Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This isa case of missing baggage for which the Indian Airlines represented by the opposite party issued a Misplaced Baggage Receipt bearing MBR No. B-6306 dated 28.7.1989 signed by the complainant and the Duty Officer of the Indian Airlines and showing the value of the baggage involved as Rs. 4,000/-. The only question that arises in this case is as regards the quantum of compensation to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. In the complaint dated 7.8.1990 the complainant claimed cost of the baggage consisting, according to him, articles valued at Rs. 59,144,40 Ps. and also damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant seeks directions to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,59,144.40 paise together with interest thereon at 24% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 27.7.1989 till the date of payment and costs. The opposite party in its version/counter dated 5.10.1990 admitted that the baggage was lost and stated that it offered to compensate the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dismissing their complaint, the complainants have filed appeal contending that they refused the offer for a sum of Rs.3,000/- extended by the respondent as the bag which was lost contained articles worth Rs.1,35,190/- and claiming for the same amount they got issued notice dated 24.07.2010. 2. It is contended that the District Forum has not considered the order of the National Commission in F.A.No. 344 of 2006 which was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP No. 9033 of 2009 on 2.08.2010. Loss of baggage in transit was held to amount to deficiency in service on the part of Airliners which was made liable to pay compensation. It is contended that finding as to the failure of the appellants to prove contents of the baggage as not proved is incorrect and that the District Forum has been carried by the contention of the respondent that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President These appeals are disposed of by a common order, since the facts are similar in all these C.Cs. F.A.No.731/2012: Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.750/2011 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the OPs preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of plot No.116 measuring 270.39 sq. yds. in Sy No.74 Gopanapalle Village, Serilingampally Mandal and the opposite parties approached the complainant for developing his plot submitting that the neighbouring owners also were offering their respective plots for development. Induced by such an offer, the complainant accepted the proposal and entered into a development agreement-cum-GPA on 14-3-2008 with the opposite parties. Opposite parties paid Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant towards interest free refundable security deposit amount which is to be refunded to the opposite parties at the time of handing over possession of the flats to the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Member.) 1. The complaint is filed claiming registration of the complainant schedule property and for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from alienating the complainant-schedule property to third parties and for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as also costs. 2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant agreed to purchase Flat no.1, Third floor, of Srinivasa Enclave situated at plot no.260 of Bhanu Street, Dabagardens Area, Visakhapatnam for sale consideration of Rs.50 lakhs and the complainant paid Rs.5 lakhs as advance and the opposite parties executed agreement of sale dated 17.2.2012 in favour of the complainant. The balance sale consideration of Rs.45 lakhs is to be paid by the complainant within two months after obtaining loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited. The LIC Housing Finance Limited sanctioned loan of Rs.40 lakhs and released a sum of Rs.22 lakhs by way of cheque in favour of the GPA holder/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
(Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President) Since all these appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order. F.A.No.912/2011: Aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.182/2011 in C.C.No.167/2010 on the file of District Forum-II, Vijayawada, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant applied for a vehicle loan of Rs.9,23,000/- and was sanctioned the same by opposite party on 22-11-2004 and was informed that the interest being levied on the said loan would be 5.13% p.a. The said vehicle loan account was subsequently re-scheduled vide fresh agreement dated 16-3-2009 on an enhanced interest rate of 9% pa. for payment of few overdue instalments. The complainant submitted that he was compelled to avail personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 24% p.a. in April, 2010. The complainant submitted that the opposite party has not paid a single rupee out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant herein on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
T. Ashok Kumar, Member This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.159/2011 dated 19-6-2012 on the file of District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant owned Ashok Leyland/Taurus 2516 vehicle bearing registration No. WB 37 A 1631 and obtained vehicle loan of Rs.6,05,808/- from the 2nd opposite party which is branch of the 1st opposite party on 31.8.2007. The loan was repayable in 36 monthly instalments from 5.10.2007 to 5.9.2010 @ Rs.23,349/- and the opposite party took blank cheques from the complainant as security and the vehicle was re-registered as AP 16 TX 3599. The complainant was paying monthly instalments regularly and in the year, 2009 there was non-receipt of bills from the contractor and due to that reason there was default and he could not pay instalments for three months to the opposite parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order (As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) The opposite parties are the appellants. The appeal is challenge to the order passed by the District Forum which passed the award against the appellants for refund of a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- along with interest. The facts of the case are that the complainant is the subscriber of the opposite parties chit fund company under chit series No.JLC6-35 and JLC6-45 for the chit value of Rs.5 lakhs each for 50 months and monthly subscription for Rs.10,000/- each. In the month of October 2004 the complainant participated in auction. He was successful bidder in the chit No.35 and he fulfilled all the formalities and produced the sureties to the satisfaction of the opposite party no.1 but the opposite parties instead of disbursing the chit amount deposited the same vide FDR Nos.HZC-5563132 to 5563135 of Rs.50,000/- each totaling to Rs.2 lakhs in sister concern company of opposite parties firm i.e., Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., and the remaini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
C.P. Suresh, Member: 1. The unsuccessful opposite party is the appellant before this Commission. The facts in brief are that the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- in Fix Deposit for a period of one year with the opposite party and the opposite party issued certificates to that effect. In spite of approaching the opposite party for refund of Fixed Deposit amount with interest, opposite parties failed to refund the amount. Complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum claiming refund of Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and also for costs. Opposite party sent its written version contending that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant is not a consumer. 2. Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced the District Forum held that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and directed it to repay Rs. 1,35,000/- with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
This is an appeal preferred by the complainants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, Adilabad vide order dated 13-3-2013 in CC.No.103/2011 and seeking enhancement of compensation. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complainant are referred to here under. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: On 14-7-2009 at 15 hours one Nikode Shankar, aged about 24 years who is the husband of the first complainant and father of the second complainant minor was going to his agricultural field located in the out skirts of Mogaddhagad village along with his bull worth of Rs 20,000/- on the way near the agricultural land of Nandu Gavari live electrical wire being maintained by the Department of the opposite parties snapped, he and his bull came in to contact with it. Consequently the said Shankar and his bull died on the spot due to electrocution and it so happened due to careless and negligent acts of the officials of the opposite parties 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President Both the appeals bear similar facts and as such they are being disposed of by a common order. F.A.No.963 of 2012 is taken as lead case. The complaint is filed by the appellant for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- either jointly or severally to the appellant towards penalty for delay in construction and delivery of possession of the flat, loss of rental income, mental agony and deficiency in service and continue to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month towards loss of rental income from the date of filing of complaint i.e. February, 2010 till the respondents deliver the full constructed flat together with costs. The appellant submitted that he purchased flat no.205 from the respondents at Aditya Windsor and paid advance and later he paid entire sale consideration and obtained a registered sale deed dated 01-3-2008. The appellant submitted that at the time of booking the flat, the respondents promised that the apartment wil...
Tag this Judgment!