BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

F.A.No.914 /2011     Between:

1.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

  2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

         1. Dr. K.Prasanth Kumar,

                                                                                                                                               2. M/s. Sundaram Honda,

3. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., ,

   4. M/s. Honda  

Counsel for the Appellants                  

Counsel for the respondents 

     F.A.No.1077 /2011   

Between:

M/s. Honda 

Through Mr.Amit Sinha,

Plot No.A1 Sector 40/41,

Surajpur-Kasna road, GNID Area,

Gautam budh Nagar – 201 306.                                                                                                                                              

     1.Dr. K.Prasanth

                                                                                                                                                2. M/s. Sundaram Honda,

3. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons,

4. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

5. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Counsel for the Appellant                   

Counsel for the respondents         

F.A.No.114 /2013   

Between:

M/s. Sundaram Honda,

2.

        1.Dr. K.Prasanth

2.M/s. Honda 

  st    

 3. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

   4. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Counsel for the Appellants                  

Counsel for the respondents 

QUORUM:  

Oral Order: (Per                                                                Appeal in F.A.No.914/2011               

               as the car touched a boulder while negotiating a ditch on the road. Immediately, the complainant,              

          sent an estimation with date 8.11.2010                                

 It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant       

The opp.parties 1 and 2 filed 

These opp.parties     These       

These opp.parties further contended that there was no response from the claimant,            

Resisting the complaint, opposite party no.3        

This opposite party further contended that the relationship between this opposite party and opp.parties 1 and 2 is on principal to principal basis and each party is responsible for its own actions. Any grievance                     

          since long time. The opp.parties 1 to 5 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant for causing mental agony and hardship and to                                   

       It is an admitted fact               

                            Therefore, the case of the complainant that because of uneven and ditches on the road, darkness as the light of the car was not sufficient          

It is the specific case of                  

There cannot be any dispute   upon by the Hon’ble National Commission in Maruthi Udyog Ltd. vs. Arjun Singh III (2009) CPJ 22, wherein it was held    

Now coming to              

It is settled       

In view of the above facts          It is the              

In the result, all the three    set aside. The complaint in C.C.No.35/2011 is dismissed.    to the respondent no.1/complainant   

                                                                       Pm*