Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/17/2018

D.Prasanna, W/o P.Samivel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

C.Poorna Chand

11 Sep 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 16.03.2018

Order Date:11.09.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.17/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Ms. D.Prasanna,

W/o. P.Samivel,

Hindu, aged about 26 years,

D.No.19-9-3F, Jaya Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                               … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Manager,

            Holding branch office at

            D.No.19-4-121/12/D1, 2^nd Floor, Upstairs of SBI Bank,

            Opp. Chillies Restaurant,

            A.I.R. By Pass Road,

            Tirupati – 517 501.

 

2.         Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Manager,

Holding its Head Office at

2^nd Floor, Dare House,

No.2, NSC Road,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                                   …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 30.08.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.C.Poorna Chand, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections –12 and 14  of C.P.Act 1986, praying for direction to the opposite parties, to refund Rs.3,56,920/- towards repair charges of her vehicle with interest at 24% p.a., to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for undergoing mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and to pay the costs of the complaint.  

            2. The facts in brief are as follows -  The complainant purchased a car Hyundai Neo Elantra vehicle bearing No.AP-03-BQ-1913, having insurance policy vide policy No.3362/01183101/000/00, which is valid from 04.05.2016 to 03.05.2017. The said car met with accident on 08.10.2016 at about 7 a.m., when the driver hit the vehicle to a road side tree on Renigunta – Tirupati road, due to sudden crossing of the road by a dog. The vehicle got damaged and the said accident was reported to Alipiri P.S., Tirupati. Thereafter, the police personnel compounded the offence of the driver by imposing fine under Section-184 of M.V.Act, for rash and negligent driving and receipt was also passed for payment of fine. The damaged vehicle was shifted to R.K.Hyundai garage, Tirupati, and intimated to opposite party No.1 about the accident, by registering claim No.1704664. Opposite party No.1 deputed surveyor to inspect the vehicle for estimating cost of repair of the vehicle. The surveyor inspected the vehicle at workshop. Complainant handed over the documents to the surveyor pertaining to the damaged vehicle, and the repair cost for the damaged vehicle was estimated at Rs.6,81,735/-, and he gave approval to carry out repair works. While repairs were in progress, R.K.Hyundai workshop personnel gave supplementary estimation for Rs.53,833/- and the same was also approved by the surveyor of opposite party No.1. The repairs of the vehicle were completed on 31.10.2016 and bill was issued for Rs.5,36,284/-. The surveyor of the opposite party re-inspected the vehicle on 01.11.2016. But the opposite party failed to pay the claim amount to workshop as per terms of the policy dt:04.05.2016, to take delivery of the vehicle. The complainant was forced to receive Rs.1,79,364/- only out of Rs.5,36,284/-. The personnel of workshop garage demanded the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle by paying remaining service amount or else they would charge Rs.250/- per day towards parking fee from 11^th day of generation of bill, till the date of delivery. The complainant made several representations to opposite party through e-mail to pay the balance amount, but no action was taken by the opposite party. She was forced to take delivery of the vehicle by paying remaining balance amount of Rs.3,56,920/- from the workshop garage. The opposite parties thus violated the terms of the policy taken by her, and as such there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 2, calling upon them to the pay the remaining balance amount out of Rs.5,3,284/- with interest at 24% p.a. and also claimed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The opposite party replied with vague and false allegations but did not comply the demands of the complainant. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.2 filed the written version and the same was adopted by opposite party No.1 by filing adoption memo. The opposite parties denied the averments in the complaint with regard to complainant purchasing Hyundai Neo Elantra vehicle bearing No.AP-03-BQ-1913, and the vehicle is having insurance coverage vide policy No.3362/01183101/000/00, which is valid from 04.05.2016 to 03.05.2017. It is denied that on 08.10.2016 at about 7 a.m., the said vehicle met with an accident when the driver drove her vehicle and hit to a road side tree on Renigunta – Tirupati road, due to sudden crossing of a dog across the road, resulting in damage of the vehicle, and that the complainant reported the matter to Alipiri P.S., Tirupati,  that the driver of the vehicle paid fine under Section-184 MV Act, that the damaged vehicle was shifted for repairs to the garage of R.K.Hyundai Body Shop, Tirupati, from the place of accident, that the complainant intimated the same to opposite party No.1by registering claim No.1704664, and that opposite party deputed a surveyor to survey the vehicle for estimation of repair cost, that the complainant handed over the documents to surveyor, that the surveyor estimated the repair cost at Rs.6,81,735/-, that the repair works were in progress, the personnel of R.K.Hyundai workshop submitted supplementary estimation for Rs.53,833/- and that the same was approved by surveyor of opposite party No.1. The opposite parties called upon the complainant to prove the above facts. Further, the opposite parties also denied that the repair work was completed on 31.10.2016 and that the workshop issued bill for Rs.5,36,284/-, and the surveyor of the opposite party re-inspected the repaired vehicle on 01.11.2016 and that opposite party failed to pay the claim amount to workshop, as per the terms and conditions of the policy dt:04.05.2016, to enable the complainant to take delivery of repaired vehicle. It is also false to say that as per the terms of the policy, opposite party has to pay the bill amount directly to the workshop garage to take delivery and that the complainant was forced to receive an amount of Rs.1,79,364/- out of Rs.5,36,284/- and that the same amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, and that the complainant was forced to take delivery of her vehicle by paying remaining amount of Rs.3,56,920/-, as the opposite parties failed to pay the balance amount to the workshop. It is denied that complainant was forced to receive Rs.1,79,364/- out of Rs.5,36,284/-. It is denied that opposite parties violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is called upon to prove that legal notice was issued to opposite parties to pay the remaining claim amount out of Rs.5,36,284/-  with interest at 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that one Sri.K.Arun Kumar, resident of D.No.3-146-14-12-A, Muneppa Colony, Neerugattuvari Palle, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, insured his car Hyundai Neo Elentra bearing No.AP-03-BQ-1913 for a period of one year commencing from 04.05.2016 to 03.05.2017 with policy No.3362/01183101/000/00 with the opposite party and subsequently he sold the vehicle to D.Prasanna, D/o.M.Sudhakar Naik, (present complainant) and she submitted an application to transfer the policy in her name and accordingly policy was transferred from 02.06.2016 onwards and the said vehicle has been hypothecated to HDFC Bank Ltd.. The opposite parties got intimation about the accident of the vehicle at Renigunta road and immediately they deputed a surveyor to conduct spot survey and accordingly the surveyor conducted the survey and submitted report confirming that the said vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages. The owner of the vehicle instructed the insured to shift the vehicle to the garage for repairs. The complainant submitted estimation dt:13.10.2016 issued by R.K.Enterprises, Tirupati, to the opposite party, and the insured instructed the garage people to effect repairs and accordingly they commenced the repairs of the vehicle, and while things stand thus once again the insured submitted estimation of repairs for Rs.53,833/- and after receipt of completion of repairs, the opposite party again deputed surveyor to conduct final survey and he submitted report with regard to repairs effected to the vehicle pertaining to the insured. The said surveyor after due inspection and verification of repaired vehicle submitted final report stating that total repair cost of the vehicle is Rs.1,78,792/-, and after receipt of the surveyor report and perusing the documents submitted by the insured, the opposite parties finally came to the conclusion that insured is entitled for Rs.1,78,792/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the same was brought to the notice of the insured of the vehicle. The opposite parties finally approved the surveyor report in the presence of insured and garage people for payment of Rs.1,78,792/- to R.K.Enterprises on 29.03.2018 by NEFT through bank after taking consent from the complainant. While negotiations were going on between the insured and opposite parties, the complainant sent notice dt:05.02.2018 to the opposite party claiming that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as the insurance company is liable to pay entire bill amount issued by Hyundai showroom garage, and as the opposite parties did not pay the amount, she is claiming interest at 24% p.a., in addition to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for undergoing mental trauma due to deficiency in service on their part, and that the opposite party issued reply dt:18.02.2018 to the counsel for complainant informing that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and they have deposited the amount entitled by the insured by way of NEFT to Hyundai garage shop where the vehicle was repaired. As per the procedure incorporated by IRDA, the opposite party processed the claim submitted by the complainant and paid the entitled amount by way of NEFT to Hyundai garage shop through the bank within reasonable time. Hence, there is no delay of any kind in processing the claim submitted by the insured. Further, the amount was paid to the garage shop as per the instructions of the insured only. But the insured did not issue any receipt and discharge voucher for the said amount. It is stated that the case of the complainant is that she had taken nil depreciation policy and hence no amount has to be deducted towards depreciation while settling her claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party submits that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, depreciation shall not be calculated while assessing the damages and accordingly the opposite party after due verification of bills submitted by the insured and after going through the surveyor report, arrived at the said amount of Rs.1,78,792/- towards compensation and paid the same to R.K.Enterprises  on 29.03.2018 by way of NEFT to its bank after due consultation with insured. Hence, the question of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties does not arise. Both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence she cannot complain of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. There is no action to file the complaint. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            4.  The complainant filed the chief evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. Whereas on behalf of opposite parties one Sri.Anandhan, Assistant Manager – Legal, of opposite party No.2 filed the chief affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B11.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            6. Point:- There is no dispute with regard to the accident of subject vehicle bearing No.AP-03-BQ-1913 belonging to the complainant. There is no dispute that the vehicle has insurance coverage with the opposite party and validity period covered by the insurance is from 04.05.2016 to 03.05.2017. There is no dispute that the vehicle was taken to Hyundai showroom garage for repairs and that surveyor was deputed by the opposite parties for assessing the cost of repairs of the vehicle, and that the surveyor had given go ahead to make repairs to the damaged vehicle for a sum of Rs.6,81,735/-. It is also not in dispute that while the work is in progress, the personnel of R.K.Hyundai workshop submitted supplementary estimation for Rs.53,833/- and the same was approved by the surveyor of opposite party No.1. It is not in dispute that the workshop issued bill for Rs.5,36,284/- towards repair cost and the surveyor of opposite party company again made re-inspection of the repaired vehicle on 01.11.2016.

            7.  The dispute is with regard to liability of opposite party company in payment of entire cost of repair i.e. Rs.5,36,284/-. According to complainant, opposite parties are liable to pay entire amount, as the policy taken by her is nil depreciation policy and no amount shall be deducted from cost of repair. Whereas, opposite parties contended that as per the final report of the surveyor Rs.1,79,364/- has to be paid towards cost of the repairs by opposite party and the balance amount shall be borne by the complainant.

            8.  Ex.A1 is insurance policy relating to the subject vehicle, which is valid from 04.05.2016 to 03.05.2017, and it is seen from Ex.A1 that it is a nil depreciation policy. Ex.A2 is challan for Rs.500/- issued by traffic police for causing accident. Ex.A3 is certificate issued by Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, stating that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 08.10.2016 at 7 a.m. near Park Hotel, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, and the same was caused by driver of the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving, and in Ex.A3 it is noted that the vehicle was badly damaged and air bags opened and crime was registered under Section-184 M.V.Act. Ex.A4 is approval of surveyor appointed by the opposite party, where under the surveyor estimated the cost of repair at Rs.6,25,132/-  besides labour charges of Rs.56,603/-. The contention of counsel for complainant is that the 1^st surveyor and final surveyor appointed by the insurance company - opposite parties, are one and the same. Ex.A5 is original copy of bills paid, receipts two in numbers i.e. receipt No.2210 for Rs.1,06,920/- dt:17.06.2017 and receipt No.3306 for Rs.2,50,000/- dt:27.07.2017, in favour of R.K.Hyundai garage shop, Tirupati, with regard to payment of repair charges of the vehicle. Ex.A6 is email copy of representation by complainant to opposite party dt:17.11.2016, wherein the complainant stated that from 01.11.2016 onwards till 17.11.2016, she has been waiting for investigation by surveyor and unnecessary delay is being caused by the insurer and complained about the deficiency in service by the insurer. Ex.A7 is legal notice dt:05.02.2018 issued by the complainant to opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on their part in not fully reimbursing the repair cost of the vehicle despite having nil depreciation policy. It is stated that complainant was forced to receive Rs.1,79,364/- out of Rs.5,36,284/- and balance amount has to be reimbursed by the insurer. Ex.A8 is track consignment to prove that notice was delivered to opposite parties. Ex.A9 is reply given by opposite parties to complainant dt:18.02.2018 stating that the claim was processed as per surveyor report for Rs.1,78,792/- and the said amount was transferred to R.K.Enterprises through NEFT and thus claim is settled and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part. Ex.A10 is Certificate of Registration (R.C) of the subject vehicle standing in the name of complainant herein. Ex.A11 is letter addressed by R.K.Hyundai to the complainant on 04.02.2017, which is to the following effect:

“The total value of parts replaced, Body shop work and labour charges came to Rs.5,36,284/- and the same was intimated to above said insurance company. Later the said insurance company had appointed an investigator to look into the claim and finally the said insurance company has given approval (Delivery Order) for Rs.1,79,364/- and disallowed many of repair works carried out on the contention that damages to those parts had occurred earlier before this accident. As yourself has not agreed for the above settlement amount given by the said insurance company, we understood that yourself has approached insurance ombudsman against the said insurance company. Recently, the said insurance company has sent communication to us stating that they are withdrawing the settlement amount given in the Delivery Order and intimated that the case is under investigation. They have also advised us to collect the entire bill amount of Rs.5,36,284/- from yourself. We have already intimated to yourself that all the repair works are completed and the vehicle is ready for delivery”.

 

            9.  As against the documents filed by the complainant, opposite parties relied upon the following documents. Ex.B1 is Motor Endorsement Schedule issued in favour of complainant on 07.06.2016. Ex.B2 is Motor Claim Intimation Form. Ex.B3 is Motor Insurance Claim Form submitted by the complainant. Ex.B4 is repair estimate issued in favour of complainant by R.K.Enterprises dt:10.10.2016. Ex.B5 is copy of Manual Estimation of the subject vehicle issued by R.K.Hyundai. Ex.B6 is final survey report stating that net liability of insurer is Rs.1,79,364/-. Ex.B7 is original copy of cash / credit invoice, issued in favour of complainant by R.K.Enterprises, Tirupati, dt:21.12.2016, for a total sum of Rs.5,36,284/-. Ex.B8 is copy of letter addressed to complainant by R.K.Hyundai dt:04.02.2017 and it is same as Ex.A11. Ex.B9 is also equivalent to Ex.A3. Ex.B10 is equivalent to Ex.A2. Ex.B11 is Discharge Voucher for Rs.1,79,364/- issued by R.K.Hyundai, Tirupati, in favour of opposite party.

            10.  We have perused the above documents and there is no dispute that the nature of insurance policy taken by the complainant is nil depreciation. It is the contention of counsel for complainant that in case of nil depreciation policy, insurer has to reimburse entire repair cost of the vehicle, but in this case only Rs.1,79,364/- was reimbursed as against the total claim of Rs.5,36,284/-. On the other hand, the counsel for opposite parties argued that as per final investigation report the total repairs cost of the vehicle is Rs.1,78,792/-, the insurance company has paid the entire amount, and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.

            11. It is pointed out by the complainant counsel that the surveyor, who submitted first survey report before commencement of repair work of the subject vehicle, and the surveyor appointed for re-inspection after completion of work to  submit survey report is one and same, and the surveyor when inspected the vehicle first time estimated the cost of repair at Rs.5,36,284/- and the same surveyor after re-inspection stated that the cost of repair came to Rs.1,78,792/-. It is quite surprising that the same surveyor had estimated cost of repair initially at Rs.5,36,284/- and after completion of the work estimated the cost of repair at Rs.1,78,792/-. The insurance company had relied on the final survey report and accordingly they have paid the entire amount of Rs.1,79,364/- to R.K.Enterprises garage. The opposite party counsel argued that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, depreciation shall not be calculated while assessing the damages and accordingly opposite party after verification of bills submitted by the insured and after going through the survey report, arrived that the liability is to the extent of Rs.1,78,792/- towards compensation and paid the said amount to R.K.Enterprises on 29.03.2018 by way of NEFT after due consultation with the insured. Hence, the question of deficiency in service does not arise in this case. There is no dispute that Rs.1,79,364/- was paid by the opposite parties. The complainant is claiming the difference of cost of repair i.e. Rs.5,36,284 – Rs.1,79,364 = Rs.3,56,920/-. We are of the view that in the case of zero depreciation or nil depreciation, car insurance policy offers 100% coverage for all fiber, rubber and metal parts without deduction of any depreciation. The said car was purchased during 2015, and was transferred in the name of complainant as evidenced by Ex.A10, which is Certificate of Registration. Therefore, the contention of counsel for opposite parties that they are not bound to pay entire repair cost of Rs.5,36,284/- cannot be accepted. In Ex.B8 it is admitted by workshop that they have communicated the insurance company about the total cost of parts replaced, which is Rs.5,36,284/- and thereafter the insurance company appointed the investigator to look into the claim. So, it cannot be said that there is no approval by the insurer for commencing the repair work for Rs.5,36,284/-. Hence, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the difference of amount claimed by her. Accordingly, the complaint is to be allowed.

