Scdrc Court May 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Annapureddy Venkata Swamy Vs. Dasari Seshu Kumari and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Member The opposite party No.2 is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order dated 8-4-2012 passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.210/2012 whereby the appellant was directed to provide elevator to A-Block A.B.Twins Apartment in Gunadala to reach the floors including 4th floor within one month from together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the order and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-. Complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 3 was dismissed without costs. The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the first respondent entered into an agreement with the appellant for purchase of flat No.3 in 4th floor of A.B. Twins Apartment in Gunnadala of Vijayawada on 26-12-2011. The cost of the flat was Rs.28,50,000/- of which Rs.11,00,000/- was paid to the appellant on 26-12-2011. The appellant informed the first respondent that if Rs.20,00,000/- is paid the flat would be made ready and would be ...
M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ramagundam Branch Vs. Teegala ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant during his life time obtained the following insurance policies from opposite party. Sl.No.Policy NumberSum Assured168328299320,000=00268328930020,000=00368380762530,000=00468382793750,000=00568383075650,000=00 Total Rs.1,70,000=003. As per the norms of the policy in case of death of the policy holder the nominee will get sum assured along with bonus and entitled benefits. The husband of the complainant died on 16.08.2009. After the death of her husband the complainant informed and submitted the claim with required documents to opposite party for settlement. In response to it the opposite party paid Rs.6,265/-, Rs.7,592/- and Rs.7,866/- respectively (totaling to Rs.21,723/-) for the first three policies and for remaining two policies the opposite ...
M/S. Emco Ltd. Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainant has obtained an Insurance Policy from Opponent under Marine Open Cover Policy bearing No.120400/21/026/11/021548/98. The Complainant had received a purchase order on 17.12.1998 from Rajasthan State electricity Board for supply of 12.5/132 KW - 3 Phase 50 HZ Transformer oil cooled with standard spares and accessories. The same was prepared for shipment after clearance from Central Excise with Inland Transit Insurance from the Opponent. The Opponent insured the same under Marine All Risk - Inland Transit from Thane to Sagwara, Rajasthan for Rs.43,68,862/- and corresponding premium was paid by the Complainant. The goods reached the destination on 09.06.1998 but the material was in damaged condition, while in transit which was observed on 11.06.1999 as evident from M/s. RSEBs inspection report. Since the goods were misfit for use which were returned for repair. Opponent held Insurance Survey on 13.06.1999 through their Surveyor M/s....
Kodali Seetharamaiah Vs. the Superintendent Engineer, Rep.on Behaf of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Member The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 24-4-2013 passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.117/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the appellanton 01-03-12 leased out his residential building i.e., 5-5-8, 1/4 Brodipet, Guntur to one Grandhi Trivikrama Rao @Rs.4,000/- pm. The tenant is residing in the premises consisting of four rooms, one kitchen and a hall and is provided with two service connections bearing Nos.1111400000766 and 1111400093175. The tenant is residing in the said premises with his joint family consisting of two unmarried sons, mother-in-law and his sister-in-law and her two daughters and his married daughter and her family totaling to 13 persons. The service connection No.1111400000766 covered six ceiling fans, 8 tube lights, a grinder of HP., a mixer, a television, air-cooler and 6 bed lamps while the serv...
K. Raghavendra Rao Vs. Auditor Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insuranc ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212, FINANCE and PLANNING (FIN.WING.ADMN.II) DEPARTMENT Dated 17.12.1997 availed the benefits of the scheme under APGLIC by subscribing monthly premium of Rs.150/- from his salary being in the age group of 21 to 48 years. The complainant on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2010 approached the opposite parties for the matured policy amount but he was informed that he was not eligible for any bonus amount on the accumulated premium amount. Despite several representations the opposite parties did not respond positively. Therefore the complainant seeking a direction to the opposite party for payment of accumulated policy amount of Rs.24,000/- with bonus of Rs.40,000/- together with compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- and costs of ...
M.K. Shihab Moidheen Kutty Vs. M/S. Mahaavir Enterprises
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. The Complainant had booked a Flat No.G-1201 in Mahaavir Heritage, located at Plot No.3, Sector 35G Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, the project developed by the Opponent Mahaaavir Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as œthe Opponent? for the sake of brevity) for total consideration of Rs.26,20,000/-. An amount of Rs.25,38,675/- has already been paid against the total consideration. However, no agreement has been executed nor possession delivered. In between demand notice dated 09.11.2012 issued by the Opponent builder developer demanding outstanding amount of Rs.7,48,840/-. Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- through the Bank transfer and approached for possession. However, the Opponent issued termination notice dated 9thNovember, 2012 thereby canceling the allotment of the said flat as the amount claimed under the demand notice has not been allegedly paid in time by the Complainant. Aggrieved thereby the Complainant has filed this consumer complaint...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Rep. by Its Authorized Signatory Mahindra T ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Both appeals are directed against the same order passed by the District Forum in CC No. 180/2012 on 13.06.2013. The opposite party No. 1 has preferred appeal FA No. 633/2013 whereas the complainant has filed appeal. FA 1083/2013. Therefore, both appeals are disposed of by common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to filing of the appeals is that the complainant purchased Tractor of 275 D/BP Model in exchange of his used tractor from the opposite party no. 1. He purchased the tractor on finance arranged by the second opposite party and the tractor was delivered to him at Nandigama show room of the opposite party no. 1. The complainant received the tractor to the show room with complaint of improper functioning of its engine and thereafter he filed Complaint, CC No. 20/2007 against the first opposite party and its dealer before the District Forum se...
Assistant Engineer, Apepdcl Kotabommali Village and Mandalam Srikakula ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. All these three appeals F.A.No.1299, 1300 and 1301 of 2013 ARE preferred by the Electricity Distribution Company against the orders of the District forum awarding compensation for negligence on the part of the opposite parties in CC 56 OF 2013, CC 57 OF 2013 and CC 63 of 2013 respectively. Though separate orders were passed in each of these complaints filed by the complainants, in the light of the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we deem it fit that a common order can be passed in all these matters. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. F.A.No.1299 of 2013 is taken as lead case. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant is a small farmer. on 5.4.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant and the porters of the village weighing the groundnuts on the terrace of the house of one Kuna Appanna touched the iron tripod to 11 KV electric live wires and a...
P.Satya Ramesh Service Engineer M/S. J K Tyres and Industries Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member 1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.66/2013 dated 08-7-2013 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: 3. The complainant purchased John Deere Tractor on 13-4-2012 from opposite party No.1 and front tyres of the vehicle cost is Rs.11,500 and rear tyres cost is Rs.56,000/- and he was using the vehicle for agricultural operations. On 30-6-2012 all the tyres were damaged and he immediately reported the said fact to opposite party No.1 and in turn opposite party No.1 advised him to report the matter to opposite party No.2. Accordingly the complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2 which made spot inspection and stated that the rear tyres were damaged due to thread chipping and front tyres were damaged due to Rib-tearing and so saying rejected to replace the tyres. The compl...
Hemlata Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-15-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. We heard counsel for both side and perused the application under order. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and copies of medical certificate and other documents. 2. Undisputedly there was 119 days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad allowing consumer complaint No.283/2011. 3. It is submitted by Shri. Lakhotiya, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant received the copy of impugned judgment and order on 09.10.2012, but she could not file appeal in time as she was hospitalized and further she was advised for bed rest. Thereafter her husband met with an accident and on 10.11.2012 was hospitalized. Her husband discharged from hospital on 18th November, 2012. Thereafter the applicant Hemlata was ailing and she was advised for rest for the period from 12.12.2012 to 27.12.2014 and again for the period from 27.01.2013 to 10....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »