BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDESSAL COMMISSION

NORTH-WEST, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI

C.C. NO. 352/2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SH. ANIL KUMAR …….….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

KOTAK MAHINDRA GEN. INS. CO. LTD. ………RESPONDENT

REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT TO THE

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT I.E. M/S
KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

1. That the content of para No.1 of preliminary objection is absolutely

incorrect, hence denied. It is specifically denied that the respondent has

asked for a required document by letter dated 04.05.2023. Furthermore,

it is also denied that the complaint is not maintainable and legally

unsustainable.

2. That the content of para No.2 of preliminary objection is absolutely

incorrect, hence vehemently denied.

3. That the content of para No.3 of preliminary objection is absolutely

incorrect, hence denied.

4. That the content of para No.4 of preliminary objection as stated, are

wrong and false, hence denied. The Respondent is misleading the court

by misinterpreting the definition of “Consumer” as defined u/s 2(7) of

the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (herein after called “The Act”) by

disavowing the relationship between complainant and respondent.

5. That the content of para No.5 of preliminary objection is false and

misrepresented by the Respondent therefore wrong & denied.

6. That the content of para No. 6 of preliminary objection is matter of

record and need no reply.

7. That the content of para No.7 of preliminary objection is matter of

record and need no reply.

8. That the content of para No. 8 of preliminary objection is partially

admitted, the respondent has sent a reminder letter dated 30.06.2023

(Final Reminder) to the complainant. Rest of the para is wrong and false,

hence denied.

9. That the content of para No.9 of preliminary objection is absolutely

incorrect, hence vehemently denied. The same is bundle of lies.

10.That the content of para No.10 of preliminary objection need no reply.

11.That the content of para No.11 of preliminary objection need no reply.

OBJECTION ON REPLY ON MERIT:

1. That the content of para no. 1 need no reply.

2. That the content of para no. 2 need no reply.

3. That the content of para no. 3 need no reply.

4. That the content of para no. 4 as stated, are wrong and false hence

denied.

5. That the content of para no. 5 need no reply.

6. That the content of para no. 6 is totally misconceived, hence denied.

7. That the content of para no. 7 is absolutely incorrect, hence vehemently

denied.

8. That the content of para no. 8 need no reply.

9. That the content of para no. 9 is absolutely incorrect, hence denied.

10.That the content of para no. 10 is absolutely incorrect, hence denied.

11.That the content of para no. 11 is absolutely incorrect, hence denied.

12.That the content of para no. 12 is absolutely incorrect, hence denied.

13. That the content of para no. 13-14 is false and misrepresented by the

respondent therefore wrong & denied. This is completely an act of

negligence or omission by respondent which result to immense mental

agony, financial hardship, and distress to the complainant which renders

the respondent liable for compensation.

14. That the content of para no. 15 is absolutely incorrect, hence

vehemently denied.

15.That the content of para no. 16 as stated, are wrong and false, hence

denied. The respondent has acted illegally, arbitrarily towards the

complainant which clearing highlighting as severe lapse in deficiency in

service or unfair trade practice as defined u/s 2(11) & 47 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (herein after called “The Act”).

16. That the content of para no. 17 is absolutely incorrect, hence

vehemently denied. The respondent is deliberately misconstruing the

definition of “Consumer” as defined u/s 2(7) of the Act in an attempt to

mislead the court. Also, the respondent has exhibited a deficiency in

service to the complainant.

17.That the content of para no. 18 need no reply.

 18.That the content of para no. 19 is absolutely incorrect, hence vehemently

denied. The same bundle of lies

19.That the content of para no. 20 is absolutely incorrect, hence vehemently

denied. The same bundle of lies.

20.That the content of para no. 21 as stated, are wrong and false, hence

denied.

PRAYER

It is therefore in view of the aforesaid submission most humbly prayed to

this Hon’ble court that the prayer clause made by the respondent is

misconceived and liable to be rejected in the interest of justice.

COMPLAINANT

THROUGH

(AJIT KUMAR BHARDWAJ)

ADVOCATE
PLACE:-DELHI CH. NO. B-17, B. G. S.
BLOCK,
DATED:- TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI-54
 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on the ___ day of April, 2025 that the content of the

reply of preliminary objection from para 1 to 11 & content of objection on

reply on merit from para 1 to 20 are true and correct, no part of it is false

and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDESSAL
COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST, SHALIMAR BAGH,
NEW DELHI
C.C. NO. 352/2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SH. ANIL KUMAR …….….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

KOTAK MAHINDRA GEN. INS. CO. LTD. ………RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, ANIL KUMAR S/O Dharam Pal Singh aged about R/O H.

No. B-6/376, Sector – 17, Near Krishna Garden, Rohini,
Delhi-110001, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:

1. The deponent is the authorized representative in

abovesaid case and well conversant with fact &

circumstances of the case and is competent to swear this

affidavit before this Court.

2. That the contents of accompanying replication on behalf

of the complainants to written statement of respondent

has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions

and contents of the same has been read over and

explained to me in vernacular manner which have been

understood by me and same are true &correct to the best

of my knowledge.
3. The deponent craves leave of this commission to read the

contents of same as part& parcel of this affidavit as same

are not repeated herein for sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi that the contents of my above

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part

of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there

from.

DEPONENT