JUDGMENT

Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C.C. No.419/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (will be referred to as District Commission for convenience) against the order dated 18.03.2015 dismissing the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant in short is as stated below:—

He is the registered owner of a Maruti Ritz car bearing Registration No. KL 40/F 7677 which was purchased from the third opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,51,589/-. The vehicle was insured with the second opposite party. The value of the car as shown in the insurance policy was Rs.5,24,009/-. On 29.12.2012 the vehicle met with an accident and it was brought to the yard of the third opposite party on 01.01.2013 for effecting repair works. The third opposite party had prepared a service estimate for Rs.4,98,896/- for effecting repairs. But the insurance company i.e.; the first and second opposite parties did not approve the estimate. So the work could not be carried out.

3. Thereupon the complainant caused issuance of a lawyer notice requesting the opposite parties to complete the repair work on the basis of the estimate prepar