Andhra Pradesh Court March 2014 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.
Kunche Nageswara Rao and AnoThe Vs. G. Dayanand and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO M.A.C.M.A No.428 of 2009 25-03-2014 Kunche Nageswara Rao and another...Appellants G. Dayanand and another....Respondents Counsel for Appellants : Sr.B. Parameswara Rao Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sr.K. Kishor Kumar Reddy : ?.Cases referred: 1) AIR2001SC32182) 2013 ACJ14033) 2004 (5) ALT515= 2004(3) ALD NOC3254) 1994 (3) ALT58(D.B.) HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.428 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Challenging the award dated 09.02.2005 in O.P.No.208 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad (for short ".the Tribunal".).the claimants preferred the instant appeal. 2) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The fiRs.claimant is the husband and the second claimant is the son of the deceased - K. Balasarswathi. Their case is that on 07.03.2002 at about 11:30am, while the deceased was walking on the left side of the road at Alugaddabhavi Railway Bridge, one lorry bearing ...
B. Balamukund Rao Vs. M/S. National Insurance Company Rep. by Its Bran ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The appellant, who is a practising advocate, filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Forum-II, Hyderabad in C.C.No.03/2013 dated 05-9-2013 whereby the District Forum dismissed the said complaint on the ground of resjudicata. To understand the case in its proper perspective, the facts in brief are necessary: The complainant/appellant obtained Health policy from the National Insurance Company Limited on the advice of Bank of Baroda officials for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and paid an amount of Rs.4751/- towards the premium. The said insurance company issued Policy No.55021548/10/58/000000004 dated 26-4-2010 covering the appellant and his family members for a period of one year. According to the appellant, he is hale and healthy and he has no ailment or complaints of any nature or diseases and in those circumstances, according to him, what was stated in the proposal form before the issuance of the policy with regard to the conditio...
The Branch Manager, Laxmi Ganapathy Automobiles Pvt Ltd. and Another V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The brief facts as seen from the complaint are that the complainant booked Mahindra Scorpio model SCORF MDI BS2 2WD TCO 7SF RHD by paying booking amount of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the complainant was assured that they would deliver the above model manufactured in the year 2010. On road price of the said vehicle was Rs.8,78,789/- while ex-show room price was mentioned as Rs.7,21,914/-. On 21.05.2010 the complainant obtained loan from Andhra bank and paid Rs.8,78,789/- through D.D. and the same was acknowledged by opposite party No.2 through receipt dated 21-05-2010. The opposite party No.2 delivered the vehicle through opposite party No.1 and issued tax invoice for an amount of Rs.7,21,914/-and Form No.22 without mentioning date, month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle...
The Authorized Person Coca-cola Company Products Ltd., Atmakuru Villag ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a Limca 200 ml soft drink from the first opposite party no.2-retailer, manufactured by the first opposite party. At the time of attempting to open the soft drink bottle, the complainant noticed, a carcass of snake and on seeing the same, he did not open the seal of the bottle and exposed the defect, to the first opposite party. The opposite party no.1 is marketing this kind of contaminated soft drink, which contained carcass same, creating hazardous to human life and thus they have committed unfair trade practice, and deficiency in service. For the deficiency committed by the opposite party no.1, in selling this kind of contaminated Limca, legal notice was issued, claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, for which, there was no reply, though notice was serve...
Ch.Rani and Four Oth Vs. Shyamsunder Mandhani and Anoth
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.17 OF200724-03-2014. Ch.Rani and four others...APPELLANT/s Shyamsunder Mandhani and another .. RESPONDENT/s Counsel for the Appellant :Sri S.Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1:None ^Counsel for the respondent No.2 :Ms. I.Mammu Vani : ?. CITATIONS: HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.17 OF2007JUDGMENT: The appellants-claimants in OP.No.127 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short the Tribunal), are no other than the wife and four children, including one major daughter, preferred the appeal against the dismissal of the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- under Sections 166 and 163A of Motor Vehicle Act, mainly on the ground from para 8 of the award, that it is not stated in the claim petition as to whether the petitioners made claim for compensation before the Workmens Compensation Tribunal under W.C.Act as required, though they can claim either ...
