Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 have filed appeal ,F.A.No. 477 of 2012 and the opposite party no.3 has preferred appeal, F.A.No.354 of 2012 challenging the order dated 04.04.2012 of the District Forum, Guntur. As such both appeals are decided together. For the sake of felicity of expression and convenience, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint. 2. The complainant is Flat Owners Association and the complaint was filed seeking direction to the 3rd opposite party to complete the pending work of the building or in the alternative to pay an amount of Rs.9,91,000/- and for compensation to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The complainant-association was formed on 16.11.2010. The first opposite party and the second opposite party are the power of attorney holders of the land owners and they entered into development agreement on 05.12.2006 with the third opposite party for development of land, situated at 2/17, Brodipet, Gun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.129/2012 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa YSR District, OP 1 preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Prestige Rice cooker from OP 2 shop on 19-10-2012 for Rs.2,400/- and right since its purchase, she observed that while cooking the rice, the rice was getting roasted/browned and the same was informed to OP 2 who tried to prepare the rice in his shop but the same problem was noticed and therefore OP 2 informed the complainant to contact OP1. OP 1 replaced the thermostat on 05-12-2012 but again the problem persisted and the complainant approached OP 1 who informed her to approach OP 2 who once again prepared the rice in his shop and the same problem arose. When there was no response from the opposite parties, the complainant got issued a notice to the OPs on 21-12-2012 for which OP 2 replied that they are only dealers and are not responsible for any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party-bank is the appellant. The respondents filed complaint claiming an amount of Rs.2,01,247/- towards the amount stated to have been collected as interest in excess of the agreed rate of interest and a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards pre-closure charges and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation and Rs.10,00,000/- towards costs. 2. The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.2,46,247/- towards refund of the amount with a rider of interest @12% in case the amount is paid beyond three months from the date of the order and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards costs. 3. The respondents filed complaint that they availed housing loan to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- under loan account bearing number 62001923222 from the appellant-bank agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed compliant claiming registration of plot bearing number 94 to an extent of 200 sq. yards in survey numbers 341 and 341/A situated at Pinjartala, Kotturu Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District and for an amount of `3,80,000/- which was collected by the respondent in excess of the agreed amount as also interest @24% p.a and an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- towards rent and costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The case of the appellant as seen from the averments of the complaint is that The appellant purchased plot bearing number 94 an extent of 200 sq. yards in survey numbers 341 and 341/A situate at Pinjartala, Kotturu Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District from the respondent-company for consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- The actual cost of the plot is Rs.1,20,000/-. The respondent collected excess amount of Rs.3,80,000/- from the appellant. The respondent promised to handove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
(Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President) The petitioners/J.Drs. 1 and 3 who are arrayed as opposite parties 1 and 3 in CC 47/2011 have preferred this IA 1497/2013 (though the cause title refers only J.Dr.1/OP1) stating that the J.Drs. are facing financial difficulties and that the petitioners are making all efforts to raise funds and pay the decreetal amount and prays that this Commission may permit the petitioners to pay their share of decreetal amount in 15 equal monthly instalments commencing from August, 2013 and have filed calculation memos of the decreetal amount which reads as follows: 1. OP 1 and 3 begs to submit this Memo of calculation as under: i) Decreetal amount Rs.48,00,000/- ii) Interest @ 12% from 9-1-2009 till 09-7-2013 Rs.25,92,000/- (four years six months) Rs.73,92,000/- ============ iii) Share of OP 1 and 3 Rs.73,92,000/ 3 Rs.24,64,000/- iv) 15 equal monthly instalments-Rs.24,64,000/- 15 Rs.1,64,246/- Ops 1 and 3 prays to grant 15 monthly instalments to pay their sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties as against the orders dated 23.05.2012 in CC 68 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nalgonda. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants husband by name, Jonnalagadda Mahender Reddy obtained two Insurance policies vide Policy bearing No.602093911 for Rs.1,00,00/- and another policy bearing No.602048039 for Rs.50,000/-- in the year 2001 and 2004 respectively, covering his life risk during his life time and he died on 24-06-2007 in Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad due to LV dysfunction and sudden cardiac arrest. The Complainant lodged claim with the Opposite Parties to pay the matured amount covered under the said two policies enclosing all the relevant documents. The Opposite Parties repudiated the claim vide letter dated 03-11-2009 informing the Complainant that the policy was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant has filed petition seeking for imprisonment of the opposite parties on the premise that they had intentionally failed to comply the order dated 27.06.2012 passed by this Commission. 2. The opposite parties have filed objections contending that surveyor was appointed and he submitted report on 30.6.2009 as also addendum report on 1.9.2009 which could not be filed before this Commission due to communication gap. After the order was passed by this Commission, the opposite parties addressed letter dated 27.11.2012 requesting the surveyor to furnish recommendations afresh. The surveyor had given recommendations on 27.11.2012 stating that there was no liability for the opposite parties to indemnify the insured owing to the loss occurred due to looting of the goods. It is contended that there was no disobedience of the order passed by this Commission and the opposite parties would deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/- after obtaining s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party has filed appeal challenging the order of the District Forum whereby it was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- with interest @15% p.a. from 31.-1.2009 till payment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs. 2. The respondent joined in the chit group bearing reference no LTIVA-22 conducted by the appellant for the chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- and the monthly subscription payable for the chit is Rs.10,000/- in duration of 50 months. The chit commenced on 31.12.2004 and terminated on 31.01.2009. The respondent contended that he paid 49 installments and is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,65,000/- after deducting subscription for the 50th installment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards Foremans commission from the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent claimed incentive to the tune of 1% on account of his being member in the branch opening group and having paid the subsc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are the appellants. The respondent no.1 filed complaint seeking for compensation of Rs.19,03,494/- and to furnish statement of account of the sale process and to furnish auction particulars. 2. The respondent no.1 purchased Volva EC 290 Excavator for consideration by raising loan a sum of Rs.32 lakh from the M/s Likitha Constructions Pvt Ltd. The respondent no.1 paid margin money of Rs.3 lakh and the remaining amount of Rs.29 lakh was borrowed from the first appellant under loan agreement dated 5.8.2008. The loan amount was repayable with interest @ 8.91% per annum in EMI @ Rs.1,00,006/- for 36 months ending on 7.7.2011. 3. The respondent no.1 paid 8 monthly instalments to the first appellant and fell due four instalments. The first appellant repossessed the excavator without intervention of the court and operated it illegally. The first appellant issued notice on 30.10.2009 to the respondent no.1 and the gu...
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 and the appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum whereby the applicant was directed to refund the ULC Caution Deposit of Rs.1,83,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum together with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The respondents purchased a plot no.220 in Sy.No.218/4 and 218/5 in the extent of 305 sq.yards in Central park Phase No.II of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. The respondents paid an amount of Rs.4,66,000/- towards cost of plot, registration and other charges and Rs.1,83,000/- towards caution deposit of ULC on 20.6.2007. The appellant company issued receipt dated 20.6.2007 in favour of the respondent. The appellant registered the sale deed in favour of the respondents on 25.7.2007 in respect of the plot. The respondents obtained approval of layout in the month of March 2009, under land regulation scheme by paying an amount of Rs.74,700/- towards land regulation charg...
Tag this Judgment!