Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by opposite party No. 1 (C.D. No. 1433/1993, District Forum, Hyderabad) C.D. No. 178/1997 on the file of District Forum, Rangareddy District. 2. The complainant, who is a lecturer, in Government College met with an accident and was admitted in Vijaya Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. He was treated by Dr. Ramu, Orthopaedic Surgeon who after X-ray advised an operation for which the complainant purchased nail and plate from opposite party No. 2 on 21.1.1993 for Rs. 805.45 from sales executive of opposite party No. 1. The surgery was performed on 21.1.1993, nail and plate were fixed and he was advised to take bed rest for three months but within a week, he developed severe pain in the fractured leg and Dr. Ramu advised him to take another X-ray. The problem was diagnosed as loose nail, hence he was operated again on 23.2.1993 at Apex Hospital, Malakpet by the same doctor and the screw was tightened. However, he developed sever...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainants son Master Akshay aged about 11 months was admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital for complaint of loose motions. After treatment he was discharged on 13.8.1997. Again on 31.8.1997 the boy was admitted for complaint of fever and cough. He was under the treatment of Dr. P. Madan Mohan Rao of opposite party No. 2 hospital who diagnosed the disease allergic breathlessness and anaemic. Since the body was anaemic the doctor advised blood transfusion and accordingly as per the advise of the said doctor the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 Blood Bank on 1.9.1997 along with donor Mr. J. Narsing Rao. Opposite party No. 1 after conducting necessary tests informed that the blood of the donor is suitable to the patient and that the blood was good and accordingly issued a Donor Card wherein it was clearly mentioned that H.I.V. I and II Negative. Accordingly opposite party No. 1 Blood Bank collected the blood from the donor, receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party who is the owner of the premises bearing No. 2-2-1167/8/14, situated at Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad admeasuring 650 sq. yards entered into a development agreement with the second opposite party, the builders on 26.8.1992, according to which the second opposite party agreed to construct stilt plus three floors making in all 12 flats with a total constructed area of 10,250 sq. ft. and transfer 40% of the constructed area in favour of the first opposite party. The first opposite party empowered and authorised the second opposite party to enter into agreements with third parties in respect of the remaining share of constructed area. 2. The opposite parties 3 and 4 are partners of second opposite party. The fourth opposite party approached the complainant to purchase flats under construction. Accordingly the complainant agreed to purchase flat No. 304A on 1.5.1993. The total consideration payable for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal arises out of order dated 28.1.1999 of District Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. C-884/1998entitled Shri Dilip Kumar Aggarwal v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that telephone bearing No. 7253501 was installed at the premises of the respondent-Shri Dilip Kumar Aggarwal. However, on 5.11.1996, the respondent applied for the transfer of the said telephone connection from Wazirpur Industrial Area to Tis Hazari, Delhi and also requested for safe custody of the same during the interim period. The telephone was installed in the chamber of the respondent at Tis Hazari in March, 1997 but the same was not energised. In the meanwhile, as per the requirement of the appellant, the respondent paid up all the pending bills. Despite the payment of the outstanding dues, the telephone of the respondent was not energised and as such the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 28.4.1999, passed by the District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 67/1998 - entitled Shri Samay Singh v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. 2. The appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating therein that the appellant is being provided electricity through Meter No. 1448460 bearing K. No. 129545 installed at the shop of the appellant. That the premises where the aforesaid electric connection had been installed is a small shop where the appellant, being an oldman sells sweets, toffees to school-going children in order to pass his time. It was the case of the appellant in his complaint filed before the District Forum that the bills were being raised in respect of the said connection, on minimum consumption basis, as only one bulb and one small fan is being used in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of District Forum, New Delhi dated 8.10.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 1563/1995 entitled Smt. Savitri Avasthi v. General Manager, Northern Railways. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the appellant was travelling from Kharagpur to New Delhi on 12.12.1994 in Neelanchal Express, and there was no electricity in the evening in the train. When the said train reached New Delhi Station on 13.12.1994 the appellant realized that one brief-case containing valuables was missing. The appellant had been unable to take care of all her belongings on account of the fact that there was no light in the coach. The appellant lodged a complaint with the Railway Authorities, as well as, in the Police Station vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against orders of the District Forum (New Delhi) dated 1.8.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 920/98 entitled Mr. V.K. Sharma and Anr. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent had obtained a Mediclaim Insurance Policy for himself and his family valid from 10.11.1995 to 9.11.1996, on payment of a premium of Rs. 5,670/- by Cheque No. 27946 dated 7th November, 1995. In the proposal Form the respondents had mentioned that on account of a fracture in the right thigh of respondent No. 2 a nail was inserted by Dr. V.B. Bhasin, Orthopaedic Surgeon in Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi which was removed by surgical operation in October, 1995. A fitness certificate was duly obtained from the said doctor dated 8th November, 1995 whereby Dr. V.B. Bhasin had certified that after the removal of the nail from the right thigh of the respondent No. 2 in 1995 she had no handicap or disability...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi dated 20.1.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 22/2000 - entitled Shri B.C. Jhulka v. Assistant Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), stating therein that the electric connection bearing No. 6021448111 was installed at the premises of the respondent. The staff of the appellant-DVB conducted an inspection of the said premises on 25.9.1999 and found the half-seals of the meter tampered with and the connected load was also found to be 11.36 KW as against the sanctioned load of 6 KW. As such, a bill on FAE basis was raised for Rs. 36,000/-. The respondent paid up the said bill under protest. However, it was stated by the respondent that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant is the appellant. Here case is that though the opposite party Insurance Company settled her claim favourably, interest was not paid for the delayed period. 2. The facts of the case are that her husband died in a motor vehicle accident on the night of 1.9.1998 while two insurance policies for Rs. 5 lakhs each were in force. As per the conditions of the policy, Rs. 1,50,000/- has to be paid when the policy holder dies in an accident. She was shown as the nominee in both the policies, hence she claims the benefits under those policies. The opposite party paid Rs. 5 lakhs by way of a cheque on 23.2.1999, Rs. 1,50,000/- on 24.2.1999 and Rs. 5,25,666/- on 16.3.1999. Therefore, she is entitled to interest on the said amount from 17.9.1998 i.e., 15 days after the date of death of her husband. 3. The District Forum rejected her contention. The complainant admittedly submitted some of the documents on 17.9.1998. She finally submitted legal heir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, Member: 1. The unsuccessful complainant in C.D. No. 805/99 on the file of District Forum, Nellore is the appellant. 2. The complainant being a Principal and Correspondent of an Educational Society at Nellore purchased Omni bus bearing Registration No. AP-13/TR 1286 in June, 1997 from the first respondent through the second respondent and paid Rs. 60,000/- out of sale consideration of Rs. 85,000/-. As the documents were not delivered, this complaint was filed. 3. The District Forum felt that since the complainant did not pay the balance of Rs. 25,000/- the opposite parties are not bound to deliver the documents. It accordingly dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal. 4. Ex. A-1 is the letter executed by the first respondent authorising the second respondent to sell the vehicle and the latter issued Ex. A-2 letter stating that he sold the vehicle to the complainant for Rs. 85,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and that he will hand over the records whenever ...
Tag this Judgment!