O R D E R
(By Sri V.V.L. Narasimha Rao, President [FAC] on behalf of the Bench)
1. The present complaint is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 on 19.03.2014 against the opposite parties 1 to 5 and requested the forum (1) to direct opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.8,24,000/- towards insurance for the Maxi-Cab which was damaged in the accident. (2) To direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 for paying compensation of Rs.11,66,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony as there is delay processing the insurance claim. (3) To award costs of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses to the complainant.
2. The brief averments are as follows:- The complainant is doing the business by giving the cars on the name and style of Sri Chakri Enterprises for his livelihood. On 22.05.13 the complainant has purchased a Maxi-Cab Diesel (Mahindra XYLO D-4 MDICRDE for Rs.8,24,000/-vide Chassis No. MS1YAHKDC33775 with Engine No. KHD4C37885) with the financial assistance of M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Company, Kakinada. The complainant availed the Passenger Carrying Package Policy from the opposite party No.3 which will be enforce from 19.04.13 to 18.04.13. For that he has paid amount Rs.24,119/- one year premium.
3. While so, when the vehicle was plying which was driven by Sri CH. Veeravenkata Satyanarayana Murthy, the vehicle was met with an accident at 5.10 am near Ring Road, Vijayawada city due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver bearing No. AP27V1592. Then the cab driver gave complaint at Machavaram Police Station on 28.07.13 vide FIR No.486 / 2013. In the said accident the cab was fully damaged.
4. The complainant submitted claim form to the 1st opposite party for clearing the insurance claim. The 3rd opposite party promised to pay the insurance claim, after discussing with the 2nd opposite party. In the meanwhile Maxi cab was carrying out the repairs. The 3rd opposite party intentionally delayed in clearing the insurance claim. On 03.08.13 the 3rd opposite party assessed the damaged caused to the insured maxi cab and a quotation to the 1st and 2nd opposite party for Rs.5,86,882/-The same was approved by the 1st opposite party.
5. While so, the 2nd opposite party deputed a surveyor, to assess the damages caused to the maxi cab. The aforementioned quotations and other papers were forwarded to the 2nd opposite party for clearing the insurance claim. Thereafter, the 2nd opposite party kept quite in processing the insurance claim. Then the complainant sent a request letter dated 24.08.13 to the 1st and 2nd opposite party for clearance of the insurance amount but opposite parties 1 and 2 kept quite. In the meanwhile the 3rd opposite party also did not initiat any steps to clear the insurance claim. Because of the delay from the side of the 1st and 2nd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party failed to repair the Maxi cab. As the vehicle was not repaired the complainant lost his livelihood.
6. The 3rd opposite party sent a Mail on 25.12.13 to the complainant stating that they are ready to repair the vehicle. The 3rd opposite party stated that with much difficult the managed body shall insurance company and it took one and half months for the said approval. The opposite party No.3 and opposite party 1 and 2 are informing the complainant that they are contacting each other for clearance of the insurance amount and to do the vehicle repair but, the opposite parties are not responding properly. Finally on 30.12.13 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties for clearance of the insurance claim and to repair the maxi cab. Then the 1st opposite party sent letter dt.10.01.14 vide claim form No.Cl-13020378 / 00001 to the complainant to sent the repaired bill. The 4th opposite party sent letter dated 13.01.14 stating, the complaint is under process. The latter on the 3rd opposite party sent letter Dt. 13.01.14 and informed the complaint that the repairs to the maxi cab is awaiting for the approval of the insurance claim. Hence, alleging that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 to 5, the present complaint is filed seeking reliefs as sought for.
7. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed written version and stated as follows:-
The complainant is running a business of car rental under name and style Sri Chakri Enterprises, the opposite parties are not aware of the particulars of the purchase of the said car bearing No. AP 05 TC 3048 through the financial. The complainant falsely stated that the vehicle met with an accident due to negligent act of the lorry driver and vehicle was also crush in that accident. The surveyor of the 1st opposite party has assessed the damage caused to the vehicle. More particularly the complainant wrongly stated that the car rental business is per this livelihood. The complaint itself not maintainable as complainant is doing business with the vehicle.
8. After receiving the claim form from the complainant the opposite parties processed the same and in that process, four letters dated 10.01.14, 03.02.14, 05.03.14 and 11.03.14, to furnish the detailed information / documents to clear the claim forms. The complainant after receiving the 4 letters also did not respond for that and finally the claim was regretted because of non availability of documents. The surveyor of the opposite parties estimated the costs in the survey report Rs.1,87,302.62/-Pisa. The surveyor categorically mentioned the damages of various parts. But there is no total loss of the vehicle as stated by the complainant. The photographs shows the situation of the car after met with the accident. Here the negligence is on part of the complainant only. There is no deficiency of the service on part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
9. The 3rd opposite party filed detailed counter and stated as follows:- The present complainant is not maintainable as per the law and also upon the facts of the case. The complainant himself is stating that he is doing car rental business under name and style of Sri Chakri Enterprises. The complainant cannot consider him as a consumer under the act, as he is doing business not for his livelihood. The opposite party is not aware that complainant is being paying the insurance premium for sum of Rs.24,119/- p.a. for the passenger carrying package policy.
10. The complainant falsely stated that, when the vehicle was vehicle / maxi cab was met with the accident the driver of the vehicle M/s.Cheekatla Veeravenkata Satyanarayana Murthy gave complaint in Machavaram vide FIR No.486 of 13 stating that vehicle was fully damaged. The complainant failed to establish the contents expressed by him. There is no fault on part of the opposite party. Unless the initial cost was paid, repair could not be effected to the damaged vehicle as per terms and conditions under the job card. From time to time the opposite party has informed by the complainant for payment of costs, but the complainant failed to do so. Even after addressing 5 letters to the complainant dated 05.10.13, 10.10.13, 07.11.13, 21.12.13 and 09.01.14 also the complainant failed to pay the initial amount for the damages caused to the vehicle, the vehicle was kept in the opposite parties premises, the opposite party demanded the to pay Rs. 200/- per day from 30.07.13, Thereby complainant is liable to pay the garage charges. The complainant with an intention to avoid the said charges filed the present complaint seeking wrong full gains. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on ground of jurisdiction and also as there is no fault on part of the opposite party.
11. The opposite party No.4 filed counter and stated as follows: - The opposite party No. 4 is the recruited company having the excellent work shop and also having qualified experienced personal for the services. The present complaint is not maintainable under the eyes of law as the complainant has surprised the material facts. Without any document the complaint was filed. The complainant will not be considered as a consumer U/s to 2(1) (d) of the act. The entire cause of action was arose at Visakhapatnm as the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.3 at Visakhapatnam. The particularly observing the Section 2(1) (d) of the act the complainant purchased the Taxi/Maxi cab for doing business of car rental business which attracts the provision of the commercial purpose. As per 1995 to CPJ I (SC), Lakshmi Engineering Works V.s PSG Industrialize Institute, Hon’ble Supreme Court held “Any person obtains goods for commercial purpose, with a view to use the said goods for any activity of profit motive other then self employment, such person is excluded from the AMBIT of the consumer U/s 2 (1) (d)“. The clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the warranty clearly states that “Repairs required because of accident, misuse, abuse, negligent act are not covered under warrantee”. The complainant is not a party to the contract / arrangement of the insurances policy the vehicle is not a party and also opposite party No4 is not having any role in insurance policy. As per 1996 4 SCC 704 Bharathi Knitting company V.s DHL Express courier Hon’ble Supreme Court Held when the complainant signs on the contract document he is bound by the terms and conditions.
12. The opposite party No.3 sent a letter dated 05.10.13 requesting the complainant to give his approval for carrying out the accidental repairs and also make a payment of 50% total repairs the complainant did not respond for said letter and also not even acted upon for the subsequent dated 07.11.13, 21.12.13 and 09.01.14. The total bill for the accident repair was Rs.2,46,971/- and same was forwarded to the insurer by the payment to the workshop. However, the insurer paid only Rs.1,68,327/- to workshop for the repair workshop. The remaining amount of Rs.78,644/- was not paid by the insurer because of policy excess and depreciation based on terms and conditions. Because of the negligent act of the complainant the accident was caused and hence, there is no fault on part of the opposite party and also at the same time the complainant cannot claim any amount from the opposite party No.4. Hence as the complaint is filed with mollified intention surprising about the jurisdiction point and lapses on part of complainant, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. Though the opposite party No.5 has received the notice from the forum, nobody appeared on his behalf and opposite party No.5 was called absent.
14. On perusing the pleadings of complainant and opposite party 1 to 4 the forum the framed following point for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable basing upon the Territorial Jurisdiction and the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum?
- Whether is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties?
- To what relief?
15. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint on his behalf Ex.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 and 2 Sri P. Shankar in capacity of Legal Officers filed evidence affidavit and Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked. On behalf of 3rd opposite party Sri P .S. R. Prasad filed evidences affidavit and no documents were marked for opposite party No.3. The on behalf of opposite party No3 Sri Jayanth Jai Ram filed evidence affidavit and there are no documents for op 4. There is no representation on behalf of opposite party No.5 and the opposite party No.5 called absent.
16. The counsel for complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 submitted their arguments. At the time of the arguments on 26.06.15, the complainant counsel reported that there is no claim against the opposite party No.5 and also as no relief was claimed from opposite party No.5. The opposite party No.5 is a formal party only. Hence, viewing the admission of the counsel for the complainant we opine that there is no claim against opposite party No.5 and the complaint against No.5 is dismissed. At present the /points framed in Para No.16 has to be decided only against the opposite party No.1 to 4.
17. Point No.1:- The present complaint is filed by the complainant seeking insurance claim and compensation from the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 as the complainant has purchased Maxi cab diesel i.e. Mahindra Xyilo D-4, MDI CR DE vehicle from 3rd opposite party through Sri Ram Transport Company at Kakinada the said vehicle was purchased for doing car rental business under name and style of Sri Chakri Enterprises.
18. In Para-3 (D) of Counter, the opposite party No.4 raised objection that, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as per the Territorial Jurisdiction U/s 11 (2) a,b of act, as the complainant has purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.3 situated at Visakhapatnam.
19. Regarding Jurisdiction Point, In Para-3 of Written Version the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 raised objection. In Para-3 of the Counter the opposite party No.3 raised objection and also the opposite party No.4 in Para No.III–C of the written statement raised objection, that “the complaint is not maintainable before this forum as the complainant has purchased the Maxi cab vehicle for business purpose”.
20. Ex.A1 is the passenger carrying package policy certificate - cum – policy schedule certificate – cum – policy No. 2314/53141391/00/000 given by Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited located at Mumbai given in favour of the complainant which states that complainant has paid Rs.24,119/- towards premium for policy which will valid from 19.04.13 to 18.04.14. In the Ex.A1 the complainant’s addressed is mentioned as he is residing at Kakinada, AP.
Ex.A2 is the details of the Maxi-cab No. AP 05 TC 3438 which is on the name of the complainant which shows details of the vehicle and reveals that it was manufactured by the opposite party No.4.
Ex.A3 is the form 38 fitness certificate given for the Maxi-cab.
Ex.A4 is the permit for the complainant’s vehicle in respect of particular carriage given by the transport department.
Ex.A5 is the FIR copy shows that the complainant’s vehicle was met with an accident and the person who has given the complaint is the driver of the vehicle i.e., Sri CH. V. V. Satyanarayana Murthy, in CL. 6 (F) Occupation it was mentioned as “Car Driver”.
Ex.A6 is the estimation for the repairs given by opposite party No.3 for Rs.5,86,881.93/- ps.
Ex.A7 is the letter addressed to the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited by the complainant stating that the estimated value for repairs amount is Rs.5,86,882/- and the IDV value is Rs.7,76,000/- . In the Ex.A7 is stating that, the total loss for the vehicle is Rs.7,36,000/-.
The 3 Email correspondences (in 3 pages), between the complainant opposite party no.3 with regarding to the repair for the vehicle are marked Ex.A8.
Ex.A9 is the legal notice dated 30.12.13 served to the Zonal Manager of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited and opposite parties No.3 and 4 to settle the insurance claim.
Ex.A10 is the letter/remainder 3 dated 09.01.14 send to the complainant to convey the approvals along with 50% advance payment with regarding the repairs for the maxi-cab and in case if fails to pay the same he has to pay Rs.200/- garage charges per day + estimation charges.
Ex.A11 is the notice dated 10.1.14 sent to the complainant for sending the original repair bill and the payment receipts (SL – 10), the KYC documents (SL – 13).
Ex.A12 is the reply notice dated 13.01.14.
Ex.A 13 is the certificate given by the opposite party No.3 that the complainant’s maxi-cab was given for accident repairs and the vehicle is awaiting “repairs approval” from the insurance company subsequent to the survey.
Ex.A14 is the Sri Ram Transport Finance Company agreement for issuing “commercial vehicle finance”, to the complainant’s maxi-cab.
Ex.A15 & A16 are the Acknowledgement cards conforming that Ex.A9 notice was sent to General Insurance, Op – 3 & Op – 4.
22. Ex.B1 is the final survey report which discloses that the insurer liability is Rs.1,87,302/- only . In the Ex.B1 ( In commercial vehicle details ), the complainant’s vehicle number is mentioned. Along with the Ex.B1 the opposite party is also furnished the 21 photographs pertaining to the accident happened to the complainant’s vehicle.
Ex.B2 is the letter dated 10.01.14, which is the same document i.e., Ex.A11 filed by the complainant.
Ex.B3 is the letter dated 03.02.14 served to the complainant, for furnishing original repair bill and payment receipt along with KYC documents, which was issued by the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company.
Ex.B4 is the letter dated 05.03.14 served to the complainant, for furnishing original repair bill and payment receipt along with KYC documents, which was issued by the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company.
Ex.B5 is the letter dated 11.03.14 served to the complainant, for furnishing original repair bill and payment receipt along with KYC documents, which was issued by the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company.
Ex.B6 is the policy certificate valid from 19.04.13 to 18.04.14 i.e., Ex.A1 furnished by the complainant.
23. Now the Two issues has to be determined are (1) whether this forum is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint before the forum. (2) Whether the complaint is maintainable basing upon jurisdiction point.
24. Issue No.1:- Though the op no. 4 has raised objection that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum has complainant has purchased at Visakhapatnam i.e. Op No.3. The complainant admitted in the complaint the commercial vehicle Maxi cab was purchased from Op no.3 through the Sriram Transport Finance Company. On perusal of Ex.A14 agreement for purchasing Maxi cab Xylo / Commercial vehicle under commercial vehicle finance and observing the principle of section 11 (2) – C ( Part of cause of action), we are of conclusive opinion that the complaint is maintainable as per territorial jurisdiction.
25. Issue No.2:- As the objection was raised by the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 that as the complainant as purchased a commercial vehicle and the complainant is doing Car Rental Business, he is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1) d of C.P. Act.
26 The explanation of the section 2 (1) (d) defines as follows:- Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause (i), “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
27. The complainant in the complaint as well as in the evidence affidavit and in Para No.2 of Ex.A9 is admitting that he has purchased the maxi cab diesel – Mahindra XYLO D4 MDI CRDE from the opposite party No.4. The purpose for purchasing the said vehicle is doing car rental business. Para No.2 of the complaint the complainant himself admitting that, already he is doing car rental business under name and style of Sri Chakri Enterprises and for doing the car rental business he has purchased the maxi cab from the 3rd op for Rs.8,24,000/-. Which was manufactured by the opposite party No.4. The said vehicle was purchased through the Sri Ram Transport Finance Company located at Kakinada.
28. On perusing the Ex.A14 agreement for purchasing the maxi cab it reveals the complainant has purchased the commercial vehicle, by taking commercial vehicle finance from Sri Ram Transport Finance Company. The Ex.A14 shows that, transport department has given in respective of particular contact garage, for the complainant’s maxi cab vehicle. The Ex.A5 FIR reveals that the complainant has engaged a car driver Sri CH.V.V.Satyaranarana Murthy to drive the complainant’s maxi cab, where in it was met with an accident on 28.07.13 at 5.10 am near Ring road, Vijayawada. There by the complainant’s driver is complaint at Machavaram Police Station at Vijayawada.
29. Even the said fact of appointing the driver for driving the maxi cab is admitted by the complainant in his evidence affidavit as well as the complainant. The opposite party No. 4 in the counter relaying upon the case law 1995 II CPJ 1 (Supreme Court) in Para No.11 supra, stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per the act.
30. As per case law III 2003 CPJ 640 (Rajasthan), Madhav Process Vs Veeraprabhuv Marketing Limited it was held that where there are manufacturing defects and refund / replacement is claimed. As the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, hence the complaint was not a consumer under 2 (1) d of CP Act. As per case law I 2004 CPJ 488 (J & K) Gulam Quadir Bhatt Vs Bhajaj Tempo Limited, it was held that, a person who had purchased machine / vehicle could be consumer only if he operated himself as the services of the driver were engaged, hence, the complainant not plying the vehicle himself could not be a consumer. As per case law 1 2015 CPJ 760 (NC) united insurance company Vs Kishore Sharma, while deciding a insurance claim matter, the Hon’ble National Commission held as he vehicle was purchased for transportation of business and also a driver was appointed to drive the vehicle the complainant is not a consumer.
31. In this matter the complainant himself is admitting that he is doing car rental business under name and style of Chakri Enterprises and in that business purpose he has purchased a maxi cab (XYLO), from the op no.3 by taking commercial vehicle finance from Sri Ram Transport Company at Kakinada. Ex.A5 clearly reveals that there is a “Car Driver” for the maxi cab at the time of accident to the vehicle on 28.07.2013
32. Hence, observing the admission of the complainant along with Exhibits A14, A2, A9 (Para- 2) Ex.A5 FIR along with case laws 1995 to CPJ I (SC), referred in Para No.11, and III 2003 CPJ 640; I 2004 CPJ 488 (J & K); 1 2015 CPJ 760 (NC) referred in Para No.30, we are conclusive opinion that the complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of section 2 (1) d of CP Act. Hence, consumer forum is not jurisdiction to entertain the commercial activities related to commercial purposes. The complainant has to approach appropriate the Forum / Civil Court for his remedy.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
33. Point No.2: As per Para-32 supra we came to a conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of section 2 (1) d of act. Though it was decided that the complainant cannot seek any reliefs through the forum as he is not a consumer observing the material record placed before us we are considered opinion that the issue of deficiency of service has to be answered.
34. The complainant in his complaint stated that he has purchased the commercial vehicle maxi cab from op no.3 for car rental business for Rs. 8,24,000/- and as said vehicle was met with an accident on 28.07.13 he claimed the insurance claim from op no. 1 & 2. The observing the Ex.B1 survey report of op 1 & 2 and the Ex.A10 addressed to complainant it reveals that on 09.01.14 complainant was intimated to convey the repair approvals along with 50% advance payment i.e. Rs.2,94,000/-(i.e., 50% advance payment which shall be paid within 3 days on or before 12.01.14. On perusing the Ex.A11/B2, SL No. of 10 & 13 in Ex.B3, B4, B5 the op no.1 & 2 and continuously remanding the complainant to furnish the original repair bill and payment receipt and along with KYC documents. Except the Ex.A1 to A16 the complainant has not furnished any document to prove that he has submitted the necessary documents required by the Op No.1 and 2 as demanded in Ex.B1 / A11 to B5.
35. Observing the Ex.A1 to A16 along with Ex.A10 and the 21 photographs enclosed with Ex.B1 as the Op No.2 has raised objection that there is no total loss for the maxi cab vehicle and he is entitled for insurance liability of Rs.1,87,302/- i.e., final survey report only. Viewing the photographs of front part of complainant’s maxi cab vehicle was not damaged from the front side. Unless there are clear documents from the side of the complainant basing upon his allegation against opposite parties No.1 to 3, we cannot come to a conclusion that there is deficiency of service on part of opposite party No. 1 to 3.
Accordingly point No.2 is answered.
36. Point No.3:- In this matter the complainant is claiming Rs.8,24,000/- from opposite parties 1 and 2 ( i.e., value of maxi cab ) as insurance claim. With regarding to the reliefs though the complainant has filed the complaint against op no.1 to 5 he has claimed the reliefs against op no. 1 to 3. At the timer of arguments on 26.06.14 the complainant’s counsel reported that there is not claim against Op No.5. As per the case law1993 1 CPR 374, Electrical EE Vs. G. Sharma it was held that the forum cannot grant any reliefs or any pass any order beyond the reliefs as sought for. Hence, observing the admission of the complainant and the principle of case law 1993 1 CPR 374, the complaint against the op no.4 and 5 is dismissed.
37. With regard to the complaint against opposite parties 1 to 3. As per case law III 2012 CPJ 17 (SC), Trai Foods Limited Vs National Insurance Co. And others, the period spent between filing of the claim and disposal of the matter today will be excluded under section 14 of limitation act 1963. With regarding to the reliefs as sought against op no. 1 to 3 as this forum cannot grant any reliefs as he is not consumer within the ambit of section 2 (1) d Act, as he is not a consumer conformed in Para No.32 supra, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate forum or Proper Civil Court, for his reliefs if so he is advised.
Accordingly point No.3 is answered
38. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of section 2 (1) d of the CP Act. The complainant may at his liberty can approach the appropriate Civil Court for his reliefs.
Dictation given by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2015.
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT [FAC]
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : None For opposite parties : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Dt. 29.04.13 Original Insurance Policy of OP-1 in favour of complainant.
Ex.A2 Dt. 22.05.13 Registration of the complainants Cab (True Copy)
Ex.A3 Dt. 22.05.13 Fitness certificate issued to Maxi Cab (True Copy)
Ex.A4 Dt. 22.05.13 A Transport Board Permit issued (True Copy)
Ex.A5 Dt. 23.07.13 FIR No.486 / 2013 (True Copy)
Ex.A6 Dt. 03.08.13 Assessment of the 3rd opposite party of damage caused to insured maxi cab (True Copy)
Ex.A7 Dt. 24.08.13 Letter sent by the complainant to 1st opposite party (Original)
Ex.A8 Dt. 25.12.13 Mail by 3rd opposite party (True Copy)
Ex.A9 Dt. 30.12.13 Legal Notice sent to the opposite parties (Original)
Ex.A10 Dt.09.01.14 Letter of the 3rd opposite party (Original)
Ex.A11 Dt.10.01.14 Letter of the 1st opposite party (Original)
Ex.A12 Dt.13.01.14 Letter of the 4th opposite party (Original)
Ex.A13 Dt.30.01.14 Letter of the 3rd opposite party (Original)
Ex.A14 Dt.02.05.13 Sriram Finance Loan agreement (Original)
Ex.A15 Dt.04.01.14 Acknowledgment from 1st opposite party (Original)
Ex.A16 Dt.06.01.14 Acknowledgment from 2nd opposite party and 4th opposite party (Original)
For Opposite parties 1 & 2: -
Ex.B1 Dt.22.03.14 Surveyor’s Report
Ex.B2 Dt.10.01.14 Letter to the complainant by 1st opposite party
Ex.B3 Dt.03.02.14 Letter to the complainant by 1st opposite party
Ex.B4 Dt.05.03.14 Letter to the complainant by 1st opposite party
Ex.B5 Dt.11.03.14 Letter of the complainant by 1st opposite party
Ex.B6 Dt.19.04.13 to 18.04.14 Passenger Carrying Package Policy certificate
For Opposite parties 3 : Nil
For Opposite parties 4 : Nil
For Opposite parties 5 : Absent
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT [FAC]
