BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY
C.C.No.5/2013
Dated this the 18th day of October 2016
(Date of Institution: 20.03.2013)
Dr. S. Devi Priya, wife of Dr. P. Suresh
Mariamman Koil Street,
Vinoba Nagar,
Puducherry – 605 008.
…. Complainant
vs
1. M/s Tata Motors Ltd., rep by its
Authorised Signatory
No.24, Homi Mody Street
Mumbai – 400 001.
2. M/s Manakular Motors (Sales and Service)
Rep. by its authorised signatory
Preshitha Complex,
Villianur Main Road,
Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry – 605 010.
3. M/s J.K. Motors rep. by its Authorised Signatory
No.117, Villupuram Main Road, Moolakulam,
Puducherry – 605 010.
…. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,
PRESIDENT
Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,
MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Dr. S. Devi Priya, Party-in-Person
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: OP1 and 2: M/s Law Solvers, Advocates
OP3: Tvl. R. Sivaraman and A. Selvakumar,
Advocates.
O R D E R
(by Thiru V.V. Steephen, Member)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the Opposite Parties to replace the complainant's car with a new one of the same model or to refund the amount of Rs.3,09,000/- with 24% interest per annum from 30.05.2008 till the date of payment; directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and physical hardship suffered by the complainant; and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a registered Medical Practitioner. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of Passenger Cars, second opposite party is the authorised sales and service centre of the cars manufactured by the first opposite party and the third opposite party is also one of the authorised service centers for the cars manufactured by the first opposite party. The complainant purchased one Tata Xeta Petrol Engine Vehicle for her personal use on 30.05.2008 from the second opposite party for a sum of rs.3,09,000/- manufactured by the first opposite party and the said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant vide registration No. PY 01 AR 4555. The warranty for the vehicle for 30 months was extended under extended warranty. That right from the date of purchase, the car was mostly in the service station of the opposite parties 2 and 3. The complainant stated that at the time of first service, the complainant has reported that the doors were not closing properly and there was a noise in the door, power window and in the center lock. The second opposite party has done some oil service and reported that the problem was rectified. However, the said property was continuously persisting. On 15.5.2010 there was a problem in the air condition cooling system. The second opposite party has informed the complainant that the said problem was due to rusting and therefore, the cooling was not proper and also stated that there was gas leakage and they have refused to attend the problem informing that it is a product defect. However, stated that if the complainant has paid necessary charges for repacking the spare parts, they would attend the problem, which the complainant agreed and paidRs.8,019.81 towards change of code condenser during the warranty period. The second and third opposite parties have also changed
1. AC Core Condenser; 2. Wiper Blade, switches, wires, nuts and bolts, 3. Drive shaft left blade, 4. Fuel Tank, 5. Temperate sensor, 6. Gear Rod shield welding, 7. Spark plug, 8. Brush Gear Ashy, 9. Self Motor Switch on cost during the warranty period. Further, the complainant lodged a complaint with the second opposite party on 25.07.2008 stating that the two left side doors are damaged due to rusting and they have changed the doors by wrongly mentioning that the doors are damaged due to accident under the insurance coverage instead of damage caused due to rusting. The said vehicle was getting rusted more on the internal surface and the air condition problem continues and the radiator cooling fans continue to run quite some time even after the vehicle is switched off. The complainant stated that her car is not in proper condition and on the face of which it would be clear that there are manufacturing defects and in addition to the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the service centers i.e. opposite parties 2 and 3. During the warranty period itself, the opposite parties have been charging for the service of the vehicle and for changing the spare parts which is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant suffered a lot both mentally and physically on the account of the innumerable defects found in the vehicle purchased from the second opposite party. Hence, the complainant sent an advocate notice dated 02.02.2012 to the opposite parties requiring them to replace the complainant's car with a new one, the said notice was received by the opposite parties and the first opposite party only sent reply on 28.2.2012 stating that they would resolve the problem. Thereafter, one Zavio working as South Zone Manager with first opposite party has contacted the complainant and assured to rectify all the defects in the car, but they have not come forwards to do so. Hence, this complaint.
3. The reply version filed by the first opposite party briefly discloses the following:
That the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable. That the averments made therein are vague baseless and with malafide intent. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the car without relying on any expert report form a recognized and notified laboratory under sec. 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1985 and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence. That the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer Dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the car in question nor any deficiency in service being established against these opposite parties. That the car purchased by the complainant requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components viz air filter, fuel filter etc. at recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner manual and service book given at the time of sale for smooth running and optimum performance. These opposite parties stated that the complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner’s manual, as recommended for smooth and maximum performance of the car in question viz. correct operating procedures- do’s and don’ts for maintenance and performance of the car. As per the service schedule of the car in question, the complainant was supposed to bring the subject car at the recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner’s manual and service book for carrying out the mandatory free service however, the complainant has not produced any records, so as to show that the complainant had regularly serviced the car as per the recommended service schedule as per the clause 1 of the warranty applicable for the subject car and the warranty shall be limited for 18 months from the date of sale of vehicle irrespective of the distance covered however for commercial applications the warranty shall be limited to 18 months or 50,000 kms whichever occurs earlier subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions of the warranty. The opposite parties state that in view of improper maintenance and servicing of the car the warranty ceases to exist. These opposite parties further stated that the subject car in question met with an accident and brought at the workshop of opposite party No.2 for accidental repairs on 28.07.2008. The complainant had suppressed the said material facts before this Hon’ble Forum. Clause 7 of the terms & conditions of warranty, which clearly stipulates that the warranty shall not apply to any repairs or replacements in the vehicle in the event of an accident or collision. Under the circumstances the complainant cannot claim any benefits as per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy after having breached the contractual terms. It is further stated by the opposite parties that the car, purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years the consumers are using the product and the complainant had taken delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the car and its performance. The complainant has purchased the car on or around 31.05.2008 form the opposite party dealer and the said car in question till 15.02.2013 had covered around 32093 kms. The said fact proves that the subject car is in absolute roadworthy condition and that the jobs carried out on the car in question are minor and running repairs and on 28.07.2008 for accidental repair which was required to be carried out due to extensive and faulty usage of the said car. The opposite party has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under the warranty as and when reported. Therefore the prayers as made by the complainant for replacement of the car are untenable and unsustainable. In the present case it is crystal clear that there has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and /or deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties. The complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the answering opposite parties which is a company of long standing and high repute and as a ruse to extract money without just cause or valid reason.
4. Further, apart from denying the allegations of the complainant in the complaint the opposite party stated that all the cars manufactured by these opposite parties undergo strict quality checks, there was no problem with the car at the time of delivery and the complainant had taken delivery after proper inspection and satisfaction. It is stated that after the purchase, the said car reported first time on or around 20.06.2008 at 95 kms with the complaint of check door links for each door and to replace door check strap and. Thus all door pack and seat cleaning done door noise checkup done, FR right and left hand side fog lamp corrected absolutely free of cost. Subsequently the car reported on or around 07.07.2008 at 437 kms with improper image in mirror accordingly the outside mirror was renewed and washing and vacuuming done. The car in question reported again for the accidental repair on 28.07.2008 at 531 kms. Accordingly the accidental repairs done by the opposite party no.3. Afterwards the car reported on or around 04.04.2009 at 4065 kms for 1st free service with the door lock problems power window not working properly glove box squeak and seat problem. Apart from washing and vacuuming free of cost rear seat latch was replaced, glove box was removed and installed, power window switch was replaced central locking elements renewed was done all absolutely free of cost. The car of the complainant then reported on or around 02.06.2009 at 5837 kms. for scheduled service and accordingly valve seat machine repaired and central locking element was renewed apart from cleaning and vacuuming. Thereafter the said car reported on 12.06.20098 at 5980 kms. with the complaint of under carriage notice and scheduled service. Thereafter again the said car was reported on 26.11.2009 at 10941 kms with the complaint of doors lock problems and seat problems. Accordingly the front door latch corrected apart from washing and vacuuming on paid and the central locking wiring corrected and cash tray fix properly absolutely free of cost. The said car thereafter reported on 28.01.2010 at 11888 kms for replacing door pads and door locks, the wheel jacket was also replaced. Thereafter the said car of the complainant reported on 14.05.2010 at 13681 kms for the third free servicing with the complaint of A/C cooling insufficient doors locks problems, windshield wipers not working properly, brake/parking/number plate lights not working interior light not working etc. Accordingly front wheel alignment checked and adjusted free of cost five wheel balance done, A/C full service done, wiper blades repaired reverse indicator was checked and corrected condenser replaced on paid. The central locking element renewed and A/C gas regiling –r134a(behr/voltas) done absolutely free of cost. Thereafter the said car of the complainant reported on 22.05.2010 at 13749 kms on 04.12.2010 at 18417 kms on 01.03.2011 at 19785 kms on 09.03.2011 at 20240 kms on 11.06.2011 at 22542 kms with miscellaneous complaint and the required services was provided by the 2nd opposite party on paid and free service basis according to the terms of the warranty. The complainant reported for the fourth free service on 17.06.2011 at 22800 kms with the complaint of poor pick-up A/C cooling insufficient windshield wipers not working properly. Accordingly fourth free service was done free of cost. Front wheel alignment checked and adjusted properly free of cost. Front wheel alignment checked and adjusted properly free of cost condenser replaced free of cost, balance wheel done free of cost, r/r/ fuel injection pump adjusted free of cost and apart from washing and vacuuming done absolutely free of cost. Thereafter the complainant reported on 30.07.2011 at 23414 kms with the 2nd opposite party for door lock problems dashboard rattling door rattling under carriage notice etc and the required service was provided by the 2nd opposite party on free and paid service basis according to the terms of the warranty. Thereafter the said car reported before the 3rd opposite party. The opposite party had ever asked the complainant for anti rust coating, the opposite party had ever refused to attend the problems as alleged by the complainant. The obligation under the warranty is limited to repair or replacement of such parts, which appeared to be defective to the manufacturer of the authorized dealers when brought to the notice within the warranty period. In the instant case, as and when the subject car reported to the service centre the alleged complainant have been set right under the warranty absolutely of cost. It is denied that the said vehicle of the complainant was rusted in the internal surface as alleged or otherwise. The complaint relating to air condition was rectified by the complainant as and when it was brought to the notice of the opposite party. All other repairs were carried out free of cost. The problems as experienced and alleged by the complainant were running repairs and arose during the course of normal usage and maintenance and operational faults of the complainant and it cannot be treated as inherent defects in the car. Further the complainant has failed to produce any cogent report from the authorized laboratory defined under the consumer protection Act, and in the absence of same the allegation of manufacturing defects in the car are denied as baseless and unwarranted. Whatever grievance has been brought by the complainant the same was attended and rectified satisfactory under the warranty policy free of costs by way of exceptional services provided by the workshop hence there cannot be any question of manufacturing defect or deficiency in service. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The reply version filed by the third opposite party briefly discloses the following:
The complaint is vague, baseless and with malafide intention by alleging that there is deficiency in service and there is no any documentary evidence. The complaint does not fall within the definition of a 'consumer dispute' under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the vehicle in question or any deficiency in service being established against the opposite parties. It is stated by this opposite party that the vehicle purchased by the complainant requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components viz. ail filter, fuel filter etc. at recommended intervals as mentioned in the owner's manual and service book given at the time of sale, for smooth running and optimum performance. The complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner's manual. Further in the manual book, it is clearly mentioned that the Tata Motors will not accept any liabilities for damage caused by missing any scheduled maintenance service, abuse or the continued use of the vehicle after any fault has become evidence. The complainant has filed this complaint without any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from various problems. The vehicle was reported only on 19.08.2011 at 23788 kms. only after the expiry of the warranty period, on 26.09.2011 at 24968 kms, on 04.10.2011 at 27950 kms., on 16.11.2011 at 27758 kms, on 13.03.2011 at 28288 kms. on 23.07.2012 at 30251 kms and on 15.02.2013 at 32093 kms. with miscellaneous problems and required service was promptly attended by the 3rd opposite party. This opposite party had ever asked the complainant for anti-rust coating and also they never refused to attend the problem. This opposite party further stated that the obligation under the warranty is limited to repair or replacement of such parts, which appear to be defective to the manufacturer or the authorised dealer, when brought to the notice within the warranty period and when the subject vehicle was reported to the service centre, the alleged complaints have been set right under the warranty as well as on paid basis, afterwards, as and when reported. Hence, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party in rendering its services. Therefore, this opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
6. The complainant was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C23 and Ex.R1 marked through CW1. Mr. S. Shanmuganathan, Junior Engineer, Transport Department, Puducherry was examined as CW2 and the Expert Report of the Car PY 01 AR 4555 submitted by CW2 marked as Ex.X1 through him but, the report (Ex.X1) was not taken into consideration by this Forum for adjudication as it was objected by the complainant that the vehicle number of the complainant in dispute is mentioned wrongly in the report Ex.X1 and hence, the second Expert Report was sought by the Forum and Mr. V. Kaliaperumal, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department, Puducherry was examined as CW3 and the second Expert Report of the car PY 01 AR 4555 submitted by CW3 was marked as Ex.X2 through him. No oral evidence was let in by opposite parties and no documents were marked on the side of Opposite Parties.
7. Points for determination are :
- Whether the Complainant is the Consumer?
- Whether any negligence or deficiency of service is attributed by the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
8. Point No.1:
On the perusal of Ex.C1 to C18 and Ex.C23 it is observed by the Forum that the complainant has purchased a TATA Xeta Petrol Engine Car vide Regn. No PY 01 AR 4555 for her personal use from the second Opposite party who is the authorised Sales and Service Centre of the TATA Cards manufactured by the first opposite party and that the complainant has given the car for paid service with 2nd and third opposite parties and hence, the complainant is considered to be a Consumer as against the Opposite Parties. This point is answered accordingly.
9. Point No.2:
The complainant submitted that she had purchased a TATA XETA Petrol Engine Car vide Regn. No. PY 01 AR 4555 (Ex.C3) from the Second Opposite party who is the Authrorised service centre of the TATA cars manufactured by the first OP on making a payment of Rs.3,09,000/- on 30.05.2008 (Ex.C1) and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 4.6.2008 Ex.C2 and the vehicle was covered under extended warranty (Ex.C3) and (Ex.C4) for a period of 30 months apart from the manufacturer's warranty period. The complainant submitted that from the date of purchase, the said car was repeatedly taken to OP2 and OP3 service centers for setting right the defects of the vehicle and for replacement of the several parts of the subject mentioned car within the period of warranty which caused physical hardship and mental agony and hence, claimed for replacement of the car and for other reliefs from the OP alleging manufacturing defects. The OPs refuted the allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. Both side records and evidence were carefully perused by this Forum and observed as follows:
It is submitted by the complainant that the car purchased from the second OP suffered from many defects such as rattling noise in the door, problem in the Air Condition Cooling System, Power Windows, Central Locks and complaint on rust formation in the internal surface of the car and further pleaded that several parts of the subject mentioned car were replaced within the warranty period which were listed by the complainant such as 1. AC Core Condenser; 2. Wiper Blade, switches, wires, nuts and bolts, 3. Drive shaft left blade, 4. Fuel Tank, 5. Temperate sensor, 6. Gear Rod shield welding, 7. Spark plug, 8. Brush Gear Ashy, 9. Self Motor Switch.
11. It is observed by the Forum that the tax invoice receipts marked as Exs.C5, C7, C13, C16 and C17 issued by the second and third OPs explicitly reveals that the car of the complainant was taken to the OP2 and OP3 service centres frequently for setting right the defects and that the parts listed above by the complainant were replaced within the warranty period and the cost for the same being borne by the complainant. Further on perusal of the history of service sheet of the car PY 01 AR 4555 for the period from 2008 to 2013 marked as Ex.R1, it is evident that the said vehicle had undergone service frequently for setting right the defects of the car and for replacement of the several parts of the car on payment by the complainant within the period of warranty. The complainant in order to substantiate the contention of the complainant, the Expert Report (Ex.X2) of CW3 alone was relied upon by the complainant and further since the contents of the case deals upon the Technical aspect, this Forum is inclined to adjudge upon the evidence and Report given by the technical person examined as CW3. The Crux of the report Ex.X2 explains the present condition of the vehicle as follows: 1. The break condition is very poor, 2. AC is not working, 3. Leakage in silencer, 4. Right side door in rusted condition, 5. Front left tyre worn out badly, 6. Under chassis is fully damaged due to rust, 7. Right side view mirror damage, 8. Rust on the bonnet front and inside portion, Left side rear body, and on the Left side of the Engine compartment.
12. It was further reported by CW3 that the car was sent more than 18 times for repairs / service even though it has covered only 35778 kms. and the major items of the car such as AC condenser code, drive shaft, fuel tank, alternator spares have been replaced before the life time of the spare as per the manufacturer norms and opined that the subject mentioned car PY 01 AR 4555 is not in a road worthy condition. Further the evidence of CW3 is as follows:
"The body of the vehicle got rusted within the warranty period of the manufacture, it is a manufacturer fault. After the warranty period, it is not a manufacturer defect. Parts of AC, tube, condenser etc. are changed completely within the warranty period. It is true that Major items like AC core Condenser (13681 kms) drive shaft (23414 ksm), fuel tank (24968 kms), alternator spares (27758 kms) have been replaced before their life time of the spare as per the manufacturer norms. This is a special case in my service sending a vehicle for more than 29 times for services in a short time i.e. within 35778 kms. out of that 22 times with complaint. it is not safer for the public that unconditioned vehicles used on the road. The vehicle of this case is not road worthy…."
13. The witness CW1 and CW3 was subjected to cross-examination by OPs Counsel but nothing material was elicited favouring the contentions of the OPs. It is observed by the Forum that the report Ex.X2 given by CW3 is crystal clear to prove the fact that the vehicle in question suffered from manufacturing defects and not road worthy. Hence, the contention of the Opposite Party that the vehicle of the complainant does not suffer from any manufacturing defect cannot be taken into consideration.
14. It is further contended by the OPs that the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the warranty as the vehicle in dispute is not covered under the warranty for the period wherein, the car taken to OPs service centre for service and for replacement of the parts of the car, but on the perusal of Debit Note (Ex.C4) and extended warranty, tax receipt Ex.C11, it is found that the car is under the coverage of extended warranty which extends to period of 30 months in addition to the period of manufacturers warranty and the Tax Invoice marked by the complainant (Ex.C5 to C18) pertaining to the service and replacement of the parts of the car of the complainant is well within the period of warranty and hence, the plea raised by the OP that the car is not covered by the warranty does not hold good.
15. It is observed by the Forum that even though several parts of the car were replaced and the services of the car were taken place, the Expert report Ex.X2 clearly states the present condition of the car as not road worthy and the body of the vehicle got rusted within the period of warranty period of the manufacturer.
16. From the entire factual matrix of the case, it is observed by the Forum that the vehicle in question is a defective vehicle and it is the bounden duty of the manufacturer (OP1) and dealer (OP2) to repay the cost of the car of the complainant paid to the second OP vide Ex.C1 dated 30.05.2008.
17. It is further observed by the Forum that taking the vehicle to the service centres time and again for removing one defect and another, the complainant would have suffered immensely in terms of physical hardship, mental agony and loss of time for which the complainant has to be reasonably compensated for the hardship undergone by the complainant.
18. In view of the discussions referred in the aforementioned paras, it is held that the OPs are liable for mental agony and physical hardship suffered by the complainant due to the OPs negligence and deficiency of service. This point is answered accordingly.
19. Point No.3:
In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed.
1. The OPs 1 and 2 are directed to return the amount of Rs.3,09,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle paid by the complainant and the complainant is hereby directed to return the vehicle on due compliance of the order by Opposite Parties 1 and 2..
2. The OPs 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, loss and physical hardship suffered by the complainant due to the negligent and deficiency in service of the opposite parties and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of this proceedings.
The opposite parties are directed to comply with the directions of this orders within three months from the date of receipt of this order
Dated this the 18th day of October 2016.
(A.ASOKAN)
PRESIDENT
(V.V. STEEPHEN)
MEMBER
COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:
CW1 14.07.2014 Dr. S. Devi Priya
CW2 21.04.2015 S. Shanmuganathan, Junior Engineer
CW3 06.01.2016 Kaliaperumal, Motor Vehicle Inspector
OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS: NIL
COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:
Ex.C1 | 30.05.20118 | Photocopy of receipt issued by second opposite party for Rs.3,09,000/- |
| Ex.C2 | 04.06.2008 | Photocopy of Vehicle Delivery Acknowledgement Note of second opposite party. |
Ex.C3 | 31.05.2008 | Photocopy of Tax Invoice of second opposite party |
Ex.C4 | 04.06.2008 | Photocopy of Debit Note issued by second OP |
Ex.C5 | 15.05.2010 | Photocopy of Tax invoice of second OP |
Ex.C6 | 04.12.2010 | Photocopy of Tax invoice of second OP |
Ex.C7 | 01.03.2011 | Photocopy of Tax invoice of second OP |
Ex.C8 | 10.03.2011 | Photocopy of receipt issued by second OP |
Ex.C9 | 11.06.2011 | Photocopy of Tax invoice of second OP |
Ex.C10 | 17.06.2011 | Photocopy of Tax invoice of second OP |
Ex.C11 | 18.04.2008 | Photocopy of receipt for payment of Rs.4600/- for extended warranty. |
Ex.C12 | 26.09.2011 | Photocopy of Tax invoice issued by J Kay Moators |
Ex.C13 | 29.09.2011 | Photocopy of Workshop Labour Invoice issued by OP3 |
Ex.C14 | 04.10.2011 | Photocopy of Tax invoice issued by J Kay Moators |
Ex.C15 | 10.11.2011 | Photocopy of letter from OP3 to complainant |
Ex.C16 | 16.11.2011 | Photocopy of Proforma Invoice of OP3 |
Ex.C17 | 13.03.2012 | Photocopy of Workshop Labour Invoice issued by OP3 |
Ex.C18 | 23.07.2012 | Tax invoice of OP3 |
Ex.C19 | 02.02.2012 | Copy of legal notice issued by Counsel for complainant to opposite parties. |
Ex.C20 | | Acknowledgement card of OP1 |
Ex.C21 | | Acknowledgement card of OP2 |
Ex.C22 | | Acknowledgement card of OP3 |
Ex.C23 | 28.02.2012 | Reply notice given by OP1 to Counsel for Complainant. |
| | |
Ex.X1 | 03.02.2015 | Inspection report marked through CW2 |
Ex.X2 | 28.09.2015 | Inspection report marked through CW3 |
OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:
Ex.R1 series Service History sheet of car bearing Regn. No. PY
01 AR 4555 marked through CW1.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL
(A.ASOKAN)
PRESIDENT
(V.V. STEEPHEN)
MEMBER
