Kerala
Idukki
CC/97/2019
Pradeep Gopal - Complainant(s)
Versus
New India Assurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)
Shiji joseph
20 Jul 2023
ORDER
DATE OF FILING : 08/05/2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI
Dated this the 20th day of July 2023
Present :
SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT
SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER
SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER
CC NO.97/2019
Between
Complainant : Pradeep Gopal, S/o Gopalan,
Pradeep Bhavan, Anakkara Kara,
Chakkupallam P.O., Kumily,
Through his next friend Gopalan, S/o Konthi,
Pradeep Bhavan, Anakkara Kara,
Chakkupallam P.O., Kumily.
(By Adv.Shiji Joseph)
And
Opposite Parties : :1 . The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Kottayam,
Represented by its Branch/Divisional Manager
(By Adv.K.Pradeepkumar)
2 . Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd.,
Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070,
Represented by its Manager/ Managing Director.
(By Adv.Babichen V.George)
3 . AVG Motors Pvt. Ltd., Parathodu P.O.,
Padimattam, Kanjirappalli Kottayam,
Represented by its Manager.
(By Adv.Sony Sebastian)
(Cont.....2)
-2-
O R D E R
SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER
This complaint is filed under S.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 raising the following allegations against opposite parties.
1 . Since the complainant is working abroad, he has duly authorised, his father to file the complaint.
2 . The complainant is the registered owner of the Maruti Alto 800 Car having Reg.No.KL-69-8139. The complainant insured the vehicle with the 1st opposite party, through the 2nd opposite party. The policy number was 98000031170305672270 and the period of insurance was 27/08/2017 to 26/08/2018.
3 . On 23/08/2018, while the complainant was travelling from Kattappana to Kottayam, on the way near Kanjirappalli, the car met with an accident. The complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 3rd opposite party for repair. At the time of entrusting the vehicle, the 3rd opposite party assured the complainant that they would do the process for getting the insurance claim and entrusted the policy, R.C.Book, driving license etc., with the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party repaired the vehicle and asked the complainant to remit Rs.28,000/- as repair cost. When the complainant asked
(Cont.....3)
-3-
about the cashless scheme, the 3rd opposite party told the complainant that there was a technical problem and the 1st opposite party would refund the claim. Believing the words of the 3rd opposite party, the complainant paid the money and took the delivery of the vehicle.
4 . Through the complainant several time approached the 1st opposite party, for getting the claim the 1st opposite party told the complainant that the complainant had availed NCB while taking the policy hence the claim was repudiated by the 1st opposite party. On enquiry the complainant came to know that, the 3rd opposite party processed the claim upon a policy for the year 2018 -2019 and not against the policy No.98000031170305672270 taken from the 1st opposite party.
5 . The repudiation of the claim was due to the mistake on the part of the 3rd opposite party by quoting wrong policy number in the claim and is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complainant is no way liable for the same.
6 . The repudiation of the claim by the 1st opposite party is deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to settle the claim of the complainant.
7 . The cause of action for the complaint arose on 23/07/2016, on that day the policy was taken again 23/08/2017, on that day the accident occurred and continuously thereafter in Idukki District within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.
(Cont.....4)
-4-
So, he prayed for the following reliefs.
1 . Opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.28,000/- with 12% interest from 23/08/2018 to till the date of payment.
2 . Opposite parties jointly and severally asked to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
3 . Opposite parties may be asked to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.
4 . Such other reliefs that deemed just and equitable also may be granted.
Opposite parties filed written version as follows.
Contentions of 1st opposite party are as under:-
The complaint is not maintainable as against them. This opposite party did not receive any claim as alleged in the complaint. It is admitted that, opposite party received a claim under policy No.76230031180300014035. The said policy is for the period 27/08/2018 to 26/08/2019. Date of accident shown was on 27/08/2018. The said policy was issued from Kattappana Divisional office of this respondent. Complainant has signed the said claim form. After filing the claim form, complainant visited Kattappana Divisional Manager and discussed about the claim. During the discussions, complainant
(Cont.....5)
-5-
admitted that he had made a claim under the previous policy. But that was suppressed while taking the above mentioned policy and availed no claim bonus. When the Kattappana Divisional Manager had pointed out that because of suppression of material facts while obtaining policy, complainant is not entitled to get the claim, complainant abandoned the claim and did not pursued the claim. After long period, present complaint is filed alleging distorted facts. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
2nd opposite party filed preliminary objections and written version as follows.
1 . That the complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings against the answering opposite party as the complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party as defined U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”). It is noteworthy that there exists no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering opposite party as the answering opposite party neither insured the vehicle in question nor received any premium/consideration from the complainant nor is the dealership wherein the vehicle was allegedly taken for repairs. It is therefore submitted that since, the answering opposite party has neither entered into any contractual obligation with the complainant, nor
(Cont.....6)
-6-
the complainant has hired any service for consideration from the answering opposite party, thus impleading answering opposite party to the instant complaint is absolutely frivolous and vexatious act on the part of the complainant.
2 . That the complainant has impleaded the answering opposite party without any reason, cause of action and /or jurisdiction. The present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. The answering opposite party is neither necessary nor proper party to the present complaint for the alleged cause of action. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3 . That a bare perusal of the complaint inclusive of the pleadings reveal that no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the answering opposite party. The complainant has categorically failed to disclose any grievance that he suffered due to the acts of the answering opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law to obtain unjust gains.
4 . That the compensation U/s 14(1)(d) of the Act can be awarded to the complainant for any loss or injury suffered by the complainant due to negligence of the answering opposite party. In the instant case, the complainant has miserably failed to make out any case of compensation against the answering opposite party. Hence, the name of the answering opposite party is liable to be deleted from the array of parties.
(Cont.....7)
-7-
5 . The role of this opposite party being a facilitator is to apprise customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various insurance companies. After this facilitation, customers buy insurance as per their own will and volition and pays insurance premium which goes to the concerned insurance company only. In lieu of the premium received, insurance company insures the vehicle and issues insurance policy to the customers subject to their own terms and conditions/IRDAI guidelines. Here, it is not out of place to mention that policy issuance/cancellation, appointment of surveyors for claim investigation and assessment and acceptance or repudiation of claims is the sole prerogative of the concerned insurance company only. In the instant case, since the claim of the complainant has admittedly been repudiated by 1st opposite party ie., “The New India Assurance Company Limited”. Qua insurer of vehicle, hence, only they are answerable, if at all, to the complainant for the alleged claim, if lawfully found due.
Contents of written version are on the following lines.
1 . That the contents of para 1 of the complaint are matter of record and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
2 . That the contents of para 2 of the complaint are admitted.
3 . That the contents of para 3,4 and 5 of the complaint do not relate to the answering opposite party, hence can be best responded by the concerned opposite parties.
(Cont.....8)
-8-
4 . That the contents of para 6 of the complaint are false, frivolous and misconceived in so far they relate to the answering opposite party and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is vehemently denied that the answering opposite party is jointly and severally liable to settle the claim of the complainant.
5 . It is respectfully submitted that the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum has been illegally invoked by the complainant without any cause of action against the answering opposite party. It is most respectfully submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs pleaded in the complaint or even otherwise, as against the answering opposite party.
There is no cause of action as against the answering opposite party. The complainant has grossly failed to make out any case of compensation against the answering opposite party.
So, they prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
Contentions of 3rd opposite party are shown below.
1 . The complainant has no cause of action as against this opposite party and the cause of action alleged in the complaint is false and imaginary.
2 . The complainant has allegedly taken the policy of the 1st opposite party who is at Kottayam, through the 2nd opposite party at New Delhi and the vehicle admittedly met with the accident and was repaired at
(Cont.....9)
-9-
Kanjirappally, all outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. It is submitted that the cause of action alleged has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to consider the maintainability of the case on account of lack of jurisdiction, as a preliminary issue.
3 . There is no defect in goods or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party involved in the case and as such the complainant has no right to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The 3rd opposite party is a totally unnecessary party to the proceedings and the 3rd opposite party has been included in the party array with ulterior motives.
4 . The complainant, Sri.Pradeep Gopal, after he having met with an accident left his vehicle at this opposite party’s service centre, on 23/08/2018. He subsequently came to this opposite party on 27/08/2018 and informed that the Insurance Policy of the vehicle was of M/s New India Assurance Company Limited, which was taken from one of the branches of the Insurance Company. The complainant had neither brought any records or policy certificate nor entrusted any records to this opposite party. When he informed that the policy was taken from a branch office of the Insurance Company, the 3rd opposite party duly informed him that any policy taken from a branch office of the Insurance Company would not be a tie-up policy with the 3rd opposite party and that all formalities with the insurance
(Cont.....10)
-10-
company will have to be taken up by the complainant himself. It was also duly informed to him that the amount for the repairs would have to be paid directly by him and then get it reimbursed from his Insurer. The estimate for the repairs was handed over to him on the same day, ie., 27/08/2018, as to enable him to immediately carryout the further formalities for availing insurance, including the arranging of the surveyor. Thereafter, as arranged by the complainant, the surveyor visited the workshop on 29/08/2018 and the works approved by the Surveyor were carried out as demanded by the complainant and the vehicle was ready for delivery on 21/09/2018 and tax invoice of the same date for Rs.28,297/- was issued to the complainant, who duly paid the amount and took delivery of his vehicle, to his total satisfaction. While so, the 3rd opposite party is not privy to the contract between the complainant and the insurance company and this opposite party is a totally unnecessary party to the proceedings. All the allegations made by the complainant contrary to what are stated above are false and hence denied.
5 . The authority of the father of the complainant to file the complaint is denied and the complainant is put to strict proof thereof.
6 . Regarding the allegations in para 2 of the complaint, it is submitted that this opposite party is not aware of the insurance policy number or the period of the policy pertaining to the complainant’s vehicle, as none of the documents including insurance policy were brought or handed over to this opposite party.
(Cont.....11)
-11-
7 . The allegations that at the time of entrusting the vehicle the 3rd opposite party assured the complainant that they would do the process for getting the insurance claim and entrusted the policy, R.C.Book, driving license etc., with the 3rd opposite party are false and emphatically denied. None of the documents pertaining to the vehicle including any insurance policy or the R.C.Book of the vehicle were handed over by the complainant to this opposite party, as evident from the Accident Repair Job Slip Sheet, duly signed by the complainant, probably for the reason that the insurance policy was taken from a branch office of the insurer. Such an allegation has been made only as an attempt to shift the responsibility of his issues with the insurance company, on to this opposite party. This opposite party has also not assured the complainant that they would do the process for getting the insurance claim as alleged. The further allegations that when the complainant asked about the cashless scheme, the 3rd opposite party told the complainant that there was a technical problem and the 1st opposite party would refund the claim are also false and baseless. The fact that a policy if issued from the branch office of the insurer is not a tie-up policy was already informed to the complainant at the time of entrusting the vehicle itself and he being aware of the same did not hand over the documents to this opposite party, but approached the Insurance Company directly.
(Cont.....12)
-12-
8 . The allegation in para 4 of the complaint regarding availing of the NCB is between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. Allegations in para 4 and 5 that the 3rd opposite party processed the claim upon a policy for the year 2018-19 and not against the Policy No.98000031170305672270 taken from the 1st opposite party and that they quoted a wrong policy number are all false and baseless and hence denied. This opposite party has neither processed any claim upon any policy nor quoted any wrong policy number in respect to the complainant’s vehicle. It is apparent that while the complainant took up the claim before the Insurance Company directly, he may have taken it up based on a subsequent policy number which was rejected by the Insurance Company. The complainant is now in vain attempt to shift the mistake on his part to this opposite party.
