Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant is the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the award for return of the sum of Rs.7,350/- with interest thereon, he filed the appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law and probabilities of the case. It is contended that the relief for refund of the amount granted by the District Forum is unreasonable and that the respondents enjoyed themselves with the amount paid by him for long stretch of time and that the District Forum failed to consider the present market value of the plot and that the District Forum failed to consider that no particular plot was allotted to the appellant. It is contended that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if plot of similar size is registered in his favour and that the District Forum failed to consider that the respondents are in possession of other plots in the same venture till date. 2. The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. The respondents filed the complaint stating that they paid an amount of Rs.7,87,500/- towards initial payment on 8.06.2007 and entered into agreement of sale for purchasing flat in the venture floated by the first appellant-company at Bandlaguda Jagir village. The appellants promised the respondent that they would carry out the development work in the land as per the norms of HUDA and they failed to carry out the development work and on demand made by the respondent the appellants agreed to refund the amount received from the respondent which they failed to do as a result of which the respondent got issued notice on 25.03.2010 and as there was no response thereto, the respondent filed complaint claiming refund of the amount. 2. The appellants resisted the claim on the premise that they entered into agreement with the respondents to sell Flat for a consideration of Rs.31,50,000/- on 8.06.2007 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appellant is the wife of Narsimha Chary who during his train journey on 12.7.2004 at about 11.40 hours died as a result of blast in the train. A case was registered in Cr.No.110/2004 by the Railway Police, Wadi. The appellant made a claim to the respondent on 1.3.2005 for payment of the claim amount and the respondent repudiated the claim on 9.9.2005 on the ground that the appellant did not make claim intimation within the stipulated period 30 days and the claim submission with supporting documents within period of 90 days. The appellant being illiterate had no knowledge about the insurance policy issued covering the risk due to accident on her deceased husband till her relatives handed over the policy paper to the appellant. The appellant filed writ petition in High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.24448 of 2005 wherein the High Court directed the respondent to pay the claim amount to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President These appeals are disposed of by this common order since the facts are similar in all these matters. F.A.No.721/2013 Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.152/2012 on the file of District Forum, Guntur the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant worked as a cleaner in APSRTC Repalle Guntur District and opted for Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The complainant had put 23 years of part service upto 15-11-1995 and thereafter 13 years of service totalling to 36 years service. The complainant submits that his details regarding service particulars as follows: P.F.A/c.No. AP/Hyd/295/43285 Date of Birth 02-6-1950 Part Service Upto 15-11-1995 23 years Actual service 13 years Total service 36 years Age as on 15-11-95 45 years The wage on 15-11-1995 Rs.3920/- Pensionable Salary Rs12,940/- Basing on the above information, the complainant submits that the opposite parties wrongly fixed hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The husband of the respondent no.1 and father of the respondents no.2 opened savings bank account namely Abhaya Jeevan General with the appellant with account No.029710100005899. The account has insurance coverage for assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-from the respondent no.4 insurance company. The husband of the respondent no.1 died on 21.8.2011 leaving behind him the respondents no.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The respondents no.1 to 3 made a representation and intimated the death of the account holder to the appellant and the respondent no.4. The appellant issued a claim application and the claimants had submitted the same to the respondent no.4 through the appellant. The respondent no.4 had sent a letter dated 4.11.2011 that the claim was being repudiated in view of earlier treatment taken by the deceased in Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital. The husband of the respondent no.1 did not take treatment for hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeals are filed by the Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell on behalf of the individual complainants against the order of the District Forum whereby the respondent was directed to refund the amount paid by the complainants with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the order. In all the five appeals, common question of facts and law are involved and as such they are proposed to be decided by a common order. 2. In each of the appeals, the complainant is the second appellant and he/she filed the appeals through the Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell which is the first appellant. The appeals are filed contending that the respondent-company did not obtain layout approval from DTCP before starting booking/sale of plots before December, 2005 and it failed to explain the inordinate delay of 4 years till 8.03.2012 in securing layout from HMDA. The appellants contended that the District Forum erred in coming to conclusion that there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. The respondent no.1 opened S.B.Account (Abhaya Jeevan) with the appellant bank. The respondent no.1 had availed loan amount of Rs.one lakh from the respondent no.2 and agreed to repay the same in 36 equal monthly installments at Rs.4811/-. The respondent no.1 had issued 36 postdated cheques to the respondent no.2. The appellant had sent cheque bearing No.861446 dated 5.4.2009 for Rs.4,811/- to the respondent no.1 for clearance on 6.4.2009 and the respondent no.2 dishonoured the same with an endorsement that there is insufficient funds in the account of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 had deposited an amount of Rs.4,800/- on 6.4.2009 at 10.30 A.M. Due to the acts of the respondent no.2 the appellant debited an amount of Rs.250/- to the first respondents loan account towards collection charges. The respondent no.1 got issued notice on 23.4.2009 to the respondent no.2 and filed the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint claiming the sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- under Jeevan Anand Life Insurance Policy and Rs.2,00,000/- under money plus life insurance policy along with benefits and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 2. The appellants father during his life time obtained Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No.654236783 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2006 on payment of premium of Rs.8,715/- per annum for a period of 16 years and another life insurance policy under money plus scheme bearing No.6544629254 in the year 2007 for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- lakh on payment of yearly premium of Rs.20,000/- for a period of 10 years. The appellant is the nominee for the two life insurance policies. On 14.2.2010 the insured died due to chemotherapy and as his claim was not settled by the respondent insurance corporation, the appellant g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member The case of the complainant is as follows: The 1st and 2nd complainants are husband and wife, the 3rd complainant is their son, the 4th complainant is their daughter, the 5th complainant is their close relative, and the 6th complainant is their family friend. The complainants had arranged a foreign tour covering Thailand and Singapore for a week in May, 2011 for which the complainants had paid an initial amount of Rs.1,20,000/-; and subsequently paid sums of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,41,000/-, and thus, a total sum of Rs.5,61,000/- was paid. The complainants were of 5 adults and one child who is the 4th complainant / daughter aged 11 years. The first opposite party instead of booking flight tickets and making arrangements for 5 adults and one child in a single group, they arranged 4 adults + 1 child in one group and another separate single ticket for one adult, thus they were divided into two groups, as a result of which right from the beginning when they board...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking for refund of the amount of Rs.27.45 lakhs together with Rs.6,30,000/- towards financial loss, Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and costs. 2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant entered into agreement of sale with the opposite party on 12.05.2012 to purchase Flat bearing number E-101 for a consideration of Rs.61,00,000/-. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.27,45,000/-till 24.05.2012. On 12.08.2012 the complainant visited the spot and came to know that there was deviation from the flooring plan. The flat in the first floor does not have balcony of the size 6.0 x 12.3, 7.0x 5 and 7.0 x 5.0 as mentioned as utility in First Floor as per brochure furnished to the complainant. 3. The complainant submitted that the net area of the Flat is lesser than 2000 sft which is mentioned in the Agreement of sale. The complainant on finding deviations contacted the employee of the opposite party, Sridhar...
Tag this Judgment!