Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) (1) This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 13.09.2012 in CC 170/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : (2) The brief facts of the complaint are that when the complainant, who is a Government employee, wanted to execute a registered sale deed in favour of prospective purchaser of his plot in Bahadurpally village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the Sub-Register Quthbullapur refused to register the same on the ground that there was prohibition of Registration of Lands in Bahadurpally village. Thereafter vide letter dated 11.04.2011 he requested the Public Information Officer, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad to furnish a copy of Andhra Pradesh Gazette part I, Extraordinary No. 134 , dt.10.03.2005 Notification by the Government (i) Prohibition of Registration of Govern...
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 respondents filed complaint claiming an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- towards loss of rent and a sum of Rs.10,24,000/- as compensation for delay caused in construction of the building as also a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for suffering mental tension. 2. The case of the respondents as seen from the complaint is that the respondent no.1 is the owner of house bearing number 1-68 in Plot No.38 admeasuring 280 sq.yards and the respondent no.2 is the owner of house bearing number 1-67 in plot number 37 situate at Kothapet village of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district . Smt.Vimala Devi is the owner of plot bearing number 36 adjacent to the plots of the respondents. The respondents and Vimala Devi entered into Development Agreement with the appellant for development of land and construction of building thereon within 18 months from the date of development agreement. In case of delay caused in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (M. Shreesha, Member) 1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 131/2012 on the file of the Dist. Forum, Guntur the complainant preferred this appeal and along with it the above application to condone delay of 161 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that copy of the order was despatched on 11.2.2013 and the same was received by him on 19.2.2013 through his counsel and as he is working for a Mobile Phone company as Marketing Executive he could not contact his counsel and when he approached his counsel he advised him to prefer an appeal as he has got a good case and fair chances of winning the matter and in the process a delay of 161 days had occasioned. The petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wanton nor wilful and therefore prayed that the delay be condoned. 2) In the light of the fact that delay was whopping 161 days without any material whatsoever to substantiate the delay, we do not wish to order any notice to the respondent as no improveme...
Tag this Judgment!