9 . In any case, it is submitted that if the rejection of the policy by the Insurance Company was on account of the complainant quoting a different policy number by mistake, on the matter being brought to the notice of the Insurance Company, it is only for the Insurance Company to settle his claim, if the vehicle was duly insured at the time of the accident.
10 . There has not been any deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and this opposite party is not jointly or severally liable to pay any amount to the complainant as compensation, cost or otherwise.
11 . The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and the same has been filed only as an attempt to wriggle out undue amount from this opposite party, by raising false allegations.
(Cont.....13)
-13-
12 . The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief claimed in the complaint. 3rd opposite party prayed that complaint may be dismissed with costs.
Evidence in this case includes the pleadings of complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3, documents produced by the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3. No oral evidence was tendered by complainant. No evidence was tendered by 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Manager of 3rd opposite party was examined as RW1. Ext.R1 to Ext.R3 were marked on the side of 3rd opposite party. Ext.R4 to Ext.R6 were marked on the side of 2nd opposite party.
Ext.P1 – Original Certificate Cum Policy Schedule dated 25/08/2017 w.e.f 27/08/2017 to 26/08/2018 issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd.,
Ext.P2 – Copy of Policy Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance issued by the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., for the period 27/08/2018 to 26/08/2019.
Documents on the side of 3rd opposite party were marked as Ext.R1 to Ext.R3 as under.
Ext.R1 – Original accident Repair Job Slip sheet dated 23/08/2018 time 9.45.
Ext.R2 – Computer Printout of Service Estimate dated 27/08/2018.
Ext.R3 – Computer Printout of Job Card Detail – Tax Invoice dated 21/09/2018.
(Cont.....14)
-14-
Documents produced by 2nd opposite party were marked as Ext.R4 to Ext.R6.
Ext.R4 – Copy of Certificate of Renewal of licence for the period 02/02/2015 to 01/02/2018 issued by IRDA to 2nd opposite party.
Ext.R5 – Copy of Certificate of Renewal of license for the period 02/02/2018 to 01/02/2021 issued by IRDA to 2nd opposite party.
Ext.R6 – Certificate of Renewal of Registration for the period 02/02/2021 to 01/02/2024 issued by IRDA to 2nd opposite party.
3rd opposite party filed argument notes. Heard the counsels.
We have examined the contentions of both complainant and opposite parties and also the evidence on record. On a perusal of the same following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission due to lack of jurisdiction?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, for what reliefs complainant is entitled to?
- Reliefs and costs to be granted?
Point No.1
3rd opposite party has raised a contention that opposite parties’ place of business were located outside the jurisdiction of this Commission. Accident
(Cont.....15)
-15-
was also happened at Kanjirappally ie, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, their prayer is that this Commission may consider the maintainability of the case on account of lack of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. We have gone through the insurance policy issued by 1st opposite party which were marked as Exts.P1 and P2. 1st opposite party has branch office in Idukki District., Ext.P2 shows the same. It was issued from Kattappana. As per Section 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, a consumer can file complaint with a District Forum if any of the opposite parties at the time of institution of the complaint has a branch office within its jurisdiction. Hence by invoking the above provision, we are of the view that complaint is maintainable before this Commission. So Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
Point Nos.2 and 3 are considered together
The contention of the complainant reveals that his vehicle met with an accident on 23/08/2018 near Kanjirappally and the said vehicle was entrusted with 3rd opposite party on the same day. This is found to be correct in the light of Ext.R1. Date of receipt shown therein is 23/08/2018, time 9.45 and the estimated date of delivery is 15/09/2018 5.30PM., it is not disputed by 3rd opposite party. The contention of complainant that 3rd opposite party assured him they would do the process for getting the insurance claim and entrusted the Policy, RC book, Driving licence etc., with 3rd opposite party is
(Cont.....16)
-16-
not supported with any evidence. At the same time Ext.R1 proves that no such documents were given to 3rd opposite party. In “Documents Details” shown therein Driving Licence, RC Book, Insurance Policy, FIR, Claim Form, Spot Photos were not marked as Produced in the respective columns. So the contention of complainant is unbelievable. The version of 3rd opposite party is that after entrusting the vehicle, complainant approached them on 27/08/2018. If the above documents were entrusted to 3rd opposite party, they ought to have submitted the claim to 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party as Ext.P1 is a tie –up policy of 1st opposite party with 2nd opposite party. Normally and definitely a service workshop ought to have enquired about the policy and relevant documents while entrusting the vehicle for repairs. Without copy of RC, Driving license, Insurance policy etc., motor vehicle cannot be driven on the road and it is usually kept inside the vehicle. In the case of tie up policy, a policy holder need not do any paper work with insurance company directly. Tie-up policy is taken for cashless repairs prescribed by law. As complainant failed to establish that he has entrusted the relevant documents to 3rd opposite party he cannot shift the burden to 3rd opposite party. The contention of complainant is that 3rd opposite party repaired the vehicle and asked the complainant to remit Rs.28,000/- as repair charge. Besides, the contention that 3rd opposite party told him that there was a technical problem and 1st opposite party would refund the claim is not established. Another contention of complainant is
(Cont.....17)
-17-
that he approached 1st opposite party several times and they told him that as he has availed NCB while taking the policy the claim was repudiated by 1st opposite party. But complainant has not produced repudiation letter, if any, issued by 1st opposite party. Another allegation raised in the complaint against 3rd opposite party is that 3rd opposite party processed the claim upon a policy for 2018-2019 and not against policy in force at the time of accident. This allegation is found to be unbelievable as Ext.P2, policy was issued by 1st opposite party from Kattappana on 23/08/2018 ie, the date of accident. Time of entrusting the vehicle for repair after accident is shown as 23/08/2018 9.45. Though it is not mentioned whether it is AM or PM, it can only be presumed that it was entrusted in the morning as no service centre would normally work after 6 PM. It is quite impossible to carry renewed insurance policy at the time of entrustment of vehicle for repair at 9.45 AM., as the same was issued on the same day after opening of the office of insurance company. So above contention fails. The relevant policy existed at the time of accident was tie-up policy of 1st opposite party with 2nd opposite party. So there is a liability to settle the claim, if proper documents were submitted. From Ext.P2, it is evident that same insurance company has issued policy for subsequent period. Complainant alleges that while he contacted 1st opposite party it was informed to him that as he had availed NCB while renewing the policy, the claim was repudiated. NCB if any is claimed in
(Cont.....18)
-18-
subsequent renewal, 1st opposite party can disallow the same on receiving a claim for previous policy period. 1st opposite party states that date of accident shown was on 27/08/2018. It is admitted that said policy was issued from its Kattappana Divisional Office. It is admitted that policy for the period 27/08/2018 to 26/08/2019. They averred that complainant has signed the claim form and original claim form is filed with written version. But no such claim form is seen filed. It is also averred by 1st opposite party that complainant had admitted during discussion with Divisional Manager that he had a claim under the previous policy but it was suppressed while renewing the policy directly from 1st opposite party. It is also averred by 1st opposite party that as Divisional Manager had pointed out that because of suppression of material facts while obtaining policy complainant is not entitled to claim and complainant abandoned the claim and did not pursue the same. These are all without any supporting documents. Non filing of claim form by 1st opposite party before this Commission reveals that 1st opposite party had something to conceal. If at all NCB was claimed while renewing the policy, it cannot be a reason for repudiating a claim due to accident occurred during the existence of previous policy. In the absence of production of claim form it is not possible to check the date of accident mentioned therein and the relevant details. Being a tie-up policy 2nd opposite party is also having an obligation to take appropriate steps for getting the insurance claim. In the
(Cont.....19)
-19-
