Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
295/2011
N.Geetha Malini - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive Ltd & Others - Opp.Party(s)
M/s.L.Rajasekar
12 Sep 2022
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 12.10.2011
Date of Reservation : 18.08.2022
Date of Order : 12.09.2022
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.295/2011
MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Mrs. N. Geetha Malini,
Wife of Mr.S. Natarajan,
Aged About 42 Years,
No:21, Rajeswari Street,
Mehta Nagar,
Chennai 600 929. ... Complainant
..Vs..
1.M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive Limited,
Represented by Its Chairman,
Mahindra Towers,
IIIrd Floor, Akruli Road,
Kandivali(East),
Maharashtra,
Mumbai 400 101.
2.M/S V.S.T. Auto Agency Limited,
Represented By its Managing Director,
No:A-9, Thiru Vi-Ka Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3.M/S India Garage,
Represented By its Manager,
No:184, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 006. ... Opposite Parties
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. L. Rajasekar
Counsel for the 1st Opposite Party : M/s. Y.Prakash
Counsel for 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties : M/s. S. Raghunathan
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru, T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund a sum of Rs.7934/- incurred by the Complainant for change of clutch and to reimburse a sum of Rs.4,495/- towards the Boarding and lodging expenses incurred at Nellore and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for the service, hardship and mental agony undergone by the Complainant along with costs.
2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
The case of the Complainant is that she is the owner of the Mahindra Scorpio Car (Sedan) bearing Registration No: TN 01 AF 2233. bearing Engine No: HA 74M11731, Chassis No: MAITBZHAN82A60481. Scorpio SLX 2 WD BSIII. The said Vehicle was purchased by her and it was registered on 25.03.2008. The 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer and the 2nd Opposite Party is the dealer for the said Vehicle based at Chennai and the 3rd Opposite Party is the Authorised Service agent of the 1st and the 2nd Opposite Party. The vehicle was serviced and maintained by the 3rd Opposite Party. The vehicle had done about 65,944 kms as on 16.05.2011. The Vehicle was periodically serviced by the third Opposite Party and they have filled various Oils in the Vehicle. The Vehicle is used for her own purpose. The Complainant states that on 08.04.2011 when the vehicle was driven by her husband inside the City, the clutch got stuck-up in the middle of the road and the Vehicle was immobilised. Immediately the Complainant's husband had contacted the 3rd Opposite Party and the mechanics attached to the 3rd Opposite Party have towed the vehicle from the Break down spot to their work station. On the date of the above said incident the Vehicle had done about 41,650 KMS. The representatives of the 3rd Opposite Party had represented to the Complainant that the clutch has been replaced and had assured that it would be safe for travel and it was said that such defect would not recur. The 3rd Opposite Party did not hand over the Job Order or the invoice for the replacement of the Clutch to her know as to what work was done for the vehicle. On 03.05.2011 the Complainant’s husband had left the vehicle for servicing with the third Opposite Party and the third Opposite Party had issued a Cash Hemo bearing No:228 dated 05.05.2011 wherein the third Opposite Party had charged about Rs.15,926/-. Having done the servicing, she was confident about the Vehicle's efficiency based on the assurance given by the Mechanics and the technical team attached to the 3rd Opposite Party, the Complainant and her husband with their children went for Vacation to Vijayawada. On 14.05.2011 when she was returning to Chennai from Vijayawada. while reaching Nellore in the Highway suddenly the vehicle got stuck-up and the Complainant's husband Mr. Natarajan, with great difficulty brought the vehicle under control and with the god's grace avoided a big mishap. The Vehicle was totally immobilised due to the mechanical defect in the Vehicle. Her husband had contacted the Service Department of the 1st Opposite Party and he was referred to one M/s Balaji Agencies and Industries, having their work shop at Plot No:198, Auto Nagar, Nellore 524 004. The mechanics attached to the abovesaid Service Station visited the Spot and informed the Complainant's husband that the clutch got stuckup and the vehicle had to be taken to the Work Shop for mending the Clutch. The mechanics have towed Vehicle to the Workshop. She and her family members were forced stay in a nearby Hotel from 14.05.2011 to 16.05.2011 and she had incurred an expense of Rs.4.495.00. She and her family members including her minor children had sleepless nights. She and her family members were put into hardship and mental agony and they could not come out of the shock which had occurred due to the sudden mechanical defect in the Vehicle on the High way. The Vehicle was delivered by the said M/s Balaji Agencies on 16.05.2011 and they had charged about Rs.7,934.00. Inspite of the change of clutch components during April 2010, the same defect had recurred and the whole family had a narrow escape. The children were terrified over the incident and they are scared to get into the Vehicle after the said incident.
The mechanics and the technicians attached to the 3rd Opposite Party had acted negligently in servicing the Clutch components and the second incident for the same mechanical defect happened within one year from the date of change of the clutch, throws suspicion over the quality of the service and the components used by the 3rd Opposite Party. After returning to Chennai, when the Complainant's husband had contacted the 3rd Opposite Party, the third Opposite Party's officials did not give any proper explanation or tested the efficiency of the Clutch components fixed by the third Opposite Party during 2010. The 3rd Opposite Party failed to offer any explanation for the failure of the clutch within a short span of time. She is mentally disturbed over the incident and she had restricted her husband and her driver from taking the vehicle for distance trips on the Highways. Her children are yet to come out of the shock and the driver is refusing to ply the vehicle on a long distance travel, due to the above said incidents. Inspite of her oral representations and complaints, the Opposite Party did not test drive the Vehicle to identify the defect and to check the efficiency of the clutch. She had forwarded a legal notice dated 30th July 2011 to the opposite parties to test drive the vehicle by deputing competent and experienced personnel and also to reimburse the repair cost incurred in Nellore and the Hotel expenses incurred, she had highligted the mental agony and the hardship undergone by her and had claimed a compensation of Rs.1.00.000/-. The said legal notice was acknowledged by the 1st Opposite Party vide their letter dated 12.08.2011 and though the 1st Opposite Party informed about the collection of details to forward reply there was no reply from the first Opposite Party. The 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties have acknowledged the legal notice and they have replied vide reply notice dated 11.08.2011, wherein they have denied the facts and claimed that the vehicle vas delivered on 05.05.2011 on a good condition. Hence the Complaint.
3. Written Version filed by the 1st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-
It is submitted that the relationship between the 1st Opposite Party and 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties is on Principal-to Principal basis and 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are not agents of the 1st Opposite Party for any reason. The vehicles manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party are sold and serviced by 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties and hence the 1st Opposite Party could not be made liable for any lapses if any on the part of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties. The subject vehicle was periodically serviced by the Complainant by the 3rd Opposite Party, the Complainant is put to strict proof. The complaint relating to the issue of clutch getting stuck up while driving inside the city on 08.04.2011, it is submitted that the year is 2010 and not 2011 as alleged. Further on service, the 3rd Opposite Party is understood to have replaced only clutch tube under warranty (clutch plate not replaced) and hence no charges were billed for the said service. The allegation made by the Complainant that no job order or invoice details of repair carried out was handed over is baseless in as much as the bill copy with Rs.0/- mentioned was given to customer along with gate pass. The other allegations that the 3rd Opposite Party assured the Complainant that after replacement of the clutch the 3rd Opposite Party intimated that it would be safe for travel and that the defect would not recur are all made for the purposes of the case. Though it is true that the vehicle was reported for service while it got stuck up on 14.05.2011 on the way from Vijayawada to Chennai at Nellore,the allegation that the husband of the Complainant avoided a big mishap etc. is made for the purposes of the case. Similarly the allegation that the Complainant could not come out of shock, which occurred due to mechanical defect in the vehicle is false and baseless. It is however true that the 1st Opposite Party directed the Complainant to contact M/s Balaji Agencies, Nellore for attending the vehicle, who in turn towed the vehicle to their service station to attend to the repairs. The allegations that the family of the Complainant was forced to stay in a nearby hotel from 14.05.2011 to 16.05.2011 and that she incurred an expense of Rs.4495/- and that they slept sleepless nights and put to hardship etc. are all made for the purposes of the case. The allegation made that inspite of change of clutch component during April 2010 the same defect re-occurred is baseless and incorrect as clutch is a wear & tear component and when the vehicle has run about for 25000 KMS in between April 2010 and May 2011, there are possibilities of minor repairs. It also depends on the way of driving. That is why under the warranty policy clutch is not even covered under the basic warranty. It is submitted that M/s Balaji Agencies after inspection replaced the clutch slave cylinder and charged the Complainant, as the vehicle is out of warranty as it had already run over 65944 KMS. The other allegation made therein that the children were terrified and they scared to get into the vehicle after the said incident are all made for the purposes of the case. With regards to the allegations that mechanics and technicians acted negligently in servicing the clutch components and that the 2nd incident for the same mechanical defect occurred within one year from date of change of clutch and this throws suspicion over quality of service, it is submitted that the same are all baseless and clearly unfounded. Similarly it is false to allege that the 3rd Opposite Party dealer failed to give any proper explanation or tested the efficiency of the clutch component fixed during 2010. As a matter of fact, whenever the vehicle was left for service or reported for any defect, the same was promptly attended to and serviced by the Opposite Parties. The allegations that the Complainant is mentally disturbed over the incident and she has restricted her husband and driver from taking the vehicle for distance trips on the highways etc. are all made for the purposes of the case. With regards to the allegations that the 3rd Opposite Party did not test drive the vehicle to identify the efficiency of clutch and hence the Complainant forwarded legal notice on 30th July 2011 to test drive the vehicle by deputing competent personnel and also seeking to reimburse the repair cost incurred at Nellore with further compensation of one lakh, it is submitted that the same are baseless. Though the 1st Opposite Party received the notice, it is submitted that since the repair and replacement was done only after warranty period, the payment of repair cost would not arise. The demand for Rs. 1 lac is highly ridiculous in as much as the vehicle was promptly attended to and serviced without any demur. It is submitted that there is no merits in the above case and the Complainant has filed the complaint with a motive to unduly enrich herself at the cost of the Opposite Parties. There is absolutely no defective service on the part of the Opposite Parties. There is no manufacturing defect and the vehicle has run already nearly more than 65,000 kilometers and hence the question of replacement of parts free of cost does not arise. The reimbursement of lodging charges would not arise as the Opposite Parties could not be blamed for the repairs. Standing by its policy of customer centricity, the Opposite Parties are and have always been willing to provide satisfactory services to its customers. The complaint is only an abuse of process of law and hence deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Written Version filed by the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-
The Complaint filed is not maintainable either in Law or on the facts of the case and the same is liable to be dismissed in limne. The Complaint is a speculative one and the Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. The Complainant had purchased Mahindra Scorpio car(Sedan)-VLX 2 and got it registered on 25.03.2008 and the same was serviced and maintained by 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party admits that the Vehicle had come for repair on 03.05.2011 @ 64,847 kms in regard to the replacement of the clutch. The 2nd Opposite Party had replaced the clutch and delivered back the Vehicle in good working condition on 03.05.2011. The Complainant had brought back the Vehicle with a complaint that the application of clutch was very hard. The 2nd Opposite Party inspected the Vehicle and the clutch was bleeded to make it soft, the Vehicle was tested and the Complainant was satisfied with the working. The 2nd Opposite Party also checked the fuel consumption after the bleeding and found to be normal and the Vehicle was delivered in good working condition. There was no indication about any damage or defect in the clutch. In the normal course, if the clutch was to be dismantled it cannot be put back and will necessitate a new clutch being fitted. They felt that the bleeding of the clutch had the desired effect & the working and mileage was found satisfactory and hence, considered it as unnecessary to replace the clutch. The Vehicle was taken delivery by the Complainant on 05.05.2011 and the Complainant has given a satisfactory memo after test drive. The failure of the clutch on 14.05.2011 was unexpected and they cannot be held responsible for inconvenience caused to Complainant and is not entitled for the claim of reimbursement of Rs.12,429/- for repairing the clutch and incidental expenses and also payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony. The claim of the Complainant that she and her family members have suffered mental agony and shock on account of the pedal problem is highly exaggerated and unrealistic. The incident has been unduly highlighted to claim the fabulous amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and to claim back the other amount spent on the Vehicle bbetween 25.3.2008 and 14.5.2011 the Vehicle has covered a distance of 65,944 kms, that is to say, in 35 months, the Vehicle has covered on an average of 1735kms a month, or say 530km a day. This demonstrates that there is no problem with the clutch and the one experienced is an unexpected one. Hence the Opposite Parties prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-19 were marked. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 submitted his Written Version and Proof Affidavit and on the side of 1st Opposite Party Ex. B10 alone was marked and on the side of 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were marked.
Points for Consideration
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?
3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1:-
It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle, Mahindra Scorpio Car (sedan) bearing Registration No.TN 01 AF2233 and the same was purchased from 2nd Opposite Party in the year 2008.
It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had required her vehicle periodically at the 3rd Opposite Party service centre, being the authorised service Centre of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.
The dispute arose when the vehicle was driven by her husband inside the city on 08.042011 the clutch got stuck in the middle of the road and the 3rd Opposite Party was informed and they towed the vehicle and taken to their service centre. Thereafter the 3rd Opposite Party after repair had informed that the clutch was replaced and the vehicle would be safe for travel, but did not handed over the job order of the invoice for the said replacement done. And on 14.05.2011 when the Complainant and her family members were returning from Vijayawada to Chennai, while reaching Nellore in the Highway the subject Vehicle got stuck suddently and with great difficulty the Complainant’s husband brought the vehicle under control. Thereafter the 1st Opposite Party’s Service Department was contacted and they referred to one M/s.Balaji Agencies and Industries at Nellore, the Mechanics of the said Service Station visited the spot and informed that the clutch got stuck and the vehicle has to be taken to their service station for mending he clutch and took the subject vehicle, and the subject vehile was delivered on 16.05.2011 which resulted the Complainant and her family members to stay in a Hotel at Nellore, apart from paying a sum of Rs.7,934/- as charged by the said service station at Nellore. Inspite of replacement/change of clutch done by the 3rd Opposite Party, the same issue occurred to her vehicle. When the issue was taken to the knowledge of the 3rd Opposite Party and sought for reply, there was no response, which constrained her to send legal notice dated 30.07.2011 to the Opposite Parties to test drive the vehicle and also to reimburse the expenses incurred by her.
The contention of the 1st Opposite Party in this regard was that they being manufacturer, the relationship between them and the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties is on principal to principal basis and the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are not their agents, as they sell and service the vehicle, the 1st Opposite Party could not be made liable for any lapses committed by the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties. Further contended that the issue of clutch getting stuck up had happened in the year, 2010 and not as alleged in the year 2011. Further under warranty only the cutch tube was replaced and not the clutch and the copy of Job Order was issued to the Complainant, hence the information about replacement of clutch is false. Further contended that they admit the incident taken place at Nellore on 14.05.2011 and they had directed to contact M/s. Balaji Agencies, Nellore for attending the vehicle. Further denied the stay at Hotel and slept sleepless nights and the same was created for the case. Further contended that the change of clutch component alleged by the Complainant and the same defect re-occurred inspite of change of clutch, are denied and because of the wear & tear of clutch there were possibilities of minor repairs, hence the clutch is not covered under the basic warranty. Further contended that the clutch slave Cylinder has been replaced which resulted in charges, as the subject vehicle was out of warranty and had already run over 65944 KMS. Further contended that though they have received the notice, as the repair and replacement was done only after warranty period, the payment of repair would not arise. Further contended that there was no manufacturing defect an the vehicle was already run over 6500 KMS, the replacement of parts free of costs does not arise.
The contention of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties in this regard was that the 2nd Opposite Party had replaced the clutch and delivered back the vehicle in good working condition on 03.05.2011, when vehicle had come for repair on 03.05.2011. Further contended that again on 03.05.2011 when the vehicle was brought with a complaint of application of clutch was very hard, they found the clutch was bleeded, to make it soft and also found fule consumption after bleeding and found to be normal there was no indication about damage/defect in the clutch and after the vehicle was tested, the same was delivered with good working condition at the satisfaction of the Complainant. Further contended that the failure of clutch on 14.05.2011 was unexpected and they cannot be held responsible for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant. From perusal of Ex.a-2 and Ex.A-3 the Tax invoice dated 29.07.2010 and 05.05.2011, the subject vehicle was serviced at the 3rd Opposite Party service centre. From perusal of Ex.A-3, Tax cash memo (cash sale(Job) dated 05.05.2011 a sum of Rs.15,926/- has been paid by the Complainant to the 3rd Opposite Party for the works done, whereas it is admitted in Ex.a-8 the reply notice dated 11.08.2011 on behalf of the Opposite Parties, that the clutch was replaced when the vehicle was received for repair on 08.04.2011 and after replacement of clutch, the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 05.05.2011 and the replacement of clutch was also admitted in paragraph No.6 of the written version filed by the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party, whereas the date of the vehicle received an the date of delivery of the vehicle after replacement of the clutch as 03.05.2011, though as per Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, the vehicle was delivered on 05.05.2011. the 1st Opposite Party in their written version had disputed the year of the vehicle got stuck up due to clutch issue as in the year 2010 and not 2011. From the written version of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party it is clear that on 03.05.2011 undoubtedly replacement of clutch was made and the incident that happened at Nellore on 14.05.2011 within a span of 10 days the subject vehicle got stuck-up due to the same clutch issue, in spite of the clutch being replaced by the 3rd Opposite Party, the clutch issue arose and the subject vehicle which got stuck-up again on 14.05.2011, clearly amounts to gross negligence on the part of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party, though the clutch is not covered under basic warranty, it is also clear that the Complainant was not provided with copy of Job Order of invoice for the replacement, in spite of admission made in respect of replacement of clutch made on 03.05.2011 in the written version filed by the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties. Hence, we hold that the incident that taken place on 14.05.2011 at Nellore in getting stuck – up of the subject vehicle due to clutch issue, is because of the negligent act of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties. Therefore, we are o the considered view that the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party being the manufacturer and the vehicle was not found to be with any manufacturing defect, hence the complaint against the 1st Opposite Party is dismissed. The Judgements of our Hon’ble Supreme Court and 3rd Opposite Parties, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 879 in SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd and reported in (2000) 1 supreme Court cases, 66 in Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs.KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another will not apply to the instant case at hand. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.
Point Nos.2 and 3:-
As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the 2nd and 3rd Oppsoite Parties, the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.7934/- incurred towards change of clutch and also to pya a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service, along with costs of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.7934/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four Only) incurred towards change of clutch and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony and deficiency of service along with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment.
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 12th of September 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 | 25.03.2008 | Copy of the Registration certificate |
Ex.A2 | 29.07.2010 | Invoice No.1273 |
Ex.A3 | 05.05.2011 | Invoice No.2228 |
Ex.A4 | 16.05.2011 | Invoice No.843 Balaji Agencies |
Ex.A5 | 15.05.2011 | D.R Utthama Hotel |
Ex.A6 | 30.07.2011 | Legal notice addressed to the Opposite Parties |
Ex.A7 | 02.08.2011 | Acknowledgement cards (2) |
Ex.A8 | 11.08.2011 | Reply notice from the 2nd Opposite Party |
Ex.A9 | 12.08.2011 | Letter from the 1st Opposite Party |
Ex.A10 | 26.11.2011 | e.mail from Complainant to customer care |
Ex.A11 | 28.11.2011 | e.mail from Complainant to Opposite Parties |
Ex.A12 | 03.12.2011 | e.mail from Complainant to Opposite Parties |
Ex.A13 | 05.12.2011 | e.mail from Complainant to Opposite Parties |
Ex.A14 | 07.12.2011 | e.mail from Complainant to Opposite Parties |
Ex.A15 | 07.12.2011 | Invoice for Rs.10,217/- |
Ex.A16 | - | Gate Pass |
Ex.A17 | 09.12.2011 | Job order |
Ex.A18 | 28.02.2012 | Legal notice |
Ex.A19 | - | Acknowledgement card |
List of documents filed on the side of the 1st Opposite Party:-
Ex.B10 |
| Copy of warranty card |
List of documents filed on the side of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties:-
Ex.B1 | 09.11.2010 to 16.05.2011 | Vehicle history |
Ex.B2 | 05.05.2011 | Satisfactory voucher and Gate Pass |
Ex.B3 | 05.05.2011 | Proforma Invoice |
Ex.B4 | 04.05.2011 | Job slip |
Ex.B5 | 03.05.2011 | Job request form |
Ex.B6 | 03.05.2011 | Estimate sheet |
Ex.B7 | 04.05.2011 | Optimal performance inspection cheek sheet |
Ex.B8 | 03.05.2011 | Indent for spare parts NO.888,889,997,3201 and 3214 |
Ex.B9 | 03.05.2011 | Job order of 3rd Opposite Party |
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.