Consumer Cases filing procedure in Telangana/A.P

PROCEDURE TO FILE A CASE BEFORE STATE COMMISSION
CONSUMER COMPLAINT: (Under Section 17 (a) (i) of C.P. Act)
Where value of the goods or services and compensation exceeds Rupees from 20 lakhs up to one crore, the complaints can be filed with the Registry of State Commission. Complaint should be accompanied by the necessary documents and verified affidavit of the Complainant.
1. Required copies: 4 + Sufficient additional Copies for each Opposite parties.
2. Limitation : Complaint filed with in two years from the cause of action arisen
(personal/legal notice must serve to other side before filing the Case)
3. Court Fee:
· Above twenty lakhs and up to fifty lakhs : Rs. 2,000/-
· Above fifty lakhs and up to one crore : Rs. 4,000/-
· Demand Draft in the name of “The Registrar, A P State Commission,
Hyderabad” payable at Hyderabad only
FIRST APPEAL: (Under Section 15 of C.P. Act.)
First Appeal can be filed by appeals against the order of any District Forum within the state.
1. Memorandum of grounds of Appeal along with correct name of parties their Addresses
2. Certified copy of the District Consumer Forum order.
3. No. Of copies required for filing the appeal: 4 + Sufficient additional Copies for each
Respondents.
4. Appeal to be filed within 30 days from the Date of receipt of District Consumer Forum Order
5, Any Condone Delay/interim orders/Other Petitions to be submit along with Affidavit with deponent signatures
6. Statutory Deposit: Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of Award/Compensation amount which ever is less to be deposited by Appellant/Opposite Parties.
7. Court fee is not required to file Appeal
REVISION PETITION: (Under Section 17 (1) (b) of C.P. Act.)
Revision petition can be filed by challenging the Interlocutory Applications Orders of the
District Consumer Fora while Complaint is pending at District Consumer Fora
1. Memorandum of Grounds of Revision Petition
2. Certified copy of the IA order along with Petition, Complaint and counter on the file of
District Consumer Forum
3. No. of copies required for filing the Revision Petition: 4 + Sufficient Additional Copies for Respondents.
4. Revision Petition to be filed within 90 days.
5. Court fee is not required to file Revision Petition
EXECUTION APPLICATION: (Under Section 27C.P.Act)
Execution application can be filed when final order not complied with in time
1. Execution Application
2. Certified copy of the C.C. Order. Along with Vakalath
3. No. Of copies required for filing the execution Petition: 4 +Sufficient Additional Copies for opposite parties
CHEQUE PETITION (Under Rule 232 C.R.P)
Cheque Petition can be filed by the Parties to with draw the deposited amount in full/part
awarded
1. Advance Stamp Receipt duly identified by the Counsel on Record
2. Payment schedule (Form No. 59, Rule 165 C.R.P
3. Memo of Part/Full satisfaction duly signed by the Party and Counsel on Record
4. Affidavit
5. Cheque Petition U/r 232 C.R.P.
6. Proof of identification ( Ration card/Pan card/identify card issued by the Election
Commission/Pattadar Pass Book

PROCEDURE TO FILE A CASE BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
CONSUMER CASE :( Under Section 12 of C.P. Act)
Where value of the goods or services and compensation exceeds Rupees up to 20 lakhs. The
complaints can be filed with the Registry of District Consumer Forum. Complaint should be
accompanied by the necessary documents and verified affidavit of the Complainant
1. Required copies: 4 +Sufficient additional sets for each Opposite Parties.
2. Limitation: Complaint is to be filed within two years.
3. Pecuniary Jurisdiction: up to Rs.20 lakhs.
4. Court Fee:
· Up to one lakh Rupees – NIL who are under the Below Poverty Line holding Antyodaya
Anna Yojana cards.
· up to Rs.1 Lakh : Rs.100/-
· Above Rs.1 lakh up to Rs.5 Lakhs : Rs.200/-
· Above Rs.5 lakhs up to Rs.10 Lakhs : Rs.400/-
· Above Rs.10 lakhs up to Rs.20 Lakhs : Rs.500/-
EXECUTION APPLICATION (Under Section 27C.P.Act)
Execution application can be filed when final order not complied with in time
1. Execution Application
2. Certified copy of the C.C. Order.
3. No. Of copies required for filing the Revision Petition: 4 +Sufficient Additional Copies for Respondents.
CHEQUE PETITION (Under Rule 232 C.R.P)
Cheque Petition can be filed by the Parties to with draw the deposited amount in full/part
awarded
1. Advance Stamp Receipt duly identified by the Counsel on Record
2. Payment schedule (Form No. 59, Rule 165 C.R.P
3. Memo of Part/Full satisfaction duly signed by the Party and Counsel on Record
4. Affidavit
5. Cheque Petition U/r 232 C.R.P.
6. Proof of identification ( Ration card/Pan card/identify card issued by the Election
Commission/Pattadar Pass Book