            12.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties        1 and 2, to refund Rs.3,56,920/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty six thousand and nine hundred and twenty only) (Rs.5,36,284 – Rs.1,79,364) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization, being the difference of cost of repairs already paid by the complainant, and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards deficiency in service, besides Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The order shall be complied within eight (8) weeks, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of September, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                              

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Ms. D. Prasanna (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  Sri Anandhan (Chief affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of MOTOR POLICY SCHEDULE CUM CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE along with MOTOR ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE (Insurance policy bearing No. 3362/01183101/000/00) issued by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai-600 001. Period of Insurance from 04.05.2016 to 03.05.2017.
	Original copy of CHALLAN regarding  Traffic Police Andhra Pradesh issued by Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban District. Dt: 08.10.2016.
	Original copy of CERTIFICATE issued by the Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban District. Dt: 08.10.2016.
	Attested true copy of Approval (Regarding REPAIR ESTIMATE, RK Hyundai RK Enterprises, Renigunta Road, Tirupati) of the surveyor of opposite party on 10.10.2016.  Printing Date: 13.10.2016.
	Original copy of Paid Bill Receipts (2) (Receipt No.2210 for Rs. 1,06,920/- Dt: 17.06.2017, Receipt No.3306 for Rs.2,50,000/- Dt: 27.07.2017) of the works garage shop of RK HYUNDAI RK ENTERPRISES, Renigunta Road, Tirupati.
	E-mail (Print Dt: 15.03.2018) copies of representations by the complainant to the opposite party.
	Office copy of Legal Notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite party along with postal receipts (2 in Number). Dt: 05.02.2018.
	Postal Track Consignments (2) (Internet downloaded copy)
	Served copy of Reply Notice issued by opposite party (Regarding policy bearing No. 3362/01183101/000/00 and Claim No.3362316351). Dt: 18.02.2018.
	Colour laminated card of CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION bearing Registration No. AP03BQ1913 issued by Andhra Pradesh Transport Department.  Date of Registration: 14.07.2015.
	Demand Notice of the garage works shop. Dt: 04.02.2017.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of MOTOR ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE issued in favour of          Ms. D. Prasanna by opposite party.  Dt: 07.06.2016.
	Photo copy of CRM MOTOR CLAIM INTIMATION FORM (OD/TOTAL LOSS) submitted on 08.10.2016 to opposite party. Print Dt: 13.10.2016.
	MOTOR INSURANCE CLAIM FORM submitted by D. Prasanna filed by the opposite party.
	Photo copy of REPAIR ESTIMATE issued in favour of Ms. D. Prasanna on Dt:10.10.2016, D.No.19-9-3F, Jaya Nagar, Tirupati  issued by RK Enterprises, Tirupati on behalf of the opposite party. Printing Dt: 13.10.2016.
	Photo copy of MANUAL ESTIMATION of the vehicle registration No. AP03BQ1913 issued by R.K. Hundai on behalf of the opposite party.
	True attested copy of MOTOR FINAL SURVEY REPORT-PRIVATE submitted by A. Ravindranath Reddy, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster on behalf of the opposite party.
	Original copy of CASH/CREDIT INVOICE (4 in Number) issued in favour of Ms. D. Prasanna by RK Hyundai RK Enterprises, Renigunta Road, Tirupati on behalf of the opposite party. Dt: 21.12.2016.
	Photo copy of the Letter (Regarding Accident Repair of your Hyundai Elantra Vehicle Reg.No.AP03BQ1913) addressed to Ms. D. Prasanna sent by R.K. Hundai RK Enterprises, Renigunta Road, Tirupati on behalf of the opposite party.
	Photo copy of CERTIFICATE issued by the Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban District. Dt: 08.10.2016.
	Photo copy of CHALLAN regarding Traffic Police Andhra Pradesh issued by Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban District in favour of S. Alla Bakshu. Dt: 08.10.2016.
	Original copy of DISCHARGE VOUCHER for a sum of Rs.1,79,364/- (Revenue Stamp Signed Paper) issued by R.K. Hundai, Tirupati in favour of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited filed on behalf of opposite party.

 

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                          President (FAC)

     

                                     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

        

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.