Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: andhra pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc hyderabad Year: 2011 Page 4 of about 55 results (0.036 seconds)

Nov 30 2011 (TRI)

Dr. G. Koulaiah Vs. J. Srinivas

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-30-2011

..... and that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their duties. in general, a professional man owns to his client a duty in tort as well as in contract to exercise reasonable care in giving advise or performing services ? . supreme court then opined as under: ??the skill of medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor. the very nature of ..... due care and caution. medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2011 (TRI)

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Its Branch Mana ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-28-2011

..... permitting the vehicle to ply on the road without obtaining the fitness certificate which is essential in the teeth of section 66 of the motor vehicles act. the repudiation of the claim by the appellant insurance company is just and valid. the order of the district forum is liable to be set ..... whether a passenger carrying vehicle or a goods carriage unless the owner thereof holds permit within the meaning of sec 2 (31) of the motor vehicles act. 18. in the light of the principle laid by the natinal commission and the honble supreme court, we hold that the respondent has violated the ..... repudiation of the claim holding that conditions of the permit does not allow carrying of dangerous or hazardous goods. 13. section 66 of the m.v.act deals with the necessity of permit for a transport vehicle in any public place. it reads as under: 66. necessity for permit: no owner of ..... in the absence of fitness certificate, the respondent cannot ply the vehicle and if he does it amounts to violation of provisions of the motor vehicle act which in turn is breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 11. the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has contended that there was ..... division of air freight limited and that the supreme court held that parties to contract are bound by the terms of the contract. the respondent had violated the terms of the insurance policy and the provisions of the motor vehicle act. if the insurance company is liable to pay any amount under the insurance policy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2011 (TRI)

J. Gopala Krishna Rao Vs. M. Sudhakar, Chairman and Managing Director ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Sep-13-2011

..... allotted to the complainant was sold away. whatever be the reason, we are of the opinion, in view of the fact that very complainant did not fulfil the terms of contract by paying the amounts in instalments on due dates, and that there was enormous delay of six years in payment of amounts, we do not intend to direct the respondent ..... . 2,60,000/- he had paid hardly rs. 82,000/- as on 16.6.2002. since the agreement was not cancelled nor repudiated by virtue of article 54 of limitation act it cannot be said that claim was barred by limitation, more so, in case of immovable property. 12) the respondent in order to impress that it has sold away the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2011 (TRI)

M/S Sai Ram Builders Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri Pasala Gangadhar ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Mar-29-2011

..... as also on account of non-payment of excess amount orally agreed to be paid by the complainant. 5. the third opposite party has contended there is no privity of contract between him and the complainant and his undivided property to the complainant. it was contended that the third opposite party is not liable for the ..... acts of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 as also that no relief had been claimed against him. 6. the complainant has filed his affidavit and got marked exs.a1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2011 (TRI)

Dr. K. Vijaya Lakshmi Nursing Home and Others Vs. Gummadi Sridhar and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Sep-20-2011

..... and that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their duties. in general, a professional man owns to his client a duty in tort as well as in contract to exercise reasonable care in giving advise or performing services ? . supreme court then opined as under: ??the skill of medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor. the very nature of ..... to meet the urologist. we are of the considered view that the duty of care expected of a reasonable degree has been exercised by the opp.parties and they have acted as per standards of normal medical parlance. keeping in view the afore mentioned judgments and reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no medical negligence on behalf ..... due care and caution. medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the ..... explain the technical issues as clearly as possible so that it can be understood by a common man. the other function is to assist the fora in deciding whether the acts or omissions of the medical practitioners or the hospital constitute negligence. in doing so, the expert can throw considerable light on the current state of knowledge in medical science at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2011 (TRI)

Smt. Mutyal Shakuntala and Others Vs. Kuppa Suseela and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Sep-12-2011

