Andhra Pradesh Court November 2013 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.
J.P. Rao Vs. the Additional Divisional Engineer, Apcpdcl., Miralam Fil ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum, Rangareddy made in C.C.No.26/2012 which was filed by the complainant, seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay a sum of Rs.39,800/- towards the cost of appliances, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony and to pay costs. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief, is as follows: The complainant is the tenant of the house bearing H.No.3-1-5/9, Lakshmi Nagar, Attapur, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. and on 16.8.2011 at about 9 a.m. there was fluctuations in the electric supply and due to that reason, the electrical appliances such as TV, HI-FI and Fridge etc. were burnt and became dis-functional. Along with the complainant, some other residents of the same area also faced the same problem. The complainant and other residents of the same area gave complaint to the opposite party no.1, who informed that the fluctuati...
Andhra Bank, Lb Nagar Branch, Near Kamineni Hospital Hyderabad Rep. by ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The respondent no.1 is having savings bank account No.1467810100002449 with the respondent no.2 as also he was provided with ATM card. On 11.8.2009 when the respondent no.1 attempted to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the ATM, it had shown that he had already withdrawn the amount of Rs.15,000/- and he complained about the same to the appellant. No action was taken by the appellant in the matter. The respondent no.1 got issued notice dated 8.10.2009 to the appellant and the respondent no.2 and filed the complaint before the District Forum. 2. The appellant resisted the case contending that the respondent no.1 is the SB Account holder of the appellant bank with ATM Card facility. On 11.8.2009 the respondent no.1 instructed for withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- at 20.07 WDL and cash was taken at 20:07:40 and 20:40:41. The appellant had issued statement with regard to the transaction. The...
The Manager, Indian Bank, Kongareddypalli Branch Chittoor Branch and A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. Both appeals arise from the same order passed by the District Forum. The complainant has filed appeal, F.A.No. 707 of 2013 claiming more compensation than what was awarded by the District Forum and the opposite party-bank has preferred appeal, F.A.No. 3 of 2013 impugning the order. For the sake of felicity of expression, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint. 2. The complainant availed agricultural gold loan, an amount of Rs.6,000/- from the opposite party-bank on 15.12.2003 by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 28.800 gms. The complainant submitted that due to drought prevailed at the relevant period, he could not discharge the loan and even after the debt waive scheme is introduced by the Central Government , he approached the opposite party-bank on 14.11.2007 to discharge the loan and the opposite party informed him that it sold the pledged gold items in auction and after adjusting the amount t...
Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by Is Managing Director 10003- ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. The brief averments of the complaint are that the respondent no.1 insured the car bearing No.AP-28-V-5901 with the respondent no.2 under policy No.4175052/31/11/001560 and valid from 3.5.2010 to 4.5.20111. The vehicle met with an accident on 14.5.2010 when the driver of the vehicle proceeding from Kagaznagar towards Asifabad resulting which the vehicle was completely damaged. A case was registered by the Police Asifabad. The appellants appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,14,000/- and did not settle the claim. 2. The appellants and the respondent no.2 resisted the case contending that the respondent no.1 did not produce the fitness certificate when asked by the surveyor vide letters dated 6.10.2010 and 29.9.2011 and subsequently the appellants closed file and informed the same by their letter dated 25.10.2010. The appellants have appointed the surveyor and as per the motor...
Mrs. Banala Ravali Vs. Managing Director and Authorized Dealer M/S Maj ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. On 20.12.2010 the appellant purchased a Mahindra two wheeler from the respondent no.1 for Rs.51,500/- with a warranty of 4 years or covering distance of 40,000 kms whichever is earlier. Within two months of its purchase, the vehicle started posing problems relating to shock absorber, oil leakage, battery leakage, colour fade, mileage etc. On 15.11.2011 the appellant handed over the vehicle to the respondent no.1 workshop for repairs and after repairs it ws delivered to the appellant on 24.11.2011 and the problems posed by him still persisted. The appellant again handed over the vehicle on 25.11.2011 which was delivered back to him on 26.11.2011 by changing the engine without the knowledge of the appellant. The respondent no.1 did not issue the owners identification certificate and fitness certificate of the vehicle. On verification of the owners manual the appellant noticed the vehicle was s...
