Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/81/2016

N.Uma Maheswar Naidu, S/o N.Ramanappa Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The manager, Tayota Lanson Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Madhusudhan Reddy

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 03.08.2016

Order Date:20.09.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.81/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

N.Uma Maheswar Naidu,

S/o. N.Ramanappa Naidu,

Residing at:

Kondakindapalli Village,

Andhravaripalli (Post),

Puthalapattu Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The Manager,

            Toyota Lanson Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

            No.15/D, Thiruvalam Road,

            Katpadi,

            Vellore,

            Tamil Nadu – 632 014.

 

2.         The Manager,

            ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            H.No.414, Veer Savarkar Mark,

            Near Siddhi Vinayaka Temple,

            Prabhadevi,

            Mumbai – 400 025.

 

3.         The Manager,

            M/s. Toyota Lanson Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

            Putalapattu – Naidupeta Bypass Road,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.09.17 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Madhusudan Reddy, counsel for complainant, and opposite party No.1, remained exparte, and Sri. Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for opposite party No.2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party No.2, to pay the entire damages claim amount of Rs.2,90,000/- along with accrued interest, 2) to direct the opposite party No.2, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical pain caused to the complainant, and 3) to pay costs of the complaint.   

            2. The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the complainant purchased Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP-03-AZ-3637, from opposite party No.3 on 01.10.2012 for his personal use. The vehicle was insured with opposite party No.2 with the advice of opposite party No.3, under Private Car Package Policy No.TIL/10135506 for one year from 28.08.2013 to 27.08.2014. The complainant is having R.C., Permit and Fitness Certificate to run the vehicle on the road.

            3.  While so, on 01.05.2014 at about 1 p.m., while the complainant is returning from Kaveripuram to Chittoor, the vehicle met with an accident, as it hit to a tamarind tree (called an umbrella tree), as a result of which the vehicle was badly damaged and the same was intimated to opposite party No.2 immediately. Opposite party No.2 in turn appointed its surveyor, who visited the vehicle and estimated the damages to a tune of Rs.6,50,000/-. That opposite party No.1 effected the repairs to the vehicle by replacing the parts and charged Rs.4,09,531/- during the period from 26.09.2014 to 01.06.2015. The complainant made his claim to opposite party No.2 on 05.05.2014. The vehicle was insured for Rs.9,54,585/-, and he is paying the required premium. That after deducting 70% of estimation value of Rs.7,15,000/-, opposite party No.2 paid a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- to opposite party No.1 on 20.10.2014. The total garage bill is Rs.9,87,026/-. Opposite party No.2 paid only Rs.4,25,000/-, but after depreciation, opposite party No.2 is liable to pay Rs.2,90,000/- towards the damages apart from compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony. Hence the complaint.

            4.  Opposite party No.1, remained exparte on 23.12.2016. Complaint against opposite party No.3, was dismissed for default on 19.12.2016.

            5.  Opposite party No.2, filed its written version denying parawise allegations in the complaint and further contended that the complainant is the owner of the Innova Car bearing No.AP-03-AZ-3637, purchased from opposite party No.3. The said Innova was insured with opposite party No.2, under private car package policy No.TIL/10135506 for one year from 28.08.2013 to 27.08.2014. Opposite party No.2 admitted that the vehicle Innova in question met with an accident by hitting to a tamarind tree called umbrella tree on 01.05.2014, as a result of which the vehicle was badly damaged and on receiving intimation about the accident, opposite party No.2 deputed its surveyor, who visited the damaged vehicle and estimated the damages to a tune of Rs.6,50,000/- and filed his report. Basing on the report, opposite party No.2 decided to declare the said damages as a total loss on 10.06.2014, for which the complainant did not interested to settle the claim as total loss and interested for repair based settlement. Opposite party No.2 refused for the said proposal of the complainant, as the repair cost is exceeding 75% of the IDV.

            6.  That opposite party No.2, after thorough discussion and negotiations with the complainant, the complainant has undertaken to receive a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards one time settlement for entire repairs, and accordingly he has executed a letter of acceptance in favour of opposite party No.2. Basing on the said letter of acceptance, opposite party No.2 sent mail and letter dt:28.06.2014 to opposite party No.1 and asked him to effect repairs to the vehicle in question. Basing on the mail and letter, opposite party No.1 effected repairs with the knowledge of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 after completing 75% of the repairs, raised invoice dt:26.09.2014 under invoice tax No.1409306 for Rs.5,77,495/-, for the said invoice opposite party No.2 credited Rs.4,25,000/- to the account of opposite party No.1 by way of NEFT transfer with the consent of the complainant. Opposite party No.1, during repairs found that some invisible parts also damaged and estimated the damages for Rs.2,49,000/- with tax on 25.09.2014, and after personal inspection by the complainant and on obtaining written approval from the complainant dt:25.09.2014, opposite party No.1 effected repairs and raised bill for Rs.4,09,561/- with tax No.1410785, in favour of the complainant and later informed the complainant that the vehicle is repaired and take back the vehicle after paying the balance amount. The complainant went to opposite party No.1 and participated in road test on 25.11.2014, satisfied with the words done by opposite party No.1, and undertaken to take back the vehicle within a week by paying the balance amount to opposite party No.1. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to opposite party No.1 under cash receipt No.1801 dt:28.06.2014 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under cash receipt No.1470 dt:25.09.2014, and undertaken to take back the vehicle, but later he did not turn-up and got issued legal notice dt:18.12.2014, calling upon opposite parties 1 and 2, to pay the insured amount and release the said vehicle, and the said notice contains false allegations. 

            7.  That the complainant having accepted for one time settlement and giving the letter of acceptance for Rs.4,25,000/-, for the settlement of claim, he cannot further make any claim. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            8.  The complainant and the opposite party No.2 have filed their respective written arguments. Complainant has filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. For the opposite parties R.W.1 and R.W.2 have filed their chief affidavits and got marked Exs.B1 to B28. Heard the counsel for both parties.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim of Rs.2,90,000/- towards

                  balance amount of claim?      

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            10.  Point No.(i):-  In order to answer this point, the complainant has to first establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, but nowhere in the complaint, he alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. But he is demanding payment of Rs.2,90,000/- towards balance of claim from opposite party No.2. Admittedly, complainant is the owner of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP-03-AZ-3637, and it was insured with opposite party No.2 for Rs.9,54,585/-. Admittedly, the said Innova vehicle was met with an accident on 01.05.2014, while the complainant was returning from Kaveripuram to Chittoor. The vehicle was insured under Private Car Package Policy No.TIL/10135506, for one year from 28.08.2013 to 27.08.2014. When the vehicle was met with accident on 01.05.2014, immediately the complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties. Inturn, opposite party No.2 deputed its surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and estimated the damages of the car at Rs.6,50,000/- and filed his report. According to the complainant after deducting 70% of the estimation value of the vehicle is Rs.7,15,000/-, opposite party No.2 has paid a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- to opposite party No.1 on 20.10.2014 towards the cost of the repairs of the vehicle. The complainant further contended that the total garage bills is for Rs.9,87,026/-. Opposite party No.2 has paid only Rs.4,25,000/-, that after depreciation opposite party No.2 is liable to pay Rs.2,90,000/- apart from the said amount of Rs.4,25,000/-. Therefore, he is claiming the said amount of Rs.2,90,000/-. The opposite parties contesting the case, stating that the complainant showing the garage estimation as Rs.9,87,026/-, which is more than the value of the vehicle for the purpose of insurance premium. Therefore, the opposite parties decided to declare the said damages as a total loss on 10.06.2014, for which the complainant is not interested to settle the claim on total loss basis, and the complainant is interested for repairs based settlement. Opposite party No.2 refused for the said proposal of the complainant, as the repair cost was exceeding 75% of the IDV.

            11.  That the opposite party No.2, after thorough discussion and negotiations with the complainant, the complainant has undertaken to receive a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards one time settlement for entire repairs and accordingly he executed a letter of acceptance in favour of opposite party No.2. Basing on the said letter of acceptance, opposite party No.2 sent mail along with a letter to opposite party No.1, requesting them to effect repairs on the vehicle. Opposite party No.1 basing on the mail and letter dt:28.06.2014, effected repairs with the knowledge of the complainant. Opposite party No.1, after completing 75% of the repairs, raised invoice dt:26.09.2014 under invoice tax No.1409306 for Rs.5,77,495/-. For the said invoice, opposite party No.2, credited Rs.4,25,000/- to the account of the opposite party No.1 by way of NEFT transfer with the consent of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 during the repairs found that some invisible parts also damaged and estimated the damages for Rs.2,49,000/- with tax on 25.09.2014, and after personal inspection by the complainant, and on obtaining written approval from the complainant dt:25.09.2014, opposite party No.1 effected repairs and raised bill for Rs.4,09,561/- with tax No.1410785, in favour of the complainant and informed the complainant that the vehicle is repaired and take back the vehicle after paying the balance amount. The complainant went to opposite party No.1, and participated in the road test on 25.11.2014, satisfied with the works done by opposite party No.1, and undertaken to take back the vehicle within a week by paying the balance amount to opposite party No.1. The complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- to opposite party No.1, under cash receipt No.1081 dt:28.06.2014, and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under cash receipt No.1470 dt:25.09.2014 to opposite party No.1, and undertaken to take back the vehicle, but he did not turn-up, and got issued legal notice demanding opposite parties 1 and 2, to pay the insured amount and release the vehicle. The said notice contains false allegations. At this stage, opposite party No.2 specifically relied on undertaking letter given by the complainant under Ex.B8 dt:20.06.2014, which runs as under:-

“Dear Sir,

 

              My vehicle met with major accident on 01/05/2014, my vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-AZ-3637. You told we settle it as total loss basis, but I am not willing and want to repair my vehicle. I agree your amount of Rs.4,25,000/-. I promise you that I don’t argue for more than that amount. So, kindly sanction that amount.

 

Yours faithfully,

Umamaheswara Naidu”. 

 

            This letter under Ex.B8 is executed by the complainant in favour of the opposite party No.2. Once the complainant accepted for one time settlement and agreed to receive Rs.4,25,000/- towards full and final settlement and requested the opposite party No.2, to send the said amount of  Rs.4,25,000/-, and accordingly when the opposite party No.2, released the said amount of Rs.4,25,000/- by way of NEFT transaction to the account of opposite party No.1, who effected the repairs on Innova  vehicle bearing No.AP-03-AZ-3637, complainant cannot give go by to Ex.B8 i.e. his undertaking letter dt:20.06.2014.

            12.  Similarly, in Ex.B7 letter  dt:-Nil- executed by the complainant to opposite party No.1, the complainant asked opposite party No.1, to proceed with the repair work on his vehicle No.AP-03-AZ 3637, as per the estimation given by opposite party No.1, agreeing that after completion of the job, he will pay the entire amount / depreciation amount and take delivery. Likewise the complainant also addressed letter under Ex.B13, dt:28.06.2014 to opposite party No.1 stating that opposite party No.2 will pay Rs.4,25,000/- from Insurance Company side and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid by the complainant, and requested opposite party No.1 to do the job and make the vehicle ready and do the needful as soon as possible.   

13.  Once the complainant has agreed for one time settlement / full and final settlement, he cannot legally claim the balance amount. In this regard, I am relying on a decision reported in III (2017) CPJ 585 (NC) – Swastik Petroleum (I) Pvt. Ltd. – Complainant Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Opposite party, Consumer Case No.359/2014 decided on 16.08.2017 by the Hon’ble National Commission – In this case, their Lordships held “that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(a)(i) – Insurance – Fire accident – Surveyor appointed – Loss assessed – Full and final settlement – Further claim repudiated – Alleged deficiency in service – Discharge voucher cannot be obtained by any kind of pressure or compulsion upon insured – No evidence of any kind of duress, coercion or compulsion having been applied by insurer – Complainant accepted amount offered by insurer voluntarily as is evident from its subsequent conduct in not lodging any kind of written protest and not claiming that aforesaid amount had been accepted by it on account of financial circumstances of complainant company – Deficiency not proved. I find no merits in the complaint and it is dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs”. In this case also, the complainant did not file any protest in writing right from the date of Ex.B8 dt:20.06.2014, till the date of filing of the complaint on 03.08.2016 under S.R.No.750. Complainant did not make any allegation that Ex.B8 letter of consent was obtained by the opposite parties by applying pressure on him or any compulsion upon the complainant. That apart the complainant also mentioned in his complaint, evidence affidavit and written arguments filed on his behalf that opposite party No.2, has paid a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards the cost of repairs of his vehicle. But, for the reasons best known to him, he did not mention anywhere that the said amount was paid by opposite party No.2 towards one time settlement of the claim or full and final settlement of the claim. In Ex.B14, letter dt:25.09.2014 addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1, he stated as follows – “I will accept to replace the chassis with the same existing number …. (other words are not clear) …. he further undertaken to the effect that in future any insurance claim, any RTO problems, he will take responsibility as his own risk”. More than two years after executing the letter under Ex.B8, the complainant has filed this complaint. In this regard, I am relying on another decision reported in III (2017) CPJ 9B (CN) Himachal Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Devi, in which their Lordships held “that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 – Insurance – Accident of vehicle – Surveyor appointed – Loss assessed – Full and final settlement – Protest lodged – Deficiency in service – Balance amount claimed – District Forum allowed complaint – Hence appeal. Their Lordships further held that the respondent / complainant cannot lawfully claim entire amount spent on repair of vehicle – Impugned order modified”.

            14.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and contents of Exs.B7, B8, B13, B14, B22 and B28, and in view of the decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that once the complainant has executed Ex.B8 letter of consent, accepting Rs.4,25,000/- as one time settlement of the claim and requested opposite party No.2, to release the said amount and got the vehicle repaired by opposite party No.1, on the basis of mail and letter addressed by opposite party No.2, to opposite party No.1 (Exs.B9 and B12) and when the complainant is said to have been agreed to pay the balance amount to opposite party No.1 and take back his vehicle, subsequently he cannot make the claim for the balance amount and that he is not legally entitled to such balance amount. The complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. Therefore, his claim cannot be accepted. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            15.  Point No.(ii):-  In view of our discussion on point No.1, and as the complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2, and that he is legally entitled for the balance amount of Rs.2,90,000/- as claimed by him, and it is the complainant to take back the vehicle after paying the balance amount to opposite party No.1, as agreed by him under Exs.B13 and B14. Opposite party No.1 gave estimation under Ex.B4 with estimate No.BPE14-00644 for Rs.6,57,395/- dt:05.05.2014, opposite party No.1 also gave another estimation under Ex.B5 dt:26.09.2014 for Rs.5,77,495/- with job description and tax invoice, opposite party No.1 also gave job order No.BPJ14-00911(P) dt:09.08.2014 under Ex.B18, opposite party No.1 also gave another estimation dt:20.04.2015 with estimate No.BPE15-00770 for Rs.1,94,541/- furnishing the details of labour charges and parts charges under Ex.B23. Thus the opposite party No.1 gave the estimation on different dates for different amounts, for which the complainant undertaken in writing to pay the balance amount after deducting the payment of Rs.4,25,000/- made by opposite party No.2, and failed to take back the vehicle as agreed. Therefore, the complainant is at fault and he is not entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as prayed for, as he failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 or that the opposite party No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            16.  Point No.(iii):- In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that he is legally entitled for the balance amount of claim and compensation, and the complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                            

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 20th day of September, 2017.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  N. Uma Maheswar Naidu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: K. Venu Gopal     (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: B. Srinivasa Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits

(Ex.A)

Description of Documents

  1.  

Photo copy of Certificate of Registration (No.AP03AZ3637) filed by the Complainant.

  1.  

Photo copy of Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule and Original copy of policy renewal letter filed by the complainant. Period of Insurance from 28.08.2013 to 27.08.2014.

  1.  

Photo copy of Tax Invoice/Sale Invoice (15 Sheets) of the  parts of the vehicle replaced starting from 26.09.2014 to 31.10.2014.

  1.  

Original copies of Receipt Service Vouchers (No: 1018, 1470, 791, 1741) 4 in Number. Dt: 28.06.2014, 25.09.2014, 30.04.2015, 01.06.2015.

  1.  

Legal Notice filed by the Complainant. Dt: 18.12.2014.

  1.  

Postal acknowledgement in Original filed by the Complainant. Dt: 27.12.2014.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits

(Ex.B)

Description of Documents

  1.  

Original copy of Surveyor report pertaining to the complainant vehicle filed by the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 10.10.2014.

  1.  

Photo copy of Certificate if insurance cum policy schedule pertaining to the vehicle of the complainant issued by the 2nd opposite party filed by the 2nd opposite party. Dt:24.08.2013. Period of Insurance from 28.08.2013 to midnight on 27.08.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Claim registration form for Motor Vehicle submitted by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party filed by the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 05.05.2014.

  1.  

True copy of Estimating charges of the vehicle (6 Sheets) pertaining to the complainant submitted to the 2nd  opposite party filed by the 2nd opposite party. Estimate No.BPE14-00644. Dt: 05.05.2014.

  1.  

Photo copy of Estimation pertaining to the complainant vehicle given by the 1st report submitted to the 2nd opposite party filed by the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 26.09.2014

  1.  

Original copy of towing charges of the vehicle pertaining to the complainant submitted to the 2nd opposite party filed by the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 01.05.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Letter requesting the 1st opposite party to start repairing work of his vehicle submitted by the complainant to the 1st Opposite Party filed by the 2nd Opposite party.

  1.  

Original copy of Letter of undertaking/Acceptance executed in favour of 2nd Opposite Party by the complainant in a non judicial stamped paper filed by the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 20.06.2014.

  1.  

Photo copy of Observation Sheet (Payment of settled amount of Rs.4,25,001/- to the account of 1st opposite party with regard to the vehicle of the complainant made by 2nd opposite party filed by the 2nd opposite party). (Claim No.MOT03780360, Policy No.3001/82398990/00/000).

  1.  

Original copy of Complaint registered receipt issued to the complainant for the CSR No:159/2014 by SHO, Kaveripakkam PS, Vellore, Tamil Nadu submitted by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party filed by the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 01.05.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Report submitted in CSR No.159/2014 by SHO, Kaveripakkam PS, Vellore, Tamil Nadu filed by the 2nd Opposite Party. Dt: 01.05.2014.

  1.  

Photo copy of the mail addressed to the 1st opposite party by the 2nd opposite party with regard to the settlement arrived by the complainant and 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- and instructing the 1st opposite party to start the repair work and also under take to pay the said sum only towards the bill filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 21.06.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Letter addressed by the complainant to 1st opposite party to repair his vehicle filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 28.06.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Letter with under taking to fact consequences if any either from RTO or from insurance company with regard to change of Chassis with self same number addressed by the complainant to 1st opposite party to repair his vehicle filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 25.09.2014.

  1.  

Original copies (9 Sheets) of Tax Invoice for a sum of Rs.5,77,495/- of the complainant vehicle issued to the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 26.09.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Tax Invoices (6 Sheets) of the complainant vehicle issued by the complainant for a sum of Rs.4,09,531/- with regard to the vehicle of the complainant issued by the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 31.10.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Estimate (6 Sheets) of the repairs of the vehicle of the complainant for a sum of Rs.6,57,395/- issued by the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 05.05.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Job order (2 Sheets) of the 1st opposite party with regard to the vehicle of the complainant filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 28.05.2014.

  1.  

Photo copy of Transfer Sheet-Services (7 Sheets) pertaining to the vehicle of the complainant for sum of Rs.65,381/- with regard to the vehicle of the complainant issued by the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 26.09.2014.

  1.  

True copy of Transfer Sheet-Services(3 Sheets) pertaining to the vehicle of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,45,223/- with regard to the vehicle of the complainant issued by the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 10.07.2014.

  1.  

Photo copy of Transfer Sheet-Services(6 Sheets) pertaining to the vehicle of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,28,432/- with regard to the vehicle of the complainant issued by the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 17.07.2014.

  1.  

Original copy of Letter addressed to the complainant to the 1st opposite party requesting to repairs of the invisible parts of the vehicle for estimated sum of Rs.2 to 3 Lakhs filed by the 1st opposite party.

  1.  

Photo copy of Estimation (3 Sheets) for a sum of Rs.1,94,541/- pertaining to the complainant vehicle issued to the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 20.04.2015.

  1.  

Office copy of the Registered Legal Notice issued to the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party by the complainant filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 18.12.2014.

  1.  

Office copy of the Registered Legal Notice issued to the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party by the complainant filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt:10.02.2015.

  1.  

Served acknowledgement card in Original addressed to the complainant herein with regard to reply notice sent by the counsel for the 1st opposite party filed by the 1st opposite party.

  1.  

True copy of the letter addressed to the RTA of Chittoor by the 1st opposite party informing the change of chassis details of the complainant with acknowledgement of complainant filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt: 01.06.2015.

  1.  

True copy of Letter addressed to the 1st opposite party by the complainant with declaration of non proceeding legally or any other claims for waiving an amount of Rs.53,326/- filed by the 1st opposite party. Dt:01.06.2015.

                                                                                                                                 

 

 

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

         

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.                     

 

  

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly 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.