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 ..... damage caused to the compressor and rig were due to mechanical breakdown, that the complainant has not produced any material to show that the alleged damage was due to explosion and that, therefore, the claim of the complainant for payment of damages is not sustainable. it is also stated in the counter affidavit that the complainant has no ..... three surveyors appointed by it enquired into the matter and submitted exs. b2 to b4 reports stating that the damage was on account of mechanical breakdown and not due to explosion. the documents relied upon by the complainant are ex. a1 xerox copy of the insurance policy, exs. a2 to a4 letters written by the complainant to the opposite .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... provisions of the code of civil procedure are not applicable to the proceedings before the redressal forums constituted under the consumer protection act and only certain specific provisions enumerated in section 13(4) of the act are made applicable to such proceedings. hence the state commission should not have imported the hypotechnical procedure of debarring a party ..... a hard and fast rule. in dealing with this aspect of the matter the district fora will have to keep in view that clear mandate of the act that expeditious disposal of the complaints has to be taken as the preponderant guiding factor at the same time keeping in view the principles of fair play ..... ii (1999) cpj 389=1999 (1) ald (consumer) 159, while holding that in view of the statutory duty cast on the tribunals under the consumer protection act, 1986 to dispose of the complaints filed before them expeditiously with a minimum number of adjournments it was incumbent on the opposite party to present their versions/counters .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... main submission of mr. c.s.n. raju, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the consumer protection act, 1986 ( the act for short). according to the definition any person who buys goods for consideration or any person who hires or avails of services for consideration, is a ..... consumer. in this case the complainant is neither a purchaser nor a person who hires/avails of any services from the appellant. even in clause o of section 2 of the act service means any service but a contract of personal service is excluded from the definition of services. in this view of the matter the respondent/complainant does not fall .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... measures which are lacking in this case. therefore, the first opposite party has committed deficiency of service. we are fortified in our view that the first opposite party did not act with promptness even after the accident occurred in responding to initiate the steps for providing safety measures. although the owners association has addressed a letter as early as possible on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... .d. no. 81/1993 is the neighbour of mr. m. ramakrishnaiah (complainant in c.d. no. 82/1993). according to him his house was also damaged because of the explosion of gas cylinder in the house of ramakrishnaiah. 18. mr. koka raghava rao, the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended before us that m. ramakrishnaiah is not a consumer ..... existing law but cannot by-pass the same. 23. viewed in this manner the conclusion is inescapable that m. ramakrishnaiah is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d)(i) of the act. as a corollary of this the complainant in c.d. no. 81/1993 m. natarajan setty also is not a consumer. therefore, both the complainants cannot ..... are not of much relevance to decide the issues in these complaints. 15. now the question is whether the complainants are consumers within the meaning of section 2(d)(i) of the consumer protection act, 1986 ( the act for short) ? 16. it is the case of the complainant in c.d. no. 82/1993 that he took the ill-fated cylinder from .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant had a mild fever and so she visited the clinic of the first opposite party, hereinafter called as Doctor for treatment on 9.10.1987, who advised her to take two tablets of Amalar. After taking the tablets the complainant had a swollen body and in some parts of the body she had visible signs of Ammavaru (rashness like chicken pox). The complainant requested the doctor to attend on her at her residence but the latter flatly refused. When the complainants husband went again the Doctor advised a tablet of Cibexinio and Glycerine bottle. The complainant accordingly took the tablets and after some time she also applied Glycerine as suggested by the doctor, but instead of cure the complainant had high swollen body figure and there were rashes and scratches on the body. After taking Amalar tablets the complainant had filthy/bad odour from her mouth and also from the nose. The doctor due to his sheer negligence prescribed Amalar tablets which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... the last few instalments in advance and that he cannot now go back on such agreement does not, therefore, stand the test of scrutiny. 15. section 2(1)(r) of the said act defines unfair trade practice to mean a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale use or supply of any goods or for the ..... in section 2(1)(o) of the c.p. act. the opposite party no. 2 had obviously financed a sum of rs. 19,500/- to the complainant for the purchase of the said vehicle in ..... forum claiming interest over this amount @ 18% p.a. the opposite party contends that the hire purchase scheme does not come under the purview of the c.p. act and the complaint is, therefore, not maintainable. 10. the provision of facilities in connection with financial is specifically included in the explanatory part of the definition of service given .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. Though the appeal was posted for orders on 25.11.2002 Counsel of the appellant was not present. Hence it was posted for dismissal on 3.12.2002. As the Counsel was not present on that day also the appeal was reserved for orders. 2. This appeal is filed by the opposite party in O.P. No. 442/1997, District Forum, Guntur. The complainant is a handicapped girl. She got telephone booth sanctioned by the Telephone Department which was located next to Sri Durga Medical and Fancy Stores, Cherukupalli. The Telephone Booth consisted of a receiver, phone and computer. Those being costly items they were insured with the opposite party on 8.7.1997 vide policy bearing No. 550507/44/97/60/00024. The validity of the policy is from 8.7.1997 to 7.7.1998 and the only premium paid was Rs. 590/-. The risk covered under the policy was Rs. 28,000/- . As the Telephone Booth was located in the Varanda of the medical shop with the approval of the respondent Insurance Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainants son Master Akshay aged about 11 months was admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital for complaint of loose motions. After treatment he was discharged on 13.8.1997. Again on 31.8.1997 the boy was admitted for complaint of fever and cough. He was under the treatment of Dr. P. Madan Mohan Rao of opposite party No. 2 hospital who diagnosed the disease allergic breathlessness and anaemic. Since the body was anaemic the doctor advised blood transfusion and accordingly as per the advise of the said doctor the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 Blood Bank on 1.9.1997 along with donor Mr. J. Narsing Rao. Opposite party No. 1 after conducting necessary tests informed that the blood of the donor is suitable to the patient and that the blood was good and accordingly issued a Donor Card wherein it was clearly mentioned that H.I.V. I and II Negative. Accordingly opposite party No. 1 Blood Bank collected the blood from the donor, receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
..... of feed could be stored in the shed. as per policy condition no. 13 in case of dispute it should be referred to the arbitrator under the provisions of arbitration act, 1940. the complainant had not submitted any claim for rs. 13,60,933/-. hence there is no deficiency in service. 6. the complainant besides filing his affidavit also filed exs .....
Tag this Judgment!