The Panchayath Secretary Grampanchayath Tekkali, Rep. by S.Rajeswara R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the District Forum has directed the appellant and the respondent no.2 and 3 to lay pakka drain and road in front of the complainant is house within 3 months and to prevent entering of drain water into the house of the complainant. They had been further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation along with costs of Rs.1500/-. 2. The case of the first respondent is that he obtained permission from the appellant and constructed house at Tekkali and he made several representations to the appellant to lay drainage canal for clearance of drain water and water accumulated due to rain. He has got issued notice through his advocate to the appellant and the respondents on 3.01.2010 and thereafter filed the complaint. 3. The appellant has contended that the first respondent purchased Ac.0.02gts of land in the year,1985 by which time the...
Penugonda Varalaks Vs. Nallamala Lakshmi Tayaru and Oth
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Civil Revision Petition No.2588 of 2012 29-11-2013 Penugonda Varalakshmi ..PETITIONER Nallamala Lakshmi Tayaru and others.. RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad Counsel for the respondent No.2:Sri Naram Nageswara Rao : ?. CITATIONS: (1994) 4 SCC177THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Civil Revision Petition No.2588 of 2012 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 30.01.2012 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram dismissing the application in E.A.No.104 of 2010 in E.P.No.55 of 2005 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 281 days in filing petition under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code', for short).2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, in brief, are as follows: `The property said to be of the revision petitioner/1st Judgment debtor (`the petitioner', for short) was sold in an aucti...
Annam Uttarudu (Died) by Lrs.,annam Vidh Vs. Annam Venkateswara Rao, S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY SECOND APPEAL No.111 of 2005 29-11-2013 Annam Uttarudu (died) by LRs.,Annam Vidhyavathi, W/o.Uttarudu and others... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants Annam Venkateswara Rao, S/o.late Ananda Ramaiah... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff Counsel for the Appellants: Mrs.Y.Anupama Devi Counsel for the respondent: Sri H.Venugopal HEAD NOTE: ?. CASES REFERRED:1. 2012 (3) ALD4232. 2010 (4) ALD244(DB) 3. (2009) 13 SCC2294. AIR1934All 574 5. AIR2002MP796. 1971 APLJ299THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY SECOND APPEAL No.111 of 2005 November 29, 2013 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the sole defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 30.4.2004 in A.S.No.59 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, confirming in appeal the decree and judgment dated 30.7.1996 in O.S.No.43 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kaikalur. The parties are hereinafter referred to as ...
Gulbarga Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. an Vs. Il and Fs Transportation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Civil Revision Petition No.2588 of 2012 29-11-2013 Penugonda Varalakshmi ..PETITIONER Nallamala Lakshmi Tayaru and others.. RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad Counsel for the respondent No.2:Sri Naram Nageswara Rao : ?. CITATIONS: (1994) 4 SCC177THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Civil Revision Petition No.2588 of 2012 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 30.01.2012 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram dismissing the application in E.A.No.104 of 2010 in E.P.No.55 of 2005 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 281 days in filing petition under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code', for short).2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, in brief, are as follows: `The property said to be of the revision petitioner/1st Judgment debtor (`the petitioner', for short) was sold in an aucti...
Jummerath Sayanna Vs. Md. ArifuddIn and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO M.A.C.M.A No.181 of 2009 29-11-2013 Jummerath Sayanna....Appellant Md.Arifuddin and others....Respondents Counsel for Appellant : Sr.S. Surender Reddy Counsel for Respondents: - : ?.Cases referred: HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.181 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.199 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').as inadequate, the injured-claimant preferred the present M.A.C.M.A.2) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The claimant's case is that on 09-08-2004 while he was riding his scooter bearing No.AP1C6005along with his relative Vinod as pillion rider and proceeding from Nirmal to Sirgapur and on the way when they reached Chityal Bus Stand at about 5:00 p.m., a jeep bearing No.AP1T5905came in opposite direction being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and went on wro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »