A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
F A.
Between :
The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,),
Divisional Office - III, (CBU
Rosy Tower, 2nd
Nungambakkam
Chennai - 600 034 represented by
Authorised
And
01.A.PrabhakerS/o
H.No.2/89,Addanki st
02.The Branch Manager,
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
F A.
Between :
The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,),
Divisional Office - III, (CBU
Rosy Tower, 2nd
Nungambakkam
Chennai - 600 034 represented by
Authorised
And
01.S.H. No. 5-31,KodumurKurnool District 518 464
02.The Branch Manager,
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
F A.
Between :
The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,),
Divisional Office - III, (CBU
Rosy Tower, 2nd
Nungambakkam
Chennai - 600 034 represented by
Authorised
And
01.U. NoorS/o U,H. No.5/34,Tadipartri,
02.The Branch Manager,
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
Coram
And
Friday, the Twelth Day of July
Two Thousand Thirteen
****
1. Thesest nd
2. The brief facts of the complaint in Cthe Opposite party No.1 gave a reply with untenable grounds.
3.
The st
04.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA35 4935, he purchase the said vehicle by obtaining finance from OP.2 and insured the said vehicle with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 vide policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/7806 for the period from 25-08-2006 to 24-08-2007 showing the value of the vehicle as Rs.6,75,000/-and that while the said policy was in force the insured vehicle met with an accident on 30.10.2006 and that the insured vehicle was damaged. stnd stst
11.In FA 687/2012 pertaining to CC 122/2011, the claim is Rs.3
12.In FA 688/2012 pertaining to CC 123/2011, the claim is Rs.4
13. In both the said two consumer complaints also the
14.In the result, all the three Appeals, i.e. FA No. 686/
