Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Andhra Bank, Konakachi Penuganchiprolu Mandal Vs. Vyakaranam Sri Nagav ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The husband of the respondent no.1 and father of the respondents no.2 opened savings bank account namely Abhaya Jeevan General with the appellant with account No.029710100005899. The account has insurance coverage for assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-from the respondent no.4 insurance company. The husband of the respondent no.1 died on 21.8.2011 leaving behind him the respondents no.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The respondents no.1 to 3 made a representation and intimated the death of the account holder to the appellant and the respondent no.4. The appellant issued a claim application and the claimants had submitted the same to the respondent no.4 through the appellant. The respondent no.4 had sent a letter dated 4.11.2011 that the claim was being repudiated in view of earlier treatment taken by the deceased in Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital. The husband of the respondent no.1 did not take treatment for hea...
Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell Bmrws (Regd.) Bhel Mig 982 a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeals are filed by the Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell on behalf of the individual complainants against the order of the District Forum whereby the respondent was directed to refund the amount paid by the complainants with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the order. In all the five appeals, common question of facts and law are involved and as such they are proposed to be decided by a common order. 2. In each of the appeals, the complainant is the second appellant and he/she filed the appeals through the Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell which is the first appellant. The appeals are filed contending that the respondent-company did not obtain layout approval from DTCP before starting booking/sale of plots before December, 2005 and it failed to explain the inordinate delay of 4 years till 8.03.2012 in securing layout from HMDA. The appellants contended that the District Forum erred in coming to conclusion that there...
Andhra Bank, Rural Credit Branch Day and Night Junction Rep. by Its Ma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. The respondent no.1 opened S.B.Account (Abhaya Jeevan) with the appellant bank. The respondent no.1 had availed loan amount of Rs.one lakh from the respondent no.2 and agreed to repay the same in 36 equal monthly installments at Rs.4811/-. The respondent no.1 had issued 36 postdated cheques to the respondent no.2. The appellant had sent cheque bearing No.861446 dated 5.4.2009 for Rs.4,811/- to the respondent no.1 for clearance on 6.4.2009 and the respondent no.2 dishonoured the same with an endorsement that there is insufficient funds in the account of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 had deposited an amount of Rs.4,800/- on 6.4.2009 at 10.30 A.M. Due to the acts of the respondent no.2 the appellant debited an amount of Rs.250/- to the first respondents loan account towards collection charges. The respondent no.1 got issued notice on 23.4.2009 to the respondent no.2 and filed the complain...
G. Eswaraiah Vs. the Branch Manager, Lic of India and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint claiming the sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- under Jeevan Anand Life Insurance Policy and Rs.2,00,000/- under money plus life insurance policy along with benefits and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 2. The appellants father during his life time obtained Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No.654236783 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2006 on payment of premium of Rs.8,715/- per annum for a period of 16 years and another life insurance policy under money plus scheme bearing No.6544629254 in the year 2007 for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- lakh on payment of yearly premium of Rs.20,000/- for a period of 10 years. The appellant is the nominee for the two life insurance policies. On 14.2.2010 the insured died due to chemotherapy and as his claim was not settled by the respondent insurance corporation, the appellant g...
Premal Sarkar and Others Vs. M/S. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Oral Order : (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. These appeals are preferred by the complainants in CC 762, 763 and 764 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum I, Hyderabad against the same opposite party. 2. Since the complaints preferred by the complainants are similar and as common questions of fact and law are involved, we are of the opinion that all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order. FA 857/2012 is taken as lead case. For convenience sake, parties as arrayed in the complaints are referred to here-under : 3. FA : 859/2012 against CC 762/2011 : The case of the complainant is that initially the opposite party offered 200 sq. yards of land in the venture Sai Balaji Phase II in survey No. 140 (P) and 141 (P) in Bachupally village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. for sale @ Rs.300/- per sq. yard totaling to Rs.6 lakhs inclusive of developmental charges and that he paid Rs.50,000/- on 30.06.2007 towards 1st instalment and last instalment of Rs.10,000/- on 29....
Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs. Aditya Construction Company India Pvt Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking for refund of the amount of Rs.27.45 lakhs together with Rs.6,30,000/- towards financial loss, Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and costs. 2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant entered into agreement of sale with the opposite party on 12.05.2012 to purchase Flat bearing number E-101 for a consideration of Rs.61,00,000/-. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.27,45,000/-till 24.05.2012. On 12.08.2012 the complainant visited the spot and came to know that there was deviation from the flooring plan. The flat in the first floor does not have balcony of the size 6.0 x 12.3, 7.0x 5 and 7.0 x 5.0 as mentioned as utility in First Floor as per brochure furnished to the complainant. 3. The complainant submitted that the net area of the Flat is lesser than 2000 sft which is mentioned in the Agreement of sale. The complainant on finding deviations contacted the employee of the opposite party, Sridhar...
M/S. Icici Prudential Life Insurnace Co. Ltd. Vs. Farath Unisa @ Farut ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party insurance company is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant is directed to pay an amount Rs.1,25,000/- towards the sum assured under insurance policy bearing No.09132410 with interest at 9% per annum and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. 2. The husband of the respondent namely, Mohd Abdul Qayyam obtained life insurance policy from the appellant insurance company on 09.6.2008 for a period of 10 years for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. The respondent was appointed as the nominee of the insured and he died on 16.2.2010 due to cardiac arrest. The respondent submitted claim to the appellant on 24.10.2010 and as the appellant did not pay the amount i.e., assured sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, the respondent got issued notice on 30.04.2011. The appellant had sent repudiation letter dated 19.8.2008 informing the respondent that her claim was repudiated on the ground that her husband suppressed h...
M/S. Janachaitanya Housings, Pioneer House Vs. Smt. Dvc Padma and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. These appeals are preferred by opposite party described above as against the orders dated 28.12.2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Since these appeals are preferred by the very same opposite party, and as common questions of fact and law are involved, we are of the opinion that all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order. FA 104/2013 is taken as a lead case. For convenience sake, parties as arrayed in the complaints are referred to here-under : 3. FA 104/2013 : The complainant joined in the venture, viz., Sai puram floated by the opposite party in survey Nos. 14,22, 23, 24(p), 29(p) of Kawadipalli Village and in Sy. No. 254(p), 255(p), 256(p), 259 (p), 260 (p) to 262 (p), 325, 331, 339(p), 367 (p), 368(p), 373(p), 377 to 382 (p), 405 of Taramathipet Village and in Sy No. 11(p), 12(p), 13(p), 58 (p) of Balajiguda of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for allotment of a house plot of 200 sq. yards under t...
Kav Prasada Rao Vs. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by Its Branc ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the appellant is the owner of the lodge by name Kalpavruksha Lodge, Mantralayam which was completely inundated with flood water on 02.10.2009. The building, furniture fixtures etc., were damaged due to floods. The appellant informed about the damage to the respondent no.1 and submitted the claim forms. The respondents appointed a surveyor to assess the loss caused to the appellant. The surveyor did not assess the loss correctly. The respondent no.1 settled the claim of the appellant for Rs.8,99,837/- and the same was received by the appellant under protest. Thereafter the appellant got issued notice dated 27.01.2010 claiming balance amount of Rs.17,84,813. The respondent no.1 received the notice and gave reply with false allegations. The municipal surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.26,84,650/-. Hence the appellant filed complaint before the District...
Alok Chordia Vs. M/S. Aditya Construction Company India Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) This is a complaint filed u/s 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. 2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant booked a flat in Richmand D Block Flat No. 1206 of 1800 sft for Rs. 52,70,000/- out of which he paid Rs. 5,27,000/- on 8.12.2010. He got the bank loan approved for 85% of the amount. In response to booking of said flat No. 1206 the opposite parties sent a letter dt. 23.12.2010 to the complainant for processing of the complainants home loan. The complainant agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter and got eligibility for loan and requested the Ops to furnish allotment letter, flat buyer agreement, payment receipts, permission to mortgage/NOC etc. to be submitted to the bank but there was no response. Thereafter the Ops changed the scheme from pre-EMI to construction link payment without any consent from the complainant. The Ops got the building permission on 7.7.2011 for construction of m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »