BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALF.A.No.493/2011 against C.C.No.580/2010, 

Between:

Mr.R/o. Plot No. 284

Road No.78, Phase III Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad.                                                  1.M/s. ICICI

2. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd

   rd

3.M/

Counsel for the Appellant   Counsel for the          

F.A.No.435/2012 against C.C.No.580/2010, 

Between :

1.M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ,

2. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd

   rd

                   1.Mr.  

                                                            …Respondent/

2. M/

Counsel for the Appellants   Counsel for the                                               QUORUM:  

              Oral Order: (                                                               Both the appeals arise out of 

F.A.No.493/2011 is filed by the complainant and F.A.No.435/ 

Since both the appeals arise out of one and the same order, both the appeals are heard together and

The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that   .         

 It is stated in the complaint that while so, in the evening of 1^st           

It is further stated in the complaint, soon after the vehicle stalled,          

It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant received the letter dt.9.9.2009                  

Resisting the complaint, the   

These    

Opp.party          

Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material 

Not satisfied with the above order of the District Forum, the complainant filed the appeal in F.A.No.493/2011 and aggrieved by the said order the opposite parties 1 and 2    

We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material 

Now the points for consideration   1).Whether the  2). Whether the appellant/        

It is not in dispute that the complainant insured his vehicle Mercedes Benz with   

It is the case of the complainant that on 1.9.2009             

It is the case of the complainant that after preliminary investigation          the liability is limited to replacement of oil, oil filter and engine flushing charges amounting to Rs.20,000/-  

The contention of the     

As seen from Ex.B2, the surveyor opined that the damage to the insured            

As rightly observed by the District Forum, the complainant had filed only Ex.A4, the preliminary estimation 

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find     

For the afore said facts and circumstances, F.A.No.493/2011 is allowed in part directing the         

F.A.No. 435/2012 is dismissed 

                                                                       Pm*