Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order:(R. LakshminarsimhaRao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint seeking for indemnification of the cost of his Motor Cycle bearing registration number AP 09 AZ 1470 which was insured with the appellant under insurance policy bearing number 431100/31/2011/10490 valid for the period from 11.10.2010 to 10.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The respondent has submitted that the vehicle was taken by Sali Nageswara Rao from his parents house on 27.02.2011. He has submitted that Nageswara rao requested his parents to give the Motor cycle to him to go to Yellandu to meet his wife and believing his words the appellants parents gave the motor cycle to Nageswara rao who had not returned the vehicle and the appellant lodged complaint with JMFC, Yellandu who forwarded the same to the police, Karepalli. The appellant lodged claim with the respondent insurance company on 18.03.2011 and the respondent repudiated the claim consequent to which the complaina...
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 appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum which allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to return the amount of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 18% pa and for payment of Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The respondent filed complaint seeking direction to the appellant to supply 500 bags of cement or in the alternative for refund of the sum of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 18% pa from 25.01.2011 till payment and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards costs. 2. The respondent requisitioned the appellant for supply of 5000 bags of cement for construction of house at Karimnagar and paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each through two Demand drafts bearing No. 118810 and 118811 dated 25.01.2011. In his letter the respondent mentioned the place for cement bags to be supplied was at Karimnagar. The appellant encashed the demand drafts and failed to supply the cement bags whereon the respondent addressed a lette...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1.Being dis-satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum partly allowing the complaint, the complainant has filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District which directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 3.5% p.a. from 01.08.2008 ` and dismissed the complaint against the respondent no. 3. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.5,300/- to the respondents 1 and 2 by way of cheque bearing No. 120995 drawn on third respondent bank, Kothapet branch, Hyderabad and the respondents issued Deep Discount Bond -96 Certificate Folio bearing No. FDDB 1546639 and certificate bearing No. 01609368 on 18.03.2021 for the maturity amount of Rs. 2 lakh with Right to choose option to Redeem the bond (1) on 01.08.2000 at Rs.10,000/-, (2) on 01.12.2006 at Rs.25,000/-, (3) on 01.09.2011 at Rs.50,000/- and (4) on 01.06.2016 at Rs.1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order : (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Member) 1. The facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent insured stocks worth of Rs.9,30,000/- with the appellant-insurance company for the period from 26.02.2010 to 25.02.2011. .A fire accident occurred on- 04.12.2010 as a result of which the insured items were damaged and on being informed of the accident, the appellant deputed surveyor who inspected the premises and submitted his report to the appellant. The appellant after a period of 8 months from the date of submission of the claim, offered to pay a sum of Rs..3,72,440/- for which the respondent sought for the basis for arriving at such an amount and he said to have requested the appellant to furnish him copy of the survey report. 2. The respondent has also submitted an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act with a request for furnishing him the copy of the surveyors report and the appellant had not attended to the request made by the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order : ( R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 in both the C.Cs are the appellants. Both appeals arise from the same set of facts and similar circumstances and the question of law in the appeals being the same, both appeals are disposed of by common order. F.A.No. 63 of 2012 is taken as lead case. 2. The Appellants No. 1 and 2 are owners and possessors of open plots bearing nos. 92 and 93 admeasuring 974 sq. yards comprised in survey no. 191 and situate at JJ Nagar colony Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant no. 2 entered into development agreement with the appellants for construction of residential cum commercial complex over the land to be shared at the rate of 44% : 60% of the built up area. The second respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent to sell Flat No. 104 in the first floor with built up area of 1305 sq. feet for consideration of Rs.13,64,750/-. 3. The first respondent paid a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member 1. All the eight complaints involve similar question of fact and law and as such they are disposed of by common order. Complaint in CC No. 109/2012 is taken as lead case. 2. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.Rs.21,75,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 15-12-2009 till the date of realization, to reimburse the insurance premium of Rs.24,000/-, to pay Rs.24,00,000/- towards loss of earning due to non functioning of the harvester, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The averments of the complaint are that opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of Kubota Combine DC-68G Harvesters and the opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 gave vide publicity through brochures representing that it is a 100% subsidiary manufacturer of agricultural machinery and market leader in Europe and that Kubota has been making combine harvesters in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Complaint is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaining deficiency in service against the opposite parties no.1 to 9 and seeking for direction to the opposite parties to take steps to complete construction of the duplex house or alternatively pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards value of the unfinished work, to provide the amenities such as club house, swimming pool etc and for direction for payment of damages and compensation of Rs.50,000/- per month from August, 2010 till completion of the duplex hose, and for direction to the opposite party no. 10 to sell the mortgaged plot bearing nos. 11,12,13,14 and 15 and for payment of costs . 2. The first opposite party and the second opposite party entered into development cum general power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 9 on 05.03.2007 and 14.11.2007 for development of their land measuring Ac.9-00gts in sy.no. 332 situate at Nizampet village of Qutubu...
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 appeal is directed against the order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the District Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada in C.C.No.35 of 2013. 2. The respondent purchased an Auto Rickshaw for a sum of Rs.1,63,520/- from M/s. Varun Motors, Tiruvuru and paid Rs.53,520/- under Ex. A1 to A4 and the remaining amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was availed on loan from the first appellant. The respondent has to pay the loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- in 29 monthly instalments @ Rs.5,450/- for 20 months and Rs.5,250/- for 9 months commencing from October, 2010 till 31.3.2013. The respondent paid the installments regularly up to April, 2012 and failed to pay three instalments due to financial crises, as a result of which, the 1st appellant seized the vehicle on 09.10.2012 without any prior intimation or notice. After negotiations, the respondent paid Rs.18,000/- appellant No. 1 which issued vehicle release order on 23.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1) The appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint on the premise of the appellants failure to prove intoxicated condition of the driver at the time of the accident and its failure to examine Mani Kumar to whom the respondent said to have given oral intimation of the accident and resultant damage caused to the insured car. 2) The respondent got his car bearing registration number AP 16 BM 6679 insured with the appellant-insurance company for a sum of Rs. 5,75,696/- covering the period from 10.08.2011 to 09.08.2012. The car met with an accident on 01.01.2012 during night hours near Siddhartha College, Vijayawada. The respondent got the vehicle repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,98,000/-.The appellant-insurance company repudiated the claim on19.03.2012 on the ground that driver was under the influence of alcohol and notice in writing was not given immediately after occurrence of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Both appeals are directed against the same order passed by the District Forum in CC No. 180/2012 on 13.06.2013. The opposite party No. 1 has preferred appeal FA No. 633/2013 whereas the complainant has filed appeal. FA 1083/2013. Therefore, both appeals are disposed of by common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to filing of the appeals is that the complainant purchased Tractor of 275 D/BP Model in exchange of his used tractor from the opposite party no. 1. He purchased the tractor on finance arranged by the second opposite party and the tractor was delivered to him at Nandigama show room of the opposite party no. 1. The complainant received the tractor to the show room with complaint of improper functioning of its engine and thereafter he filed Complaint, CC No. 20/2007 against the first opposite party and its dealer before the District Forum se...
Tag this Judgment!