STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD
CC NO.77 OF 2013
Between :
Manish Gupta S/o Om Prakash Gupta,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Villa No.27, near Railway Bridge,
Palm Meadows, Kompally,
Medchal mandal, Rangareddy district.
Complainant
And
1) M/s IN LINE 4 Motors Pvt., Ltd.,
Odyssey Mall, Ground Floor,
Odyssey Building, Plot No.461,
Road No.36, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 033.
2) M/s Tata Motors Limited,
Bombay House, No.24,
Homi Modi Street, Mumbai – 400 001.
3) M/s Jaguar Cars Limited,
Regd. Office: Bombay Road,
Gaydon, Wanwickshire,
CV 35 OR, United Kingdom,
England, Wales No.4019301.
Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri N.Raghavan
Counsel for the Opposite parties : Sri A.Chandra Shekar-OP No.1
Sri M.V.R. Suresh-Ops 2 and 3
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao, Member
Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of March
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, President)
***
This is a complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant complaining deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and seeking direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages, compensation for sufferance, mental agony, expenses incurred for alternate cars, loss of time, facing risks to life, etc., including the sum of Rs.42,00,000/- towards the value of car upto the point of the car fit to run on road, holding the Opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay and also award costs of the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is a businessman and he is trading with reputed companies in India, Canada, China and other countries. Complainant got good image and reputation in his field. Equal to that his image and reputation in business, he got status in the society. At the same time, complainant and his wife are much car lovers. Their life, minus a reputed car in their possession, is a zero. From all these angles, complainant and his wife have been in a look-out to purchase a good motor car of very high standard not only on its performance, but also in rendering “driving pleasure” and most importantly with “least risk” factor by such a car. Taking into consideration all the special features, the complainant purchased LAND ROVER freelander 2SE, seating capacity of 5 members motor car bearing engine No.DZ784020429224DT, chassis No.SALFA2AB9BL900148 exterior fuji white colour with interior upholstery of Almond colour, for a sum of Rs.34,88,193/- vide tax invoice No.INLINE/1112/0028,dated 22.08.2011 and also paid other taxes, total amounting to Rs.40,49,229/-. He incurred Rs.42,00,000/- in all to bring the car on road. Subsequently, complainant got registered the said car with registering authority as AP28BQ5455. It was claimed by the Ops that Jaguar company will provide anytime road side assistance in case of any breakdown.
3. The complainant purchased the said vehicle by availing financial assistance for which, he has paid interest in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in addition to incurring Rs.1,50,000/- towards service. Even before the first tour was undertaken, complainant experienced some sound and noise on the rear side. This was his first utter disappointment in the initial stage itself amounting to deficiency in service. When the same was brought to the notice of Ops, they sought to rectify and took two months for its rectification contending that the particular part was not available in India and they had to procure it from England. Unlike the cars at abroad, in India, cars must compulsorily possess “horn” and it should be in a working condition. Thereafter, there was failure of the horn on 3 occasions which demonstrate that the car was not aligned properly and this particular car of that particular lot manufactured, it suffered from “inherent defects” and it was of “sub-standard” quality, which all these amounts to deficiency in service.
4. Apart from aforesaid defects that had crept-in in the car sold by the Ops, the complainant and his family members further received rude and frightening shocks. In the light of above defects, the complainant and his family members did not dare to go for long distance tour pleasure even though the very purpose of purchasing the car was for the same. However, the very first time, the complainant venture to take-out to drive the car on highway, on 17.05.2012 when it failed at a dangerous spot on the road side in Ahmed Nagar (Maharashtra). Complainant and his family members were stranded on the road at Ahmed Nagar for a continuous period of 6½ hours without food and water. Another disgusting point at that time was the complainant could not lock the car also because the key got struck-up due to mechanical defect in the locking system. Thus, he could not leave the car on the road and come nor could proceed with journey except to sit on the road.
5. When contacted the toll-free number of Jaguar and informed about the failure of the car for sending a stand-by car, it was not sent. He had to beg some of his customers to lend a man to take-care of and to watch the car, so that, it should be safeguarded until some one on behalf of Ops come and pick-up the car. At 9 p.m. complainant could fetch someone who took care of the car remaining unlocked on the road side. At the same time, he himself arranged an Innova taxi spending huge money and proceeded to Shirdi. On account of this, the original plan and schedule of complainant to complete their visit to Shiridi Saibaba by the day time and to reach Bombay before dusk totally foiled. Complainant wanted to go to Mumbai to his in-law’s house with his family but they could not reach Mumbai on that day. It was a terrible sufferance. After complainant left the place at Ahmed Nagar, some service agent by name Mr.Pranav belonging to M/s Europe assistance came at 9-40 p.m. on 17.05.2012 and made arrangements to take the car for repairs.
6. The car was redelivered to the complainant at midnight at Mumbai on 18.05.2012. Thus, this experience coupled with past four failures of the car narrated supra, clearly demonstrated that the cars manufactured in that particular lot of that year suffer from “inherent manufacturing defects” i.e., sometimes in failure of the engine and with noise in the initial stage itself. Again, in December 2012, complainant proceeded on a pleasure long distance tour to Mumbai and was returning in the said car from Mumbai to Hyderabad. While the car reached in the forest area of Temburni, the car again failed whereby the complainant and his family members were again stranded on the road near very dangerous forest area. The said spot was prone to thieves and highway robbery and for straying of dangerous animals and snakes. It was 3 p.m. in the afternoon and there was no human traffic at all. The street dogs and forest dogs were fiercefully straying and were frightening the complainant and his family members by their venturing near the car and smelling, holding their free movement, who could not come out of the car even to attend nature’s call. On making a call to one of his friends, it was informed that Temburni is the place of abode of all the robbers and thieves and advised to leave the spot immediately leaving the car as it is and not to risk their lives.
7. On the other hand, OP No.1 and its toll free agent on being contacted over phone, assured to send a “stand-by car” did not turn-up even upto 5 p.m. nor there was any information. The complainant, therefore, left the car on the road and arranged to get a taxi car with considerable difficulty and left the Temburi forest area at 5 p.m. and headed towards Shiridi. On the same day, at 6 p.m. there was a roadway attack of some people by robbers at Temburi. Thus, the complainant and his family members having been totally vexed and disappointed, sent a e-mail on 18.12.2012 to Sri Rajashekaran Methiram followed by further e-mail again and again and brought to his notice that the stand-by vehicle was not at all sent and they were stranded on the road near forest area.
8. In the light of major failures involving risk to lives and 3 minor failures in regard to horn and noise that was coming in the engine, all causing hardship and another failure of the locking system, complainant and his family members were caused untold hardship, mental agony, fear of loosing life and for failure to make alternate arrangements to send stand-by vehicle, complainant is not going to take back the vehicle again. The performance of the vehicle sold by the Ops is completely contrary to what they have claimed in their various advertisements. The rude shock sustained by them once in the lonely highway in Ahmed Nagar and again in the forest area in the highway has created perpetual panic in them and indelible fear and they never want to take any more chances, hence, question of the Ops repairing the vehicle and to redeliver the same will not arise.
9. It may be that in general LAND ROVER (free lander) motor car may be a good car, but it cannot be taken for granted that each and every lot would be without defects. Complainant spent Rs.42,00,000/- for the car + service expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- + insurance renewal of Rs.66,712/-. Hence, the complainant is fully justified to reject the car and to refuse to receive the said motorcar. Hence, complainant got issued notice on 22.12.2012 to the Ops, which they received but failed to respond. Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the Ops to pay an amount of rupees one crore towards damages, compensation for sufferance, mental agony, expenses incurred for alternative cars, loss of time, facing risks to life, etc., including the sum of Rs.42.00 lakhs towards value of the car upto the point of car fit to run on road, holding the Ops jointly and severally and award costs of the complaint.
10. Opposite party No.1 filed its written version contending that it is an authorized dealer for Land Rover cars manufactured by OP No.3 at Hyderabad. The said car is internationally famous through-out the world and is considered to be the best car available in the world. The question of there being any manufacturing defect in the car, to the knowledge of OP No.1 does not arise. The said cars are sold only after thorough checking by experts before they are made available in the market. It admitted the purchase of subject car from them for the consideration as mentioned by complainant. But it denied any defect of horn in the vehicle, however, admitted to have repaired the same when it was brought to its notice. The complainant never informed the defect in the locking system. On 17.05.2012 on complaint, its representative picked-up the car from the place where it was reported to have been stopped and taken to nearest centre to Pune and delivered to complainant at Mumbai address on 18.05.2012.
11. Prior to taking the vehicle for repairs to Pune, complainant was offered a taxi for his further journey but he refused to take the same for the reasons best known. Even in Pune, it was noticed no major repair to be carried out but only because of mishandling of the vehicle. On account of mishandling and due to the accident caused by complainant, due to which impact, damage was caused to the rear side of the vehicle. However, such damaged parts were replaced as the vehicle was under warranty. It is not responsible for the alleged stopping of the vehicle on the main roads. It was also noticed that as the fuel got exhausted, which was not noticed by the complainant, the vehicle came to halt. It denied the similar complaint in December 2012. Due to persistent insistence of the complainant, the vehicle was taken for repair to Pune on the same day i.e., 16.12.2012 and was again thoroughly checked to see whether there was really manufacture defect in the vehicle and no such problem existed. There upon the vehicle was sent to Hyderabad on a flat bed through Europe assistance on 21.12.2012 i.e., within 4 days and the complainant was also provided with a replacement courtesy car while the vehicle was being repaired.
12. The said repairs do not relate to any mechanical defects but were only minor repairs that too due to mishandling of the vehicle by the complainant. Even on entire reading of complaint, it cannot be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the car purchased by the complainant. Failure of horn, starting condition and total failure of the engine with noise in the initial stage do not constitute any manufacturing defect. The complainant having enjoyed the car for nearly two years, cannot be permitted to say now that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Whenever minor complaints were reported, the same were attended to and rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant, within a reasonable time and hence there is no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs and prayed accordingly.
13. Opposite party No.2 filed its written version contending that it is the renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars and is widely acclaimed for its class and quality. The cars manufactured by it pass through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts and the cars and vehicles are marketed only after being approved by the ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India). The cars and vehicles manufactured at the plant are also thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealers appointed on a ‘principal to principal’ basis for sale of the cars and vehicles. It has large network of around 119 authorized dealers, 245 authorized service centers, 219 authorized service points and 222 authorised service outlets which are enhanced and widened in order to bring maximum and efficient services as closer to the customers’ doorsteps as far as possible.
14. This Opposite party has carved a niche for themselves in the products as well as in after sales service across the country. The manufacturers of the cars and the car owners are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant approached the Forum by suppressing the material facts. The complainant made allegations without any documentary evidence. The present complaint does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ as there is no deficiency in service being established against the OP, hence, liable for rejection. 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’s manual and service book for smooth running and optimum performance which the complainant had failed and neglected to follow.
15. The subject car met with an accident and brought at the workshop of the OP No.1 for repairs on 20.02.2012. Clause-7 of the terms and conditions of warranty clearly stipulates that the warranty shall not apply to any repairs or replacements in the vehicle in the event of an accident or collision. However, as a goodwill gesture, they had replaced the parts of the vehicle under the warranty. The subject car is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using it. The subject car was delivered after carrying-out pre-delivery inspection (PDI) by the dealer. The car in question is checked at the workshop by the Quality Inspector (Q.I.) and by Diagnostic Expert cum trainer (DET) during pre and post repairs to ensure quality workmanship. Hence, there cannot be any deficiency of service on their part.
16. The complainant purchased the car on or around 31.03.2012 from the Ops dealer and till 17.12.2012, it had covered around 21090 kms which manifests that the car in question had covered a distance of 2482 kms per month which prove 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 one occasion for accidental repairs, which were required to be carried-out due to regular, continuous, extensive and faulty usage of the car. The Ops have been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under warranty period. Therefore, the prayer for refund of the car is contrary to law and is untenable.
17. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 22.08.2011 and the vehicle was reported for the first time on 27.01.2012 at 5380 kms, with complaint suspension noise rear left hand side which was rectified. Again on 10.02.2012 at 5662 kms for maintenance service with no complaints when the scheduled service was done and the vehicle was returned to the complainant on the same day. Again the vehicle of the complainant reported on 20.02.2012 at 5980 kms for accidental repairs and with complaint horn not working sometime, which was repaired and returned the vehicle on 24.02.2012. Again, it was reported on 20.04.2012 at 8640 kms with complaint horn not working which was replaced and handed over to complainant on same day. On 18.05.2012, at 10284 kms, the vehicle was reported for starting problem when the said vehicle was taken to the workshop by the service providers of Ops and necessary job done. Again, the said vehicle reported on 10.09.2012 at 15833 kms for 2nd maintenance with no complaints. Thereafter, the vehicle was reported on 12.11.2012 at 18447 kms for free check-up; on 11.12.2012 at 19938 kms with parking aid not working and for checking brakes, when the front brake pads replaced and the vehicle returned to the complainant on 12.12.2012. Again, the vehicle was reported on 17.12.2012 at 21090 kms with a complaint of not starting, which was attended. There was no locking problem at all.
18. It was the complainant who refused to take the assistance of the Ops. Clause-9 of the warranty states that the buyer shall have no other rights except those set out therein. Thus, the complainant is debarred to demand any damages or compensation. The notice dated 12.12.2012 was duly replied by it. There is no deficiency in service on its part. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
19. On his behalf, the Complainant filed his affidavit evidence and the documents Exs.A1 to A31. On behalf of the Opposite parties, one Nadir E Chinoy, CEO of OP No.1 filed his affidavit evidence and on behalf of OP No.2, one Thinlay Chukki, Manager (Law) filed her affidavit evidence and