..... ,000/- despite the fact that the construction was completed except providing electricity, water, sewerage connection. they have demanded the amount several times. the very complainant herself committed breach of contract. if the balance of sale consideration was not paid within six months from the date of agreement she was liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. they were entitled ..... property to syndicate bank. when smt. g. lakshmi could not repay the amount they took the proceedings under securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act where op6 husband of the builder op5 has purchased the property under sale certificate ex. b1. in order to prove the said transactions the appellants filed ex. b3 encumbrance ..... husband of op5 builder purchased the very same flat which said to have been purchased by the complainant, under securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act duly executing certificate of sale dt. 30.5.2011. they further alleged that op6 played fraud on the dist. forum. they forged their signatures, engaged an advocate and ..... property to syndicate bank which ultimately sold away the property to op6 husband of op5 under the provisions of securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act evidenced under certificate dt. 30.5.2011. op6 husband of op5 played fraud on them by forging their signatures created ex. a1 agreement of sale in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2011 (TRI)

K. Satyanarayana Vs. Kanchiraju Raja Ram and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-20-2011

..... .2 in favour of the complainant. 8. the opposite party no.1 has filed the appeals on the same grounds that had been the pleadings there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite partyno.1 and that the suit o.s.no.2138 of 2007 had been pending before the court ii addl. senior civil judge, ranga ..... .9.2007 before the ii addl. senior civil judge, ranga reddy district. the relief for delivery of property is a matter to be decided under the provisions of specific relief act and as regards to the construction of the flats, there is no agreement between the complainant and the opposite party no.1. 6. the complainant has filed his affidavit and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2011 (TRI)

M/S Kusalava Finance Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Sri K. Koteswara Rao Vs ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jan-24-2011

..... the district forum. 12. the opposite partyno.1 has not pressed into service any other aspect except that as the matter is in regard to breach of contract for which the remedy available to the complainant is only in a civil court. the opposite party no.1 has sanctioned loan of `50,000/- and got ..... that they had collected the installments amount from the complainant for and on behalf of the opposite party no.1, sec.11(c) of the c.p.act would come into operation whereunder the cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the district forum is provided for. therefore, any question relating to the jurisdiction aspect ..... on their part. 3. the opposite party no.1 has contended that as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated under sec.138a of the negotiable instruments act, the complainant has filed the complaint. it was contended that the complainant had impleaded the opposite party no.2 as the branch office of the opposite ..... /- towards full and final settlement of his loan account was dishonored for insufficient funds in his account. the opposite party no.1 initiated proceedings under sec.138a of ni act. 2. the complainant contended that he has paid `1,07,850/- to sm cars, chennai and the opposite parties instead of a sum of `92,000 ..... no.3 to 5 from the complainant for and on behalf of the opposite party no.1. 10. section 11 of the c.p.act deals with the jurisdiction of the district forum and it reads as under: 11.jurisdiction of the district forum. ??(1) subject to the other provisions of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2011 (TRI)

M/S. San Enterprises, Reptd. by Its Partner (Alleged Partner) Dr.K.Mad ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-29-2011

..... them and that this opposite party had nothing to do with the firms san enterprises and did not receive any amount from the complainant and there is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant. the receipt which the complainant has filed has not been signed by m.s.reddy neither in the capacity of managing partner or ..... in this instant case. since it is a partnership firm and exhibits have established that opposite party no.1 is also a partner, the liability according to the indian partnership act is joint and several and therefore all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. hence we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2011 (TRI)

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-28-2011

..... there is no statutory liability on the insurance company and that the statutory liability is under workmen compensation act and it is on the employer and the policy is a matter of contract between the insurance company and the insured. section 4 of the policy (ex.b1) under the heading ..... force in the contention of the opposite party that it is the insured who has to seek settlement of the claim under the workmen compensation act and claim reimbursement from the insurance company. therefore we are of the considered view that the repudiation by the appellants/opposite parties is justified. ..... the company shall indemnify the insured against the legal liability under workmen compensation act ? in respect of the death or bodily injury (other than the paid driver) exceeding six in number. there is no liability under this ..... apply to imt 28. this clause reads as follows: ??the company shall indemnify the insured against the insureds legal liability under the workmens compensation act i.e. the insured has to satisfy the amount if any and then approach the insurance company for indemnification. imt 39 reads as follows ?? ..... the district forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it should have been filed before the commissioner of labour under workmen compensation act. the opposite party submits that as per the policy conditions only the owner/driver is eligible for personal benefits and the liability of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //