Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: andhra pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc hyderabad Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.028 seconds)

Oct 03 2012 (TRI)

M/S Visakha Hospital and Diagnostics Ltd. (Care Hospital), Rep. by Its ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-03-2012

..... proceed against them. it is contended that the mou does not provide for reimbursement of amount incurred for treatment even in a net-work hospital. 14. the opposite parties are mediators or facilitators and their role in terms of the mou is limited to process the claim. there has been a dispute as to the entitlement of the complainant to claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2012 (TRI)

Sri Satya Traders Rep. by Its Proprietor N. Sampath Kumar and Another ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-16-2012

..... , the insurance company had to send two copies of the policy both to the complainant as well as to it. it had received the policy copy. it was only a mediator and had nothing to do with the claim. the complainant had never brought to its notice about wrong mentioning of door number in the policy as ??13/82 instead of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2012 (TRI)

Bomiidala Sri Raja Vara Prasad Vs. the Superintending Engineer Operati ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-10-2012

oral order: (r. lakshminarsimha rao, member) 1. the unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. the appeal is challenge to the order of the dismissal of the complaint. the district forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. the complaint was dismissed holding that the special tribunal constituted under the provisions of the indian electricity (ap amendment) act,2000 and the electricity act,2003 to decide the disputes relating to assessment. 2. the appellant purchased a house at guntur from its owner on 17.10.2005 and got transferred the electricity service connection number 19880 on 14.03.2007 and prior to the mutation of his name in the records of the respondents, he leased out the house to m/s godfrey philip india ltd for running its office and on 21.11.2005, the additional assistant engineer (operation) inspected the service connection and found that the domestic category service was utilized for commercial purpose and the second respondent issued provisional assessment notice dated 23.11.2005 estimating energy misused from 1.09.2004 to 21.11.23005 for an amount of `3,42,617/-. 3. the additional assistant engineer assessed the amount 3 times the normal tariff and the third respondent issued show cause notice dated 31.01.2007 calling for objections on the provisional assessment made by them. the tenant of the appellant has paid the amount of `3,42,358/- and ever since the service connection was transferred in his name .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 2012 (TRI)

M/S Narne Estates (P) Ltd., Rep.by Its Chairman Managing Director Vs. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jan-02-2012

oral order : (as per r. lakshminarsimha rao, member) 1. the opposite party assailed the correctness of the order of on the ground that the sale deed could not be executed on account of default committed by the respondent in making payment of development charges and registration charges and that the respondent is not entitled to the registration of the plot. . 2. the facts giving rise to filing of these appeal are that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot and the appellant company allotted on 10-12-1993 the plot bearing no.50 in block bb, , sector iv, at east city. the appellant company allotted membership number 16277 in favour of the respondent. the respondent had regularly paid the installments. the respondent has paid the cost of the plot of `30,000/-. apart from the cost of the land, the appellant company asked the respondent to pay betterment charges as and when the land is developed by them. the respondent requested the appellant company as to when the development of the land would be taken up. the appellant company informed her that there was a rock in the block, there were legal complications , clearance from government authorities was to be obtained and they would inform her as and when the land is developed by them. 3. after a long lapse of time, the appellant company addressed letter dated 15-02-2006 informing the respondent that the allotment of the plot was cancelled for nonpayment of development charges despite intimation being given by various .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2012 (TRI)

The Regional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Mar-19-2012

oral order (per smt.m.shreesha, honble member ) aggrieved by the order in c.c.no.41/2005 on the file of district forum, medak at sangareddy, the complainant preferred f.a.no.275/2011, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred f.a.no.525/2010, opposite party no.3 preferred f.a.no.277/2011 and opposite party no.5 preferred f.a.no.503/2010. since all these appeals arise out of common c.d., they are being disposed of by a common order. the brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants son, one mukunda reddy, aged 23 years suffered from severe stomach pain and was taken to gajanan hospital on 18-2-2004 and opposite parties 1 and 2 examined the patient and advised x-ray and blood test reports. after examining the x-ray and blood test reports, opposite parties 1 and 2 called opposite party no.3 who is consulting doctor and opposite party no.3 conducted the surgery on the patient without examining x-ray report. the complainant submits that the surgery was performed for appendicitis but the patients intestine became septic and he was admitted in the hospital for a period of 10 days. opposite party no.3 performed another operation at vasavi hospital on 03-3-2004 and he was treated in the said hospital till 18-3-2004. thereafter the patient developed multi palfaceal-fistula in the abdomen and was passing stools from multiple holes in the stomach. on 18-3-2004, opposite party no.3 referred the patient to vivekananda hospital and while undergoing treatment, the patient died .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2012 (TRI)

M/S Narne Estates (P) Ltd., Rep.by Its Chairman Managing Director Vs. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Apr-16-2012

oral order ( as per r.lakshminarsimha rao, member) 1. the opposite party assailed the correctness of the order of the district forum on the ground that the sale deed could not be executed on account of default committed by the respondent in making payment of cost of the plot, development charges, additional development charges and registration charges. 2. the facts giving rise to filing of these appeal are that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot measuring 250 sq.yards and the appellant company allotted the plot bearing no.49 in block-u, , sector iv, at east city. the appellant company allotted membership number 16276 in favour of the respondent. the cost of the plot is `27,000/- . the appellant company issued allotment letter dated 10.12.1993 in favour of the respondent. the respondent had regularly paid the installments. the cost of the plot was payable in 32 installments @ `750/- per month. the respondent has paid the final installments. the respondent paid the entire amount of `27,000/- 3. the appellant company resisted the claim on the premise that the total cost of the plot was divided into cost of the land, cost of development work and registration charges. the plot was offered on condition that the respondent should pay development charges as and when development work would commence and the respondent paid an amount of `3,000/- as initial payment out of the basic cost of `27,000/- . on payment of each and every monthly installment the appellant company .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 2012 (TRI)