case of Maruti Insurance, a policy holder remits premium amount to the Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd., and policy is issued online at the same moment. A customer need not know the contract entered between an insurer and broker. A broker stands in the capacity of an agent for his principal. As such, broker and insurer has vicarious liability. 2nd opposite party is in a fiduciary capacity with 1st opposite party. So the contention of 1st opposite party or 2nd opposite party is not sustainable. But the complainant has not proved that he had made any claim directly to 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party on the basis of relevant policy. He also failed to establish that he had filed necessary claim form and documents before 2nd opposite party through 3rd opposite party. Hence liability cannot be fastened upon them. 1st opposite party averred that a claim was preferred showing the date of accident as 27/08/2018 ie, during the period of Ext.P2 policy, which is a policy directly issued by 1st opposite party. As the accident was occurred during the existence of tie-up policy as evidenced by Ext.R1, 1st opposite party has a liability to settle the claim as per law. If any mistake is occurred in claim form with regard to date of accident as contented by 1st opposite party, it could have asked details of Job Card and other vehicle documents from complainant. From the averment of 1st opposite party that complainant
(Cont.....20)
-20-
admitted that he had a claim under previous policy, it can be seen that Divisional Manager of 1st opposite party was aware of filing claim form. But 1st opposite party kept silent without taking further steps. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that 1st opposite party is liable to settle the claim owing to the accident occurred during the existence of previous policy, which was a tie-up policy of 1st opposite party with 2nd opposite party. Hence, we find that 1st opposite party is only responsible for not honouring the claim which is stated to be filed before them. Considering the evidence available on record, we are of the view that no liability can be fastened on 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party. 1st opposite party shall process the claim based on tie-up policy after obtaining necessary documents if any, and it shall dispose of the claim as per law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered as above.
Point No.4
In the light of our discussions and findings on point Nos.2 and 3, we are of the considered view that following directions both to complainant and 1st opposite party will meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint is allowed in part by giving following directions to complainant and 1st opposite party.
(Cont.....21)
-21-
It is directed that complainant shall approach 1st opposite party and comply with legal formalities if any sought by 1st opposite party within 15 days of receipt of this order. 1st opposite party shall process the claim filed by complainant and if any documents are necessary obtain the same from him and allow the claim to the extent admissible as per terms of policy within a period of 45 days of receipt of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this is not a fit case to grant any compensation or litigation costs. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part as mentioned above.
Parties shall take back extra copies without delay.
Pronounced by this Commission on this the 20th day of July 2023.
Sd/-
SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER
Sd/-
SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER
(Cont.....22)
-22-
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Honey Thomas Varghese
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 – Original Certified cum Policy Schedule dated 25/08/2017
w.e.f 27/08/2017 to 26/08/2018 issued by the New India Assurance
Company Ltd., through Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd.,
Ext.P2 – Copy of Policy Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance issued by the
New India Assurance Co.Ltd., for the period 27/08/2018
to 26/08/2019.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 – Original accident Repair Job Slip sheet dated 23/08/2018 time 9.45.
Ext.R2 – Computer Printout of Service Estimate dated 27/08/2018.
Ext.R3 – Computer Printout of Job Card Detail – Tax Invoice
dated 21/09/2018.
Ext.R4 – Copy of Certificate of Renewal of licence for the period 02/02/2015
to 01/02/2018 issued by IRDA to 2nd opposite party.
Ext.R5 – Copy of Certificate of Renewal of license for the period 02/02/2018
to 01/02/2021 issued by IRDA to 2nd opposite party.
Ext.R6 – Certificate of Renewal of Registration for the period 02/02/2021
to 01/02/2024 issued by IRDA to 2nd opposite party.
Forwarded by Order
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
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.