Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/70/2015
M/s. P.Sundararajan - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s.L.G.Electronics India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)
Vetri Vel
27 May 2022
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 05.02.2015
Date of Reservation : 05.05.2022
Date of Order :27.05.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.70/2015
FRIDAY , THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2022
P. Sundararajan,
No.7B, Type II (MS Block),
CLRI Staff Quarters,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. …Complainant
…Versus…
1.M/s LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd.,
Old No.10, New No.19, City Link Road,
Near NGO Colony Bus Stand,
Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088.
2.M/s LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd., (Regd Office),
Plot No.51, Udjogvihar, Surajpurkasna Road,
Greater Noida 201306 (UP).
3.M/s Vivek Limited,
No.35, 1st Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Chennai 600 020. …Opposite Parties
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. R.Vetrivel
Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1&2 : M/s. K.R.Kumaravel
Counsel for the Opposite Party 3 : M/s. K.P.C.Mogan
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsels for the Opposite Parties we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of medicines damaged and compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of replacement of new fridge and compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the expenses of case processing and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant had purchased LG Fridge on 4.5.2010 from the 3rd Opposite Party for Rs.14,700/- vide Bill No.11621001693 dated 04.05.2010. On 23.08.2014 the fridge has started giving trouble of not getting proper chillness and the Complainant reported to the 1st Opposite party to rectify the defect as it is under the warranty period. One Mechanic of the 1st Opposite Party went to his home on 25.08.2014 and replaced some parts (drier) and billed for Rs.1,367/- being the service charge (Invoice No.13835 dated 25.08.2014). Again the same trouble started hence the technician took the fridge to their workshop on 03.09.2014 and returned the fridge on 04.09.2014 after receiving Rs.1514/- (Invoice No.14529 dated 04.09.2014). As the fridge continued with the same problem the Complainant informed the service centre for the 3rd time. The mechanic again picked up the fridge on 06.10.2014 and returned on 11.10.2014 stating the condition of the Fridge as “Good Set”. In spite of repairing the fridge for 3 times the problem has not been rectified. The service centre took up the fridge on 28.11.2014 for rectification of defects. While the Complainant enquired the service centre about the condition of the fridge, they informed the Complainant that the fridge is beyond repair and it is to be treated as condemned/Unserviceable and nothing could be done further. The so called unserviceable fridge is still lying with the Opposite Parties. Till date neither the Complainant received any reply nor received back the fridge duly rectifying the problem. Hence the complaint.
3. Written Version of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant have purchased a fridge manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Part from the 3rd Opposite Party. The Warranty period for the Fridge was for one year. On complaint received from the Complainant on 22.08.2014, the Service Engineer visited the Complainant’s premises and inspected the fridge and found that the drier needed replacement for which charges would be payable, since the Fridge is out of warranty. Accordingly on 25.08.2014, the Service Engineer replaced the drier and raised bill amount of Rs.1363/- which was paid by the Complainant. Once again the Complainant registered a complaint on 01.09.2014, hence the Service Engineer took the Fridge for inspection and repairs and accordingly replaced the cooling coil and compressor of the Fridge and delivered the Fridge to the Complainant on 05.09.2014 and raised the bill for Rs.1514/- Vide Bill No.OCHE2/15529 which was paid by the Complainant. Again the Complainant made a complaint on 06.10.2014 and the fridge was picked up from the Complainant’s premises by the 1st Opposite Party and kept for 4 days under observation and it was found that the fridge was working perfectly and the same was delivered to the Complainant on 11.10.2014. On 21.11.2014, the Complainant once again registered a complaint and this time when the Fridge was taken to the workshop it was found to be working condition. However when the same was informed to the Complainant, the Complainant refused to take back the Fridge. Thus the Fridge is still lying with the 1st Opposite Party. It is totally false to state that the 1st Opposite Party had informed the Complainant that the Fridge is beyond repair or that is unserviceable and nothing can be done. The Complaint has come forward with vexatious complaint as such there is no mental agony or hardship caused to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. Hence prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. Written Version filed by the 3rd Opposite Party in brief:-
It is admitted that the Complainant had purchased one LG brand Fridge having 240 litres capacity. The product sold to the Complainant is a new and good product. From then service reports brought by the Complainant, the first complaint was reported during the 5th year of its purchase. The Complainant has come forward with this complaint on the basis of the service deficiency on the part of the Authorized Service Provider. This Opposite party never sold any defective product to book a case against it. Hence this complaint is not maintainable against the 3rd Opposite Party as it had no connection with this complaint except the fact of selling the Fridge to the Complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint as against the 3rd Opposite Party.
The Complainant had filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Complainant Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11 were marked. The Opposite Parties filed Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. No documents were marked on the side of Opposite Parties.
5. The Points for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1,2 and 3?
2.Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the complaint?
3.To what relief, the Complainant is entitled?
6. Point No.1:-
The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had purchased a Fridge from the 3rd Opposite Party on 04.05.2010. The Fridge started giving trouble on 23.08.2014 and on complaint from the Complainant, the Service Engineer visited the Complainant’s premises and inspected the fridge and found that the drier needed replacement. Accordingly on 25.08.2014, the Service Engineer replaced the drier and raised bill amount of Rs.1363/-, Vide Bill No.OCHE2/14835 Ex.A-3, since the Fridge is out of warranty, which was paid by the Complainant. On the basis of the complaint, the Service Engineer of the 1st Opposite Party had taken the Fridge for inspection and repairs and replaced certain parts of the Fridge and delivered the Fridge to the Complainant on 05.09.2014 and raised the bill for Rs.1514/- Vide Bill No.OCHE2/15529 which was paid by the Complainant as found in Exs.A-4,5,6. Again the Complainant made a complaint on 06.10.2014 and the fridge was picked up from the Complainant’s premises by the 1st Opposite Party and kept for 4 days under observation and it was delivered to the Complainant on 11.10.2014 stating the set as Good, as found in Exs.A-7 and Ex.8. It was the contention of the Complainant that since the fridge repeatedly gave trouble, last complaint was registered on 21.11.2014 and on 28.11.2014, the Fridge was taken to the workshop for rectification of the defects. On enquiry the Complainant was informed that the fridge is beyond repair and is unserviceable. However, the Opposite Party contended that the Fridge was in working condition, but the Complainant did not accept and refused to take back the fridge. Thus the Fridge is still lying with the 1st Opposite Party. Though the Contention of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties is that the warranty period for the Fridge is for one year, it could be seen from Ex.A-2, that one year Warranty is given on all parts from the date of purchase and an additional warranty of 4 years is on the Compressor.
The Complainant had placed reliance of the Judgement dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C.Case No.FA/473/2010, Lakshmi Roy Vs L.G.Electronics Pvt Ltd., wherein it was observed that soon after purchase of a refrigerator from the Opposite parties for valuable consideration it was giving trouble and was not ultimately repaired and the Opposite parties did not care for replacement and held that there was deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties and directed for replacement of defective refrigerator. In this case the Fridge started giving trouble after 4 years from the date of purchase, and hence the said Judgment is not applicable to the present case.
It could be seen from Exs.A-3 to A-9 the Fridge was inspected by the technician of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties and frequent repairs and replacement of certain parts were carried out by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. However, the problem in the fridge could not be rectified. Though it was contended by the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties that the Fridge was completely rectified and the Complainant refused to accept the Fridge, it is evident from Ex.A-11, that the Refrigerator is irreparable and is functionally not in working condition and is lying in the workshop for the last 64 months. From the discussions above we find that the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service by not fixing the problem, and had not rectified the defects in spite of frequent repairs made by them and had not delivered the Refrigerator in a working condition to the Complainant. As so many years have passed away and as it is already informed by the 1st Opposite Party that the Refrigerator is beyond repair, order directing the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties to deliver the Refrigerator in a working condition to the Complainant will not serve any purpose and hence compensation is ordered.
The Complainant had purchased a new product from the 3rd Opposite Party on 05.04.2010. The first complaint was reported during the 5th year of its purchase. This Complaint is against the service deficiency on the part of the Authorized Service Provider, 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the 3rd Opposite Party and hold that the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered as against the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.
7. Point Nos. 3 and 4 :-
In view of the discussions above, the Opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties by not fixing the problem, and for having failed to rectify the defects in spite of frequent repairs made by them and having not delivered the Refrigerator in a working condition to the Complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and pains suffered by the Complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost. Accordingly Point No.3 and 4 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony and pains suffered by the Complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards litigation cost, within 8 weeks from the date of this Order, failing which the above sums shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this Order till date of realization.
In the result, the complaint is allowed
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27th day of May 2022.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 | 04.05.2010 | VAT Summary |
Ex.A2 | - | Warranty Card |
Ex.A3 | 25.08.2014 | Retail Invoice |
Ex.A4 | 03.09.2014 | Challan Defective Movement |
Ex.A5 | 04.09.2014 | Retail Invoice |
Ex.A6 | 05.09.2014 | Challan Repaired Goods Movement |
Ex.A7 | 06.10.2013 | Challan Defective Goods Movement |
Ex.A8 | 11.10.2014 | Challan Repaired Goods Movement |
Ex.A9 | 28.11.2014 | Challan Defective Goods Movement |
Ex.A10 |
| Acknowledgement Card |
Ex.A11 | 20.03.2019 28.03.2019 | Letter for the 1st Opposite Party |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:
NIL
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
order : 27.05.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.70/2015
FRIDAY , THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2022
P. Sundararajan,
No.7B, Type II (MS Block),
CLRI Staff Quarters,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. …Complainant
…Versus…
1.M/s LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd.,
Old No.10, New No.19, City Link Road,
Near NGO Colony Bus Stand,
Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088.
2.M/s LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd., (Regd Office),
Plot No.51, Udjogvihar, Surajpurkasna Road,
Greater Noida 201306 (UP).
3.M/s Vivek Limited,
No.35, 1st Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Chennai 600 020. …Opposite Parties
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. R.Vetrivel
Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1&2 : M/s. K.R.Kumaravel
Counsel for the Opposite Party 3 : M/s. K.P.C.Mogan
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsels for the Opposite Parties we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of medicines damaged and compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of replacement of new fridge and compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the expenses of case processing and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant had purchased LG Fridge on 4.5.2010 from the 3rd Opposite Party for Rs.14,700/- vide Bill No.11621001693 dated 04.05.2010. On 23.08.2014 the fridge has started giving trouble of not getting proper chillness and the Complainant reported to the 1st Opposite party to rectify the defect as it is under the warranty period. One Mechanic of the 1st Opposite Party went to his home on 25.08.2014 and replaced some parts (drier) and billed for Rs.1,367/- being the service charge (Invoice No.13835 dated 25.08.2014). Again the same trouble started hence the technician took the fridge to their workshop on 03.09.2014 and returned the fridge on 04.09.2014 after receiving Rs.1514/- (Invoice No.14529 dated 04.09.2014). As the fridge continued with the same problem the Complainant informed the service centre for the 3rd time. The mechanic again picked up the fridge on 06.10.2014 and returned on 11.10.2014 stating the condition of the Fridge as “Good Set”. In spite of repairing the fridge for 3 times the problem has not been rectified. The service centre took up the fridge on 28.11.2014 for rectification of defects. While the Complainant enquired the service centre about the condition of the fridge, they informed the Complainant that the fridge is beyond repair and it is to be treated as condemned/Unserviceable and nothing could be done further. The so called unserviceable fridge is still lying with the Opposite Parties. Till date neither the Complainant received any reply nor received back the fridge duly rectifying the problem. Hence the complaint.
3. Written Version of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant have purchased a fridge manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Part from the 3rd Opposite Party. The Warranty period for the Fridge was for one year. On complaint received from the Complainant on 22.08.2014, the Service Engineer visited the Complainant’s premises and inspected the fridge and found that the drier needed replacement for which charges would be payable, since the Fridge is out of warranty. Accordingly on 25.08.2014, the Service Engineer replaced the drier and raised bill amount of Rs.1363/- which was paid by the Complainant. Once again the Complainant registered a complaint on 01.09.2014, hence the Service Engineer took the Fridge for inspection and repairs and accordingly replaced the cooling coil and compressor of the Fridge and delivered the Fridge to the Complainant on 05.09.2014 and raised the bill for Rs.1514/- Vide Bill No.OCHE2/15529 which was paid by the Complainant. Again the Complainant made a complaint on 06.10.2014 and the fridge was picked up from the Complainant’s premises by the 1st Opposite Party and kept for 4 days under observation and it was found that the fridge was working perfectly and the same was delivered to the Complainant on 11.10.2014. On 21.11.2014, the Complainant once again registered a complaint and this time when the Fridge was taken to the workshop it was found to be working condition. However when the same was informed to the Complainant, the Complainant refused to take back the Fridge. Thus the Fridge is still lying with the 1st Opposite Party. It is totally false to state that the 1st Opposite Party had informed the Complainant that the Fridge is beyond repair or that is unserviceable and nothing can be done. The Complaint has come forward with vexatious complaint as such there is no mental agony or hardship caused to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. Hence prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. Written Version filed by the 3rd Opposite Party in brief:-
It is admitted that the Complainant had purchased one LG brand Fridge having 240 litres capacity. The product sold to the Complainant is a new and good product. From then service reports brought by the Complainant, the first complaint was reported during the 5th year of its purchase. The Complainant has come forward with this complaint on the basis of the service deficiency on the part of the Authorized Service Provider. This Opposite party never sold any defective product to book a case against it. Hence this complaint is not maintainable against the 3rd Opposite Party as it had no connection with this complaint except the fact of selling the Fridge to the Complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint as against the 3rd Opposite Party.
The Complainant had filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Complainant Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11 were marked. The Opposite Parties filed Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. No documents were marked on the side of Opposite Parties.
5. The Points for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1,2 and 3?
2.Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the complaint?
3.To what relief, the Complainant is entitled?
6. Point No.1:-
The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had purchased a Fridge from the 3rd Opposite Party on 04.05.2010. The Fridge started giving trouble on 23.08.2014 and on complaint from the Complainant, the Service Engineer visited the Complainant’s premises and inspected the fridge and found that the drier needed replacement. Accordingly on 25.08.2014, the Service Engineer replaced the drier and raised bill amount of Rs.1363/-, Vide Bill No.OCHE2/14835 Ex.A-3, since the Fridge is out of warranty, which was paid by the Complainant. On the basis of the complaint, the Service Engineer of the 1st Opposite Party had taken the Fridge for inspection and repairs and replaced certain parts of the Fridge and delivered the Fridge to the Complainant on 05.09.2014 and raised the bill for Rs.1514/- Vide Bill No.OCHE2/15529 which was paid by the Complainant as found in Exs.A-4,5,6. Again the Complainant made a complaint on 06.10.2014 and the fridge was picked up from the Complainant’s premises by the 1st Opposite Party and kept for 4 days under observation and it was delivered to the Complainant on 11.10.2014 stating the set as Good, as found in Exs.A-7 and Ex.8. It was the contention of the Complainant that since the fridge repeatedly gave trouble, last complaint was registered on 21.11.2014 and on 28.11.2014, the Fridge was taken to the workshop for rectification of the defects. On enquiry the Complainant was informed that the fridge is beyond repair and is unserviceable. However, the Opposite Party contended that the Fridge was in working condition, but the Complainant did not accept and refused to take back the fridge. Thus the Fridge is still lying with the 1st Opposite Party. Though the Contention of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties is that the warranty period for the Fridge is for one year, it could be seen from Ex.A-2, that one year Warranty is given on all parts from the date of purchase and an additional warranty of 4 years is on the Compressor.
The Complainant had placed reliance of the Judgement dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C.Case No.FA/473/2010, Lakshmi Roy Vs L.G.Electronics Pvt Ltd., wherein it was observed that soon after purchase of a refrigerator from the Opposite parties for valuable consideration it was giving trouble and was not ultimately repaired and the Opposite parties did not care for replacement and held that there was deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties and directed for replacement of defective refrigerator. In this case the Fridge started giving trouble after 4 years from the date of purchase, and hence the said Judgment is not applicable to the present case.
It could be seen from Exs.A-3 to A-9 the Fridge was inspected by the technician of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties and frequent repairs and replacement of certain parts were carried out by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. However, the problem in the fridge could not be rectified. Though it was contended by the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties that the Fridge was completely rectified and the Complainant refused to accept the Fridge, it is evident from Ex.A-11, that the Refrigerator is irreparable and is functionally not in working condition and is lying in the workshop for the last 64 months. From the discussions above we find that the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service by not fixing the problem, and had not rectified the defects in spite of frequent repairs made by them and had not delivered the Refrigerator in a working condition to the Complainant. As so many years have passed away and as it is already informed by the 1st Opposite Party that the Refrigerator is beyond repair, order directing the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties to deliver the Refrigerator in a working condition to the Complainant will not serve any purpose and hence compensation is ordered.
The Complainant had purchased a new product from the 3rd Opposite Party on 05.04.2010. The first complaint was reported during the 5th year of its purchase. This Complaint is against the service deficiency on the part of the Authorized Service Provider, 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the 3rd Opposite Party and hold that the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered as against the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.
7. Point Nos. 3 and 4 :-
In view of the discussions above, the Opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties by not fixing the problem, and for having failed to rectify the defects in spite of frequent repairs made by them and having not delivered the Refrigerator in a working condition to the Complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and pains suffered by the Complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost. Accordingly Point No.3 and 4 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony and pains suffered by the Complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards litigation cost, within 8 weeks from the date of this Order, failing which the above sums shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this Order till date of realization.
In the result, the complaint is allowed
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27th day of May 2022.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 | 04.05.2010 | VAT Summary |
Ex.A2 | - | Warranty Card |
Ex.A3 | 25.08.2014 | Retail Invoice |
Ex.A4 | 03.09.2014 | Challan Defective Movement |
Ex.A5 | 04.09.2014 | Retail Invoice |
Ex.A6 | 05.09.2014 | Challan Repaired Goods Movement |
Ex.A7 | 06.10.2013 | Challan Defective Goods Movement |
Ex.A8 | 11.10.2014 | Challan Repaired Goods Movement |
Ex.A9 | 28.11.2014 | Challan Defective Goods Movement |
Ex.A10 |
| Acknowledgement Card |
Ex.A11 | 20.03.2019 28.03.2019 | Letter for the 1st Opposite Party |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:
NIL
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.