Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The opposite party has filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum whereby it was directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @18 % p.a. and compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and costs. 2. The case of the respondent as seen from the complaint is that being attracted by the representations on internet, print media and personnel of the appellant-company, the respondent booked a flat admeasuring 1535 sq.sft at œThe Summit at Lake District, DLF Gachibowli Extension? for consideration of Rs.36,70,000/- of which the respondent paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 24.06.2010 towards booking amount for provisional allotment of flat. On being informed of scraping of the project due to some legal problems and launch of new project, New City Heights , and on being assured of allotment of flat of the same specifications in the new project, the respondent agreed for shifting to the new project...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The complainant being dissatisfied with award for refund of the amount with interest from the date of the order, filed the appeal contending that the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as the respondents failed to supply the products to the appellant, the District Forum ought to have allowed the complaint as prayed for and that the District Forum ought to have awarded the double the deposited amount as per ExA3 and A4. 2. The appellant paid an amount of Rs.34,500/- and Rs.1,65,000/- and through demand drafts dated 7.5.2007 and 12.06.2007 respectively to the respondents for the purpose of supply of the products that the respondents offered through brochures. The respondents received the amount and failed to supply the products to the appellant and the appellant got issued notice through his advocate on 14.08.2010 and as the notice failed to draw any response from the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint claiming compensation to the extent of Rs.2,000/- and costs of the proceedings on the premise of the respondent supplying a defective water heater. The appellant submitted that he purchased a Lexi water heater from the respondent on 6.7.2011 and he used it as per the instructions and the heater got burnt which he had taken to the shop of the respondent and having found the shop closed, he approached the respondent few days later. The appellant submitted that the respondent refused to refund the cost of the water heater stating that the problem occurred due to defective electrical wiring in the house of the respondent and the respondents mother misbehaved with him compelling him to send notice on 6.07.2012 for which there was no reply from the respondent. 2. The respondent resisted the claim on the premise of the appellants refusal for replacement of water heater and that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The complainant no.1 in C.C.No.6 of 2013 is the son of the complainant who filed the CC NO.7 of 2013. In view of memo filed by the counsel for the complainant that the father and son made common correspondence with the opposite party-insurance company and they had been jointly doing cultivation and both the cases be clubbed to lead common evidence, both the cases are clubbed and disposed of by a common order. C.C.No.6 of 2013 is taken as lead case. 2. This is a complaint filed u/s 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.98,43,000/- towards the claim of the complainant with interest and costs. 3. The case of the complainant in brief is that he introduced Green House Farming for which he has availed loan from Canara Bank Hi-tech Agri Finance Branch. As per the terms of finance the entire Green House and the entire machinery was insured with the Opposite Party from 1.11.2011 to 31....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The opposite party insurance company is the appellant. The respondents son Srinivasa Rao during his life time obtained life insurance policy bearing No.MP100600082004 from Gudivada Branch of Shriram Life Insurance Corporation and the policy bearing no.L4100800122551 from Cherlapalli branch of Shriram Life Insurance Corporation and he appointed the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 respectively as his nominees for the purpose of sum insured therein. 2. The insured died on 4.2.2009. The respondents submitted claim and as the claim was not settled the respondents got issued notice on 24.1.2011 and filed the complaint later. 3. The appellant resisted the claim contending that the insured obtained life insurance policy which is a unit linked policy commencing from 19.8.2008 with annual premium of Rs.10,000/- for an assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and he suppressed his health condition in the proposal form. The first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.206/09 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 28, 2011 directing the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.3,24,472/- being the repair charge of the vehicle to the complainant with interest and a cost of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW2 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10/V-5198 and was earning his livelihood by running it has a taxi. It was insured with the opposite party by valid insurance policy as per Ext.A6 for the period from June 07, 2006 to June 06, 2007. The vehicle met with an accident on August 07, 2006. Complainant has to spent Rs.3,92,000/- for repairing the vehicle from M/s T.V. Sundaran Iyyengar and Sons Limited, Thrissur. Opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant without any sufficient re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.548/08 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 22, 2012 dismissing the complaint. 2. The appellant/complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging professional negligence against deceased first opposite party who is a lawyer in conducting his case OS.1363/03 on the file of Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. During the pendency of the complaint opposite party died. His wife and children were impleaded as additional opposite parties 2 and 3. Forum dismissed the complaint, finding that liability of deceased first opposite party to pay damages for his personal negligence cannot be extended his legal heirs. Complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum. 3. Notice issued to respondents 1 and 2 returned stating that they expired. No steps were taken by the appellant for impleading the legal heirs of 2nd respondent. 4. Heard the appellant who is p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner/appellant/complainant praying this Commission to pass orders on the representation dated 01.02.2013 along with letter of Bar Council Chairman dt. 31.01.2013 addressed to OP.1 Insurance Company which are enclosed with the application.2. In the affidavit annexed to the petition, the petitioner has contended that he filed FA 1005/2013 before this Commission questioning dismissal of CC 3/2013 by District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad and that he filed representation before the first respondent/opposite party to consider his claim by applying Judgment of Honble National Commission passed in R P 3026/2011 dated 29.07.2011 along with letter of Chairman of Bar Council, State of A.P. dt. 31.01.2013 to consider his claim but the OP. 1 did not inform or give message to him till date regarding the same in spite of several demands and requests and hence this petition to direct the first respondent/OP to consider s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1). This is a complaint filed u/s 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.50 lakhs towards inconvenience, hardship, mental agony and costs of Rs. 25,000/-. 2). The case of the complainants in brief is that complainant No. 1 is the husband and complainant Nos. 2 and 3 is children of deceased Smt. Sudhamala. When Smt. Sudhamala (hereinafter called the patient) was suffering from abdomen and back pain, menstrual disorder and bleeding she was taken to Tirumala Nursing Home, Metpally on 20.7.2008. CT scan of abdomen disclosed bulky uterus with right overran cyst. Subsequently, she also took treatment at Rainbow Hospital, Hyderabad 2.8.2008 for fibroid uterus. On 27.5.2009 she consulted Dr.Sujatha at Nirmal who advised her to undergo hysterectomy operation for removal of uterus. On 11.6.2009 the patient consulted Op1 at Op3 hospital. After conducting several investigations at 5.00 P.M. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President Both the appeals bear similar facts and as such they are being disposed of by a common order. F.A.No.963 of 2012 is taken as lead case. The complaint is filed by the appellant for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- either jointly or severally to the appellant towards penalty for delay in construction and delivery of possession of the flat, loss of rental income, mental agony and deficiency in service and continue to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month towards loss of rental income from the date of filing of complaint i.e. February, 2010 till the respondents deliver the full constructed flat together with costs. The appellant submitted that he purchased flat no.205 from the respondents at Aditya Windsor and paid advance and later he paid entire sale consideration and obtained a registered sale deed dated 01-3-2008. The appellant submitted that at the time of booking the flat, the respondents promised that the apartment wil...
Tag this Judgment!