Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member 1. All the eight complaints involve similar question of fact and law and as such they are disposed of by common order. Complaint in CC No. 109/2012 is taken as lead case. 2. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.Rs.21,75,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 15-12-2009 till the date of realization, to reimburse the insurance premium of Rs.24,000/-, to pay Rs.24,00,000/- towards loss of earning due to non functioning of the harvester, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The averments of the complaint are that opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of Kubota Combine DC-68G Harvesters and the opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 gave vide publicity through brochures representing that it is a 100% subsidiary manufacturer of agricultural machinery and market leader in Europe and that Kubota has been making combine harvesters in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order : ( R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 in both the C.Cs are the appellants. Both appeals arise from the same set of facts and similar circumstances and the question of law in the appeals being the same, both appeals are disposed of by common order. F.A.No. 63 of 2012 is taken as lead case. 2. The Appellants No. 1 and 2 are owners and possessors of open plots bearing nos. 92 and 93 admeasuring 974 sq. yards comprised in survey no. 191 and situate at JJ Nagar colony Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant no. 2 entered into development agreement with the appellants for construction of residential cum commercial complex over the land to be shared at the rate of 44% : 60% of the built up area. The second respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent to sell Flat No. 104 in the first floor with built up area of 1305 sq. feet for consideration of Rs.13,64,750/-. 3. The first respondent paid a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Complaint is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaining deficiency in service against the opposite parties no.1 to 9 and seeking for direction to the opposite parties to take steps to complete construction of the duplex house or alternatively pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards value of the unfinished work, to provide the amenities such as club house, swimming pool etc and for direction for payment of damages and compensation of Rs.50,000/- per month from August, 2010 till completion of the duplex hose, and for direction to the opposite party no. 10 to sell the mortgaged plot bearing nos. 11,12,13,14 and 15 and for payment of costs . 2. The first opposite party and the second opposite party entered into development cum general power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 9 on 05.03.2007 and 14.11.2007 for development of their land measuring Ac.9-00gts in sy.no. 332 situate at Nizampet village of Qutubu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212, FINANCE and PLANNING (FIN.WING.ADMN.II) DEPARTMENT Dated 17.12.1997 availed the benefits of the scheme under APGLIC by subscribing monthly premium of Rs.150/- from his salary being in the age group of 21 to 48 years. The complainant on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2010 approached the opposite parties for the matured policy amount but he was informed that he was not eligible for any bonus amount on the accumulated premium amount. Despite several representations the opposite parties did not respond positively. Therefore the complainant seeking a direction to the opposite party for payment of accumulated policy amount of Rs.24,000/- with bonus of Rs.40,000/- together with compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- and costs of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order : (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the District Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada in C.C.No.35 of 2013. 2. The respondent purchased an Auto Rickshaw for a sum of Rs.1,63,520/- from M/s. Varun Motors, Tiruvuru and paid Rs.53,520/- under Ex. A1 to A4 and the remaining amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was availed on loan from the first appellant. The respondent has to pay the loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- in 29 monthly instalments @ Rs.5,450/- for 20 months and Rs.5,250/- for 9 months commencing from October, 2010 till 31.3.2013. The respondent paid the installments regularly up to April, 2012 and failed to pay three instalments due to financial crises, as a result of which, the 1st appellant seized the vehicle on 09.10.2012 without any prior intimation or notice. After negotiations, the respondent paid Rs.18,000/- appellant No. 1 which issued vehicle release order on 23.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1) The appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint on the premise of the appellants failure to prove intoxicated condition of the driver at the time of the accident and its failure to examine Mani Kumar to whom the respondent said to have given oral intimation of the accident and resultant damage caused to the insured car. 2) The respondent got his car bearing registration number AP 16 BM 6679 insured with the appellant-insurance company for a sum of Rs. 5,75,696/- covering the period from 10.08.2011 to 09.08.2012. The car met with an accident on 01.01.2012 during night hours near Siddhartha College, Vijayawada. The respondent got the vehicle repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,98,000/-.The appellant-insurance company repudiated the claim on19.03.2012 on the ground that driver was under the influence of alcohol and notice in writing was not given immediately after occurrence of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Both appeals are directed against the same order passed by the District Forum in CC No. 180/2012 on 13.06.2013. The opposite party No. 1 has preferred appeal FA No. 633/2013 whereas the complainant has filed appeal. FA 1083/2013. Therefore, both appeals are disposed of by common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to filing of the appeals is that the complainant purchased Tractor of 275 D/BP Model in exchange of his used tractor from the opposite party no. 1. He purchased the tractor on finance arranged by the second opposite party and the tractor was delivered to him at Nandigama show room of the opposite party no. 1. The complainant received the tractor to the show room with complaint of improper functioning of its engine and thereafter he filed Complaint, CC No. 20/2007 against the first opposite party and its dealer before the District Forum se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeal is challenge to the order dated 23.04.2014 passed in CC 6/2013 by the District Forum, Guntur. 2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondents father obtained Life Insurance policy bearing no. 16638248 from the appellant insurance company for sum assured of Rs.3,75,000/- for the period commencing from 23.3.2010 till 23.03.2020 and the premium was payable half yearly @ Rs.12,500/-. The respondents father died on 14.5.2010. The respondent being nominee of his father for the sum assured in terms of the insurance policy, lodged claim with the appellant which repudiated the same on the ground that the insured suppressed his correct age at the time of obtaining the insurance policy. 3. Questioning the rationality of repudiation of his claim, the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum and the appellant resisted the same on the ground that the insured submitted proposal form bearing N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1) The appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint on the premise that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess endorsement in his driving licence to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods at the time the Lorry met with accident. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she got her tanker bearing registration number AP 16 TB 6611 of EICHER -35, 31 KHDS make insured for a sum of Rs.16 lakhs covering the period from 14.03.2011 to mid night of 31.03.2012 . The Lorry met with an accident on 06.05.2011 near Yerravaram junction while it was transporting Bitumen from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam to SIPCOT, Industrial park in Sriperambadur taluk, Kanchipura district, 3) The Tanker was damaged in the accident. When the fact of accident was intimated, the insurance company appointed a surveyor. The appellant got the vehicle repaired by M/s Sudhir Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Member The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 24-4-2013 passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.117/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the appellanton 01-03-12 leased out his residential building i.e., 5-5-8, 1/4 Brodipet,Gunturto one Grandhi Trivikrama Rao @Rs.4,000/- pm. The tenant is residing in the premises consisting of four rooms, one kitchen and a hall and is provided with two service connections bearing Nos.1111400000766 and 1111400093175. The tenant is residing in the said premises with his joint family consisting of two unmarried sons, mother-in-law and his sister-in-law and her two daughters and his married daughter and her family totaling to 13 persons. The service connection No.1111400000766 covered six ceiling fans, 8 tube lights, a grinder of HP., a mixer, a television, air-cooler and 6 bed lamps while the servic...
Tag this Judgment!