Lookout notice- red corner notice - Guidelines issued by delhi high court - It can be rescinded by the Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  Date of Order: August 11, 2010 W.P.(Crl.) No. 1315/2008 DT: 11.08.2010
 SUMER SINGH SALKAN ... Petitioner Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia with Mr. Bandan Kumar, Advocates Versus
ASSTT. DIRECTOR & ORS. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI, Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP for the State, Mr. D.K. Sharma, SHO, P.S. Alipur. and

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect. C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
WP (Crl.) No. 1315 of 2008 & Crl. R. No. 1 of 2006 Page 16 of 16
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’ jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.

Failure of the party to claim the notice sent through Registered Post to his last known address would therefore qualify as “ deemed service”

Failure of the party to claim the notice sent through  Registered Post to his last known address would therefore qualify as “ deemed service”

D.Vinod Shivappa Vs Nande Belliappa (1) 2006(3) ALT (Crl) 276 SC = 2006 6 SCC 456

2015 (4) ALT 447, CRP 4904 of 2013  Pushmala Reddy Vs Janga Raghava Reddy.

RTI Act -Frivolous applications not to be entertained

Frivolous applications not to be entertained In the case of S.K. Lal vs. Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC /OK /A / 2006 /00268-272, dt: 29.12.2006) the applicant had filed five applications to the railway authorities asking for “ all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the Railways. The public authority, however, did not provide him with the information requested. DECISION: The Central Information Commission observed that though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any information other than the 10 categories exempted under Section 8, it does not mean that the public authorities are required to entertain to all sort of frivolous applications. The CIC held that asking for “all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the railways, “only amounts to making a mockery of the Act

Employees seeking information relating to promotions and other decisions taken by higher authorities -RTI Act- Decison of CIC

The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. In the case of Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair Vs Department of Post, the appellant had sought following information. The name of the officer who raised the query as to whether the appellant had taken permission of the respondent for joining a Ph.D. course; and The name of the officer who took the decision to relieve the appellant while he was posted at Shimla and whether the officer was competent to take such decision. He had also sought `file notings‟ with respect to the above. The CPIO informed him that his relieving order was issued in compliance with the orders of DG (Posts). As regards disclosure of `file notings‟, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, on the ground that `file notings‟ was confidential. The appellant made his first appeal and the appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. DECISION: The information sought has been furnished, except the `file notings‟ with regard to the official who raised the query as to whether the appellant had obtained the official permission for doing the Ph.D course. The part of `file notings‟ containing the orders of the DG (Posts) for relieving him from the post, the then held by the appellant has been similarly denied. The `file notings‟ in the instant case, contain information relating to transfer/posting. The competent authority of the respondent may have taken the decision keeping in view of the overall interests of the respondent. It is, therefore, not for any employee, how-so-ever he may be affected, to know as to why or how the decision was taken by the competent authority. The disclosure of such information is not in the public interest as the appellant has asked for the information for promotion of his personal interest. Therefore, the CPIO is justified in denying the information sought, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in
- 23 -
the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Unfortunately, a large number of the government employees are seeking information for promotion of their personal interest. This is done on the pretext of serving the public cause, without realizing the extent of distortions that it causes in use of public resources due to putting up frivolous applications by them for self-interest. This appeal is in no way exception. In the instant case, the information seeker and the provider being part of the same system should work together for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used. They ought to exercise restraints in misusing the Act, lest they should dilute the mandate of RTI Act to empower the common man.

Application Under RTI not maintainable where invetigation is pending -CIC decision

Information can not be disclosed till the investigations are over. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain V/s Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000969/SS The Appellant sought the detail of complete proceedings / records of the investigation being carried out against the appellant with regard to enquiry in to the Lakhanpur and Bhanuth / Shambhu check posts in J & K and Punjab respectively as the SCN in the matter has been issued and the investigations are complete. The CPIO denied the information to the Appellant under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 by stating that the investigation in the matter are still pending in view of Hon‟ble CIC‟s decision in the case of Shri Shankar Sharma and M/s First Global Stock broking Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Directorate of Income Tax, Mumbai.