Sudhakar Kasireddy and Another Vs. M/S. Maytas Properties Ltd. Rep. by ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-19-2012

oral order: (honble sri justice d. appa rao, president) 1) this complaint is filed against maytas (herein after called the ??developer) praying to direct the developer to hand over the finished flat under sale by executing registered sale deed or in the alternative refund the sale consideration with interest, besides penalty amount @ rs. 5/- per sft of the super built up area together compensation and costs and also against state bank of india (herein after called the ??bank) for refund of the amount disbursed by the bank to the developer together with penal interest and credit into their loan account etc. u/s 17 of the consumer protection act. 2) the case of the complainants in brief is that the developer floated a venture and agreed to sell apartments situated in sy192/p to 198/p, 201/p and 282/p at bachupally of qutubullapur mandal, in ranga reddy district in an extent of ac. 85.36 guntas of land. the developer represented that it had obtained layout permission from huda on 21-3-2006 for constructing the independent houses and flats etc. under various agreements of sale consideration was agreed to be paid in instalments viz., 10% of the amount on the date of booking, and another 10% within 15 days from the date of booking and the remaining in phased manner and 5% at the time of handing over the flat as shown below: cc 81/2009flat detailsinstalmentdue daters.naintalbooking advanceon booking 10%635590type-5allotment advance15 days from booking635590floor no. 2115.01.2007 (12 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2012 (TRI)

G. Kalpana Vs. Vrl Logistics Ltd. Rajahmundry Rep. by Its Manager and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-30-2012

oral order: (honble sri justice d. appa rao, president) 1) appellant is un-successful complainant. 2) the case of the complainant in brief is that she booked a consignment of clothes to chinnamma talli cloth stores, mahagaon through respondent transport company from rajahmundry to narasannapeta on 19.12.2007 at its rajahmundry office. as per the rules unless original receipt was produced the respondent transport company should not deliver the goods to the consignee. as the disputes arose between them, she did not send the original receipt to the consignee and also requested the respondent to re-book the consignment to her agreeing to bear the necessary charges for re-booking by her letter dt. 24.4.2008. instead of re-booking the consignment, in collusion with consignee, the respondent delivered the consignment. alleging it amounts to deficiency in service, she filed the complaint claiming rs. 52,387/- towards value of the consignment together with compensation of rs. 1 lakh and costs of rs. 50,000/-. 3) the respondent transport company filed written version as well as additional written version resisting the case. it alleged that the matter had to be decided after taking elaborate evidence not amenable for summary adjudication. it alleged that consignment of cloths was booked on 19.12.2007 by bhagya laxmi sainath silks, rajahmundry. she requested them to deliver the consignment to chinnamma talli cloth centre, mabagam, srikakulam. accordingly it was delivered on the ground .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2012 (TRI)

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by Its Manger Warangal ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-23-2012

oral order: (honble sri justice d. appa rao, president) 1) this is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the dist. forum directing it to pay rs. 4,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from 24.2.2010 till the date of deposit together with costs of rs. 500/-. 2) the case of the complainant in brief is that her husband late murali krishna had taken an insurance policy for rs. 4, 50,000/- wherein she was kept as nominee. while so, he died on 21.6.2009 and when she submitted the claim, it was repudiated on 24.9.2009 along with medical attendants certificate issued by dr. m. venkata ramana of hanumakonda alleging that he had history of end stage renal transplant. at the time of taking policy, he was hale and hearty. the certificate issued by dr. m. venkata ramana shows that he was treated primarily for sepsis, vomiting and loose motions as secondary, and there was no ailment prior to 19.2.2008. assailing the repudiation, she filed the complaint claiming rs. 4, 50,000/-covered under the policy with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation and costs. 3) the appellant insurance company resisted the case. while admitting issuance of policy, it alleged that on receipt of claim it had investigated and found that the deceased had history of end stage of renal transplant since march, 2007. the said fact was deliberately concealed in the proposal form dt. 16.2.2008. had this been known they would not have issued the policy. therefore, claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 28 2012 (TRI)

Sri Marketing (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. J. Shivasankar Reddy and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-28-2012

oral order: (sri r. lakshminarasimha rao, honble member) 1. the complaint is filed seeking relief for payment of `5,00,000/- and interest thereon ,compensation and costs. 2. the respondent no.1 invested an amount of `5,00,000/- in his name and in the name of the other respondents for purchase of a plot from the appellants in kubera package scheme. the appellants paid bonus to the respondents till 10.03.2010 and thereafter the appellants wound up their business. 3. the appellants remained exparte. 4. in support of their contention, the respondent no.1 had filed his affidavit and the documents, exa1 to16. 5. the district forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellants failed to contest the claim of the respondents that they deposited an amount of `5,00,000/- and the district forum held the respondents entitled to the amount invested by them. 6. feeling aggrieved by the order of the district forum, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have preferred appeal contending that the respondents had not paid the balance amount of rs.75,000/- and they received bonus from the appellants for some time. it is contended that no notice was served on the appellants and the district forum passed the order without appreciating the facts. it is contended that the district forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the compliant as the respondents are not consumers within the meaning of the provisions of the consumer protection act. it is contended that the amount received by the appellants .....

Tag this Judgment!


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