BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.25/2014

Dated this the 22^nd day of January 2016

P.Asaithamby S/o Perumal

residing at No.18, New Street,

Muthialpet, Pondicherry-3.

                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant

Vs.

1.M/s Ford India Ltd., rep. by its

    Managing Director, 3^rd Floor,

    Building 10-C, DCF Cyber City,

   DFL Phase-III, Gurgoan.

2.M/s MPL Ford-MPL, Cars Pvt. Ltd.,

   rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

   No.101, 100 Feet Road, Cholan Nagar,

   Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry-4.

3.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd.,

   rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Sundaram Towers,

   No.45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai-14.

                                                                                                   …...Opposite Parties                                                                

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Thiru K. Balaji, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

OP.1                       : Thiru S. Savariram, Advocate

OP.2                       : Thiru S.P. Vassudevan, Advocate (M/s

    Vas Associates)

                               OP.3                    : Thiru B. Mohandass, Advocate                       

O R  D  E  R

          This is a complaint filed u/s.14  of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for;

1. Directing the opposite parties jointly and severally, pay Rs.1,46,770/- being the cost incurred by the complainant to repair the car;
2. Directing the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the engine failure arising out of defective engine design;
3. Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

Today the complaint was called.  The complainant present.  Opposite Parties absent.  Counsel for complainant present.  No representation by Opposite Parties.  The Complainant and Counsel filed memo stating that the Opposite Parties have arrived at a settlement out of court and endorsed that not pressing the complaint with full satisfaction and prayed to dismiss the complaint as settled out of court.    

In view of the endorsement made by the Counsel for the complainant on the complaint as well as the memo, this complaint is hereby dismissed as not pressed.  No cost.

Dated this the 22^nd day of January 2016.

1.  ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER