Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned purpose. only by the amendment act 62 of 2002, this section was amended and following line was added at the end which came into force w.e.f.,13.3.2003 i.e. but does not include use by ..... down of the analyzer. the complaint filed by the complainant firm was resisted on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of sec.2(1)(d) of c.p.act. the counsel for the opposite party referred to the judgment of the honble supreme court in kalpavruksha charitable trust vs. toshniwals brothers (bombay) pvt. ltd., ..... diagnostic centre. in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this commission essentially the complainant has to be a consumer within the meaning of sec.2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act. sec.2(1)(d) of the c.p.act reads as under: (d)"consumer" means any person who (i)buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... complainant is more than rs.27 lakhs. in the evidence affidavit as well as written arguments also the complainant claimed more than rs.27,00,000/-. as per sec.11 of the c.p.act a district consumer forum will have pecuniary jurisdiction up to rs.20 lakhs only. as the claim exceeds the jurisdiction of this forum, we cannot try or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... only against mutually agreed terms. but as per the law of flats, apartments and buildings i.e. the a.p.apartments promotion of construction and ownership act, 1987, section 9 relating to common areas and facilities states that each apartment owner shall be entitled to the percentage of undivided interest in the common areas as expressed ..... bore well and suction pipe as per the specifications agreed to in the agreement. we are of the considered view as per section 2 of the a.p.apartments promotion of construction and ownership act, 1987, common areas includes car parking which remain unspecified in the sale deed, which the builder ought to have specified ..... explaining the contents of declaration, it is stated that the description of common areas and facilities should be given. section 3 (d) of the act describes the common areas and facilities as follows: section 3(d)(iii) basements, cellars, yards, gardens, parking areas, children play ground and storage spaces. under rule 3(4) (iii) and (iv) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... goods. the second opposite party being the supplier of the goods referred to above, he jointly and severally liable along with the first opposite party for his acts or omissions. the district forum, after analyzing documentary evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the ..... according to the complainant, he was compelled to purchase computer sold by the first opposite party which act or omission amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. as per sec. 2 q of the c. p. act, a trader means, a person who sells or distributes any goods for sale and includes the ..... .2006 without effecting repairs. the first opposite party used laptop computer to force sale of intel computer and avoided to return laptop computer to the complainant. the act or omission on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. the first opposite party while admitting the purchase of the intel computer and c .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... unless and unitl statutory enquiry is completed no further steps can be initiated against opposite party no.1 is against the statutory rules and regulations and section 3 of the consumer protection act, 1986 is in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. they further relied on ..... , the ccs of police registered criminal case in cr.no.226 of 2008 u/s.406, 409, 420 ipc r/w. sec. 3 and 5 of a.p.protection of depositors and financial establishment act against the president and other committee members. the government thereafter by order dt.29-9-2008 ordered enquiry u/s.51 of apcs ..... depositors by or against the society has to be done as per the provisions of the act and section 133 of apcs act contemplates that the provisions of apcs act shall have effect not withstanding anything in consistent there with contained in any opther law. section 121 also provides bar of jurisdiction of court against the society and therefore the complaint is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... being in force. the complaint was registered and numbered as per sec. 13,18 and 22 of the consumer protection act, 1986. the complaint was filed within a period of limitation and the state commission is having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ..... make a complaint before the consumer fora or commission for claims which falls within the purview of the consumer protection act. apart from it, sec. 3 of the act is very clear that the provisions of the consumer protection act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time ..... committee set up by the government of india ? the complainant filed counter in cdia 116/2008 in which it is stated that as per sec. 13,18 and 22 of consumer protection act, 1986 that after receiving the complaint the district fora/ state commission/national commission shall decide the maintainability of a complaint on the basis of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... to the appellant and her family members. in the circumstances the contention of the appellant that the respondent no.1 hurried to proceed with the cesarean section on the appellant is not tenable. the appellant has contended that dressing of the periannal wound was not attended by a qualified doctor but by unqualified ..... thereafter the appellant started passing urine and stools normally. the director of the respondent no1 hospital, without waiting for the appellant develop labour pains, performed caesarian section on the appellant. a baby boy was delivered on 6.3.2004 and the appellant was discharged from the respondent no.1 hospital on 13.3.2004 ..... to deliberate medical negligence and deficiency in service and lack of postoperative care on the part of the respondents. all the respondents are responsible for their deliberate act for the development three fold suffering of the appellant, 1) dressing of peripheral wound, 2) dressing of the part on the stomach of the appellant that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member: The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2009 in C.C.No.366 of 2008 by the District Forum-I, Hyderabad whereby their complaint was dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainants are senior citizens who purchased journey cum reservation ticket on 13.3.2008 for travel on 26.4.2008 by train no.2723, AP Express and was issued ticket no.29881628 with waiting list no.18 and 19. On 9.4.2008 a ticket was purchased for Smt Surendrabala Sanghi to travel through the same train on 26.4.2008 to New Delhi was issued confirmed ticket No.29991516 in B3 coach. The case of the complainants are that issuing of confirmed ticket for a person applying much later after 26 days particularly when the ticket holders are senior citizens is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The railway rules provide lower berth for senior citizens when available but they were provided berths no.35 and 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... does not anywhere state that deposits should be issued to members only. 14. the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the provisions of apcs act in sections 39, 47, 48 and in rule 42 state that priority should be given to members and that no society will enter into any transaction with a person ..... the opposite party/pic committee under section 32(7) of apcs act, 1964 to look after the affairs of the society and for preparation of the list pf depositors and the borrowers of the society pending inquiry ..... cases against the committee and the secretary, the government also appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the society under section 51 of the apcs act, 1964 and the inquiry is completed and report has been submitted. the government after superseding the committee of the society, pending further action appointed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... competent man exercising that particular art . 16. lord wilberforce in kooragang investment pvt. ltd. v. richardson and wrench ltd., 1982 ac 462, stated: negligence is a method of performing an act instead of it being done carefully, it is done negligently. negligence in common parlance mean and imply failure to exercise the care expected of a reasonable prudent person. it is ..... shameful disregard of safety of others. in most cases it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence by which the negligent party unaware of the results which may follow from his act. negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something , in short, it is want of attention and doing something which a prudent and reasonable .....
Tag this Judgment!