M.Giriprasad and 4 OThe Vs. K.Munikrishna Reddy and Anothe
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITON No.8824 of 2013 24-03-2014 M.Giriprasad and 4 others....Petitioners K.Munikrishna Reddy and another.....Respondents Counsel for the PetitioneRs.Smt D.SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the respondent No.1: --- Counsel for the respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : : ?. Cases Referred: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8824 of 2013 The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8824 of 2013 ORDER: The criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.554/2012 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. None appeared for the 1st respondent/de facto complainant. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioners/A1 to A5 visited the house of the de facto com...
K. Shyam Kumar Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) The docket order dt. 17.1.2013 i.e., œNo representation for the complainant. Written arguments of complainant not filed, documents not marked, hence the complaint is dismissed? on the file of Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad is questioned in this appeal. 2) The brief facts that led to filing of the complaint are that the complainant got his Tata Safari vehicle bearing No. 10 AH 0666 insured with the respondent insurance company for sum assured of Rs. 7,50,000/- covering the period from 24.5.2010 to 23.5.2011. While so, it met with an accident on 7.8.2010 and immediately the complainant intimated the said fact to the insurance company. But the insurance company did not depute a surveyor to assess the loss nor get the vehicle repaired. The complainant got the vehicle towed to the mechanic who gave an estimate for Rs. 7, 50,000/- towards repairs and the same was sent to Opposite Party for its approval. After prolonged correspondence, the insurance company...
Patakoti Sathyanarayana Vs. the Foreman Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The complainant before the District Forum, Adilabad is the appellant and he preferred this appeal dis-satisfied with the order dated 04-3-2013 in C.C.No.44/2012 whereby the District Forum has deducted an amount of Rs.57,730/- out of the chit amount of Rs.5 lakhs and awarded only a sum of Rs.4,42,270/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the said amount. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a member of Chit No.ADT02J-20 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the said chit has been terminated and he paid the monthly subscriptions in time. The complainant demanded the opposite party No.2 several times to pay the said amount but the opposite parties evaded to make payment and therefore he got issued a notice for which opposite party No.2 gave a reply with false allegations. The complainant alleged that one G.Satyanarayana, Asst.BPO of the opposite party visited him and asked...
Para Koteswara Rao and Another Vs. Tirumala Multi Specialty Hospital a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainants filed this appeal against the order dt.18.10.2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. made in C.C.No.07/2011, which is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards medical expenses of the deceased Smt.Para Annamma, to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and loss of love and affection of the complainants with the deceased. The appellants are the complainants and the respondents are the opposite parties in C.C.No.07/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The case of the appellants/complainants as per the complaint filed by them is as follows: On 06.09.2009, Smt.Para Annamma, who is the wife of the complainant no.1 and mother of complainant no.2 admitted in the hospital of opposite party no.1 due to viral fever, where opposite party no.2 treated her and gave medical prescripti...
Suruguru Thara Bai Vs. the Branch Manager, Warangal-ii Branch Office, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) Complainant is the appellant herein and this appeal is directed against the order of the Dist. Forum, Warangal in CC No. 20/2012 Dt. 27.9.2013 whereby the Dist. Forum dismissed the complaint. 2) The facts in a nutshell are that the complainants husband S.Uppalaiahduring his life time obtained Golden Jubilee Bhima Gold Policy bearing No. 687518040 from Op1 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- effective from 21.2.2006. While so, on 9.10.2009 the life assured died of fever. When the claim was made by the complainant in the month of October, 2009 the same was repudiated on 16.3.2011 on the ground that the assured was not in good health at the time of proposal as well as revival. Alleging repudiation of her claim amounts to deficiency of service, the complainant approached the Dist. Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the sum assured under the policy together with attendant benefits, interest, compensation and costs. 3) The respondent insurance company f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »