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
R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Incharge President 1. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaining deficiency in service against the opposite parties seeking direction to the opposite parties to carry out repairs to the damaged vehicle at the cost and consequences of the opposite parties no.3 and 4, pay an amount of Rs.30 lakhs together with costs of the complaint. 2. The averments of the complainant are that on 10.11.2010 the complainant purchased Mercedes Benz Mode No.350 Couple BSIV from the show room of the opposite party no.2 the authorized dealer of the opposite party no.1 for on road price of Rs.71,15,701/- which includes the insurance amount of Rs.2,37,634/-. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties no.3 and 4 vide policy No.1801702311003916 valid for the period from 01.11.2010 to 31.10.2011. On 20.8.2011 the vehicle was logged with rain water and was shifted to the workshop of the opposite party no.2 for repairs. The opposit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
C.D. No. 81/1993: P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. This complaint is filed claiming a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest as compensation for the injury and loss sustained by him due to the defect in the cylinder supplied by the second opposite party who is the authorised dealer for distribution of LPG cylinders for cooking purpose being the agent of the first opposite party. C.D. No. 82/1993: 2. This complaint is filed claiming a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/- with interest as compensation for the injury and loss suffered by the complainant due to defect in the cylinder supplied by the same second opposite party as agent and authorised dealer of the first opposite party. 3. The cause of action as well as the facts leading to the filing of both the complaints are the same, though the complainants are different, for convenience both the complaints can be disposed of by a common order. 4. The complainant in C.D. No. 82/1993 who was having a regulator took a gas cylinder of Indian Oil Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
D. Appa Rao, President: Oral: 1. The complainants are nominees and assignees of the policy holder, late Mohd. Mohtesham Azmi. Their case in brief is that late Mohd. Mohtesham Azmi a business man had taken various policies from the opposite parties/insurance companies after completing the formalities. As per the directions of the insurance companies premia were paid. They were accepted by the insurance companies, and policies were issued. Various details of the policies and nominees/assignees as the case may be are mentioned herein along with its case No.C.D. No. 69/20031. Name of Insurance CompanyBirla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.2. Policy No.277873. Date of Policy8.8.20024. Sum assuredRs. 70,48,758.685. PremiumRs. 2,98,900 (Quarterly)6. Nominee/LR/ AssigneeMohd. Azam (Father)7. ClaimRs. 70,48,758.68C.D No. 70/20031. Name of InsuranceOm Kotak Mahindra Life Company Insurance Co. Ltd.2. Policy No.132073. Date of Policy1.4.20024. Sum assuredRs. 75 lakh5. Nominee/LR/ AssigneeMohd. Azam (Fat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complainant purchased one Hindustan Ambassador Deluxe Sedan car in June, 1989 for a sum of Rs. 1,18,694/- manufactured by first opposite party through its dealer i.e. fourth opposite party i.e. Auto Pradeep, Hyderabad, and took a comprehensive insurance policy on 6.6.1989 for Rs. 1,20,000/- with the second opposite party, and the third opposite party is the General Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Within a month of supply, even before the permanent registration was allotted to the car, the axle broke down and on a representation made by the complainant, the first opposite party replaced the car with a new one and the second opposite party endorsed the insurance coverage to the new replaced vehicle. Even before the expiry of period of third free service on 11.2.1990 at 5.45 p.m. while the vehicle was being taken out from the garage at the complainant's house as soon as an ignition key was applied, the vehicle caught fire preceded by an exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. This complaint was presented before this Commission on 28.1.1993 under Section 17(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments. 2. The complainant is a firm dealing in the business of digging borewells, tubewells with compressor and rigs, etc., in addition to doing business in consultation. The complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing No. 051403/31/71/062/91 in respect of Layland Truck and Compressor No. AHA 8145 for the period from 31.3.1991 to 30.3.1992 from United India Insurance Company Ltd. (opposite party) for a total value of Rs. 6,50,000/- covering all the risks of the rig with compressor and other machinery. The rig was damaged on 6.6.1991 due to fire explosion in the compressor and engine when they were on the truck. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the accident by his letter dated 7.6.1991. The opposite party appointed one Mr. M.S. Madhava Rao as Surveyor and he enquired into the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: Oral: 1. Aggrieved by the Order in C.C. No. 488/2009 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a dining table with a glass top from the opposite party on 12.7.2008 paying an amount of Rs. 17,000 and this table was delivered to them on the same day. She submits that she was verbally informed that the product had one year guarantee and on 12.4.2009 i.e. exactly 9 months after purchase there was an explosion and the dining table burst into small pieces. The complainant along with her family members was sitting in the living room when there was a loud explosion and the pieces of glass flew past them and her younger son received a slight injury and it took nearly 30 minutes for the glass to stop bursting. There was expensive glassware and crockery on the dining table worth more than Rs. 3000 and all of them broke due to explosion. When the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties for payment of `14,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses along with compensation of `50 lakh and costs. 2. The averments of the complaint are that on 6.8.2008 the complainant during her period of pregnancy, approached the opposite party no.1 for regular check-up and he suggested LSCS to the complainant and advised her to be admitted in opposite party no.3 hospital. On 7.8.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. she was admitted in opposite party no.3 hospital and cesarean operation was done on the complainant on 8.8.2008. The complainant gave birth to a male child. The opposite party no.2 after conducting investigation on 9.8.2008 issued report showing no complications. On 9.8.2008 at about 4.45 p.m. the complainant was administered blood transfusion as per the instructions of the opposite party no.1. The complainant developed complications during blood transfusion and it w...
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 respondent filed complaint claiming insured sum of Rs.14,92,500/- with interest , compensation and costs. The respondent is the owner of the Link Belt HT450Mobile Crane bearing No.MH43 1808 which was insured with the appellant vide policy bearing No.550213/31/08/630001112 for a sum of Rs.36,00,000/-. The policy covers the risk including Accidental loss or damage occurring during the period of insurance and validfor the period from 8.11.2008 to 7.11.2009. On 26-1-2009, on receipt of phone call from one person regarding accident, the respondent sent mobile crane to the accident spot on the same day at 4.30 PM and the crane started lifting the fly ash tanker and during the process, the fly ash weight in lorry has shifted from one end to another end resulting in tare of crane into two parts. 2. The police conducted spot panchanama and in the mean while the respondent reached the spot and has intimated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
D. Appa Rao, President: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Insurance Company against the order of the District Forum directing it to pay Rs. 2,25,000 with interest @ 9% p.a., together with costs of Rs. 2,000. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that it had taken an insurance policy covering the risk of Hydraulic excavator with the appellant Insurance Company covering the period from 7.7.2006 to 6.7.2007 for Rs. 43,38,650 by paying premium of Rs. 52,465. While so on 27.4.2007 it met with accident damaging cabin, mirror, etc. When the claim was made the officials of the Insurance Company visited the place and estimated at Rs. 2,25,000. Since it did not settle the claim he got issued a registered legal notice followed by complaint claiming Rs. 2,25,000 with interest @ 18% p.a., besides compensation of Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony and costs. 3. The appellant Insurance Company resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy it alleged that for hydraulic exc...
Tag this Judgment!