Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Mrs. Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. The petitioner filed his complaint before the Commission on 5.3.1993 against the opposite parties for deficiency of service and seeks directions to opposite parties to pay it Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages, loss of future profits and costs. 2. The case is as follows : The complainant wanted to organise a business promotion trip to Kathmandu in May/June, 1992 for 40 chit subscribers. It approached the opposite party No. 1 who assured that tickets for 40 persons by Royal Nepal Airlines from Delhi to Kathmandu on 28.5.1992 and return from Kathmandu to Delhi on 31.5.1992 would be arranged. On the basis of that assurance the complainant made its own arrangement for all the 40 subscribers to travel by Dakshin Express from Hyderabad to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station (New Delhi) on 26.5.1992 and return journey from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Hyderabad on 31.5.1992. However, later opposite party informed that it was not possible to get confirmed A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. M/s. Navabharat Enterprises Limited issued prospectus on 5.9.1994 for public issue of 52,73,400 Equity Shares of the face value of Rs. 10/- each on 29.9.1994 with a premium of Rs. 40/- per share. Shri V.N. Rai the complainant applied for 2,100 shares and a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- and on allotment of 2,100 shares he paid a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- evidenced by Ex. A 2 and the share certificates were issued to the complainant as evidenced by the copies of the share certificates Exs. A3 to A23. Thereafter, he received as shareholder the 36th Annual Report for the financial year 1993-95 i.e. Ex. A24. According to the complainant, on a careful scrutiny of the said report, he came to the conclusion that the statement made in the prospectus was false, baseless and concocted and with an intention to cheat the prospective investors. He, therefore, filed the Complaint O.P. 833/96 in the District Forum, Hyderabad against M/s. Navabharat Enterprises Limited, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. Both appeals are the offshoot of the same order passed in CC 934 of 2008 by the District Forum whereby the opposite party insurance company has been directed to pay an amount of `1,91,000/-/ toward repairs of the vehicle and `50,000/- towards compensation and costs of `2,000/-. 2. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 have filed F.A.No.406 of 2009 questioning the legality of the order whereas the complainant has filed F.A.No.996 of 2009 seeking enhancement of the compensation. The parties referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. 3. The complainant insured his Toyota Qualis car bearing registration No.AP 01F 4453 with the opposite party insurance company under comprehensive insurance policy bearing number 051901/31/06/0000069 for a period of one year from 4-05-2006 to 3-05-.2007 for a sum of `3,60,000/-On 5-08-2006 when the vehicle was proceeding from Hyderabad to Manchderial and when it reached Rangadampalli vill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
(Typed to the dictation of Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties before the District forum against whom the Forum passed an order imposing liability for deficiency in service. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The complainant claimed to have engaged the services of the opposite parties who represent one and the same cargo service but at different levels on 9-9-2005 paying freight charges to send consistent cashew kernnels from Chirala to Sri Reshma Enterprises, Adarshnagar, Beergang, Nepal. According to the complainant, the said consignment was never delivered to the said consignee as intimated to it by the consignee party. As such, the complainant claimed to have issued notices to the opposite parties but with no effect. As such the complainant filed this consumer complaint claiming the value of the consignment quantified at Rs.98,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as also compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing annoyance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) 1. The opposite party has challenged the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the District Forum on the premise that after receipt of the online SB Account Number of the respondents husband from the Singareni Collieries on 23.09.2010, the appellant settled the claim of the respondent by fixing the widow pension for `437/- and arrears for `49,996/- and deposited the amount into her SN Account. The appellant deposited the amount on 23.09.2010. It is contended that the office of the commissioner of CMPF is situated at Dhanbad in Jharkhand and not at Godavarikhani. The office of Regional Commissioner is situated at Godavarikhani. 2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondents husband was an employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd at Mandamarri with employment code no.2282606 and during the period of his service he contributed an amount of Rs.19/- to the appellant towards family pension. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member: The opposite party no.3 is the appellant. The appellant challenges the order of the District Forum directing him to pay the amount of Rs.3 lakh with interest @9 % p.a. from 26.3.2004 together with compensation and costs of Rs.2500/-. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. The complainant being a minor has filed the complaint through her father, Rama Rao who, on 25-08-2002 took her to the opposite party no.3 for treatment of bulging of her throat. The opposite party no.3 after examining the complainant advised her to under go tonsillectomy and informed the complainants father that he has to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards operation charges. The complainant was admitted on 15.8.2002 for operation in Dutta Sai Nursing Home of opposite party no.3 and on the same day the opposite parties no.2 and 3 performed the operation and after completion of the operation the opposite party no.3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha, Honble Member Aggrieved by the order in CC 657/2008 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant applied to opposite parties for opening a demat account on 23-9-2006 and was informed that the demat account number and operation manual would be furnished in due course and reposing confidence upon the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the following shares and paid Rs.1,70,803/- inclusive of commission from 09-10-2006 to 11-1-2007.DateName of the scripQuantity of sharesCash of the share Rs.Total value with service chargesPayment Encashed on09-10-2006Reliance Petroleum Ltd..100067.2567,567.9010-10-200616-10-2006ERA Constructions India Ltd.,20455.509,153-0020-10-200629-12-2006Noida Toll Bridge Co.10034-953,510.7110-01-200703-1-2007GMR infrastructure Ltd.,50378.8018,997.0010-1-200703-1-2007Niveli Lignite Corp.10057.2024,581.9910-1-200704-1-2007Nagarjuna constructio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Typed to the dictation of Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum assailing the order of the District Forum that dismissed its complaint. The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows: The complainants husband during his life time took five polices and nominated his wife as nominee, the details of which are as follows: Policy No. Sum assured Date of Commencement Accidental Total amount to be Paid on accidental death 651910723 Rs.50,000 12-2-2000 Available Rs.1,00,000/- with vested bonus 651908389 Rs.40,000 28-3-1999 Available Rs.80,000/- with vested bonus 841821019 Rs.25,000 20-8-1999 Available Rs.50,000/- with vested bonus 653331271 Rs.70,000 26-8-2006 Available Rs.1,40,000/- with vested bonus 651537948 Rs.35,000 27-9-1997 Available Rs.70,000/- with vested bonus He was an employee in the department of 3rd opposite party and took these policies under salary savings scheme from first opposite party a...
Tag this Judgment!