RTI Applications filed before Courts for furnishing copies of orders or judgments etc., Decision of CIC

Appellant can not take recourse to the RTI Act to challenge a judicial decision regarding disclosure of a given set of information.

In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (Appeal NO.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007), it was held that Judicial Authority must function with total independence and freedom, should it be found that the action initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that Judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use of RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement.

Useful citations for MV OP Claimants

1. Loss of estate - principles laid down in the case of Kalpanaraj & Ors . v . Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

2. Loss of consortium -principles laid down  in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.

3. To Children towards loss of love and affection due to the loss of their father(deceased) -  Juju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.

4. To parents towards loss of love and affection of their deceased son -Principles laid down in the case of M. Mansoor & Anr v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

5. Interest on the compensation amount - principles laid down in the case  of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy

Useful citation for Inam Lands -

Andhra High Court
K.G.Krishna Murthy (Died) Per ... vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy ...
on 22 October, 2007
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
Writ Petition No.2385 of 1998
Inams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions -no person shall be to be registered as occupant even in respect of occupant relating to Kabiz-e-Kadim, permanent tenants, protected tenants but the institution alone shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all Inam lands. Further any registration shall be deemed always to have been null and void and no effect shall be given to such registration.

Some of useful citations

Impleading of Judge- Judge who passed an order in his judicial capacity cannot be made party in any proceedings filed against such order. HC-590-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------WP 6603 of 201 4 date 25-02-2014 A.PHC  Varuana Investment Port Louis Ms/ Asian Infrastructure.

Court has power to grant permission to non-lawyers to plead/argue cases in certain special circumstances and if such circumstances exist in particulate case HC-578-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------CRP 2191 of 2012 date 23-12-2013APHC.

Pecuniary jurisdiction for filing an appeal against decree in the suit is value of the suit and not the value of appeal which may include subsequent interest HC-459-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------CCCA(SR) no. 1172 of 2014 date 06-03-2014 APHC

IN case of  execution of documents by male, his left thumb impression be taken on the documents – If it is not possible, the impression of any other fingers of left hand be taken  on tit duly making endorsement to that effect. Only in case of amputation of left hand, the impression of right thumb cane be taken by making an endorsement to that effect.  HC-462-2014(3) ALT       Part-11                             01-06-2014(CLXXXIX)---------              LPA Nos. 180 and 182of 2002  date 21-01-2014 A.PHC

2013(5) ALT 489- WP no. 12441 of 2010 25-04-2013 d.leelavathi vs director of mines

Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to issue Family Member certificate

some of recent useful citations

Enforcement of order of maintenance by detention does not wipe out the liability  to pay.  3241 SC, WP Criminal 57/2014 Date: 06-05-2014, Subrata Roy s Union of India Para 59.

Application for statutory bail has to be decided on same date it is filed – SC 3952-Cr.A.No. 786/2010 Date: 30-06-2014- Union of India through CBI Vs Nirala Yadava – 2014 Crl.L.J 3952.

Witness Once recalled , does not prevent his further recall- 2014- Cr.L.J-4072 S.C, Crl. Appeal No. 1307/2014 arising SLP Crl. No. 8395 of 2012 Date: 03-07-2014 Manan sk & ors V State of West Bengal & Anr.

Ancestral Property – The property obtained by the coparcener on partition is ancestral joint family property in which sons born to him or adopted by him subsequently have rights of partition therein.2014(5)ALT 473- As 999/1995 and Trl.A.S.88/2010 date 28-04-2014 –agina chandra moulli vs agina varamma

Contract – If a contract contains any stipulation for transfer of property in case of breach of such contract, which is in the nature of penalty, the contract cannot be enforced 2014(5)ALT 608- CRP 1578 of 2009 and AS 2443 of 1999 date 27-12-2013 M. Ali baig Vs Kottalla Sanjeeva Reddy (Case on - Loan repayment agreement- in case of failure to get land registered on his name) character of document

Return of documents to third parties in criminal cases. - 2014(5)ALT 564- WP  No.4915 of 2014 date 20-02-2014  –peddapalem toddy co-operative society limited and govt of ap.

Transfers of Cases- The Principal Courts having power to make over cases filed before them to other courts for disposal shall group the identical cases and transfer them to a single court as far as possible to avoid conflicting judgments. 2014(5)ALT 559- MACMA 564 of 2009  date 09-06-2014, National insurance company Yanam vs muthyala bhaskara suraknathamma