order dt. 2.9.2010 of the Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad made in C.C.No.383/2009, which is filed by the respondent/complainant seeking direction to the opposite party insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,36,750/- along with 24% interest p.a. towards the damages of the lorry/towards the repairing charges of the lorry bearing no.AP 09U 7094, as per the terms of the policy, from the date of the claim till the date of realization, along with Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and for costs of the litigation. For the sake of convenience the parties are described as they arrayed in the complaint. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is as follows: One G.M.Shah is the owner of the lorry bearing no.AP 9U 7094 and he had obtained the Package Policy bearing no.052100/31/04/00304 from the opposite party insurance company covering the risks of own damages on the vehicle by paying the insurance p...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sanjeev Kumar Alias Kamma Sanjeeva Rao Vs. Krishna Institute of Med ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant originally against the opposite parties 1 and 2 only seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakhs with interest @ 12% PA and costs alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service and during pendency of complainant OP 3 insurance Company has been brought on record. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant who is an Agriculturist suffering from heaviness in chest consulted Dr. B.L. Agarwal, a Cardiologist, Usha Mullapudi Hospital, Gajula Ramaram, Hyderabad on 21.05.2003, who, diagnosed him as Severe Mitral Regurgitation (M.R). When the complainant consulted Dr. G. Ravi kanth of OP No.1 hospital on 29.10.2004, he estimated expenditure at Rs.1,50,000/- for MVR ( Mitral Valve Replacement) operation and that the operation was performed on 19.01.2005 by the surgeons, i.e. opposite party no. 2 , Dr. D. Vij...
Tag this Judgment!Dandu Krishna Murthy Raju Vs. the Branch Manager of Max Newyork Life I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) This appeal is directed against the order dt.22.6.2012 of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad made in C.C.No.933/2011. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C.No.933/2011 filed by the appellant/complainant seeking direction to the opposite party as follows: 1. to refund the service tax collected on the whole life, three policies and order not to collect future service tax on the premias of these policies. 2. to pay Rs.1,50,234/- with 12% interest due to fore closure of the unit linked policy as risk component. 3. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony, 4. to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of the complaint. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows: The complainant obtained three whole life policies from the opposite party life...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kiran Chowdhary and Another Vs. Prem Sagar Rao, Managing Director ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.9/2011 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the complainants preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants submitted that the opposite parties offered to sell the flat initially at Rs.2999/- per sq. ft. inclusive of free parking area, vat and other taxes and upon negotiations settled the price at Rs.2750/- per sq. ft. with price guarantee assurance. The complainants submitted that complainant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash to opposite parties on 17-12-2008 and issued a cheque bearing No.729213 dated 17-12-2008 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce issued by complainant no.2 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- thus in total paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for booking flat No.232 at Manasa sarovar height-III @ Rs.2750/- per sq. ft. The opposite parties sales officer, Mr.Ramu issued a receipt to an extent of Rs.15,00,000/- dated 17-12-2008 and assured t...
Tag this Judgment!N. Shashank Reddy Vs. Dr. Svss Prasad, Medical Oncologist, Apollo Hops ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties for payment of compensation an amount of `75,00,000/- and for reimbursement of medical expenses of `22,00,000/- and costs of the proceedings. 2. The complainants mother was suffering from headache for 15 days and on 22.09.2009 she was taken to Dr.Rajesh Reddy who is attached to the opposite party no.3-hospital, who advised for MRI scan of brain which revealed that the complainants mother was suffering from high grade Glioma cancer which requires the patient to undergo surgery. The patient consulted Dr.Alok Ranjan of the opposite party no.3-hospital and he advised for immediate surgery. The doctor clarified that the cancer had not spread to other parts of the patients body. 3. The patient consulted the second opposite party who advised for complete PET scan of the patients body on 24.09.2009 which revealed small activity near lymph nodes(near lungs). The second opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramakrishna Vs. M. Sudhakar Chairman and Managing Director Janachai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President) Aggrieved by the order in CC 57/2012 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant joined as a member in the scheme floated by the opposite party for allotment of 200 sq. yds. and paid Rs.40,000/- on 21-5-98 and 27-5-1998 respectively as initial deposit and was issued a passbook No.276 and thereafter the complainant made the payments as per the scheme. The opposite parties sent letters on 26-9-1998, 30-12-1998, 22-6-99 and 31-12-1999 whenever there was any lapse in the payment of instalment. The complainant submits that he always responded to these letters and paid the instalments regularly and totally paid Rs.2,40,000/- by 25-6-2006 but the plot was not registered in his name. The complainant submits that as per point 4(e) of the terms and conditions, the opposite party should execute the sale agreement after making payment of Rs.1,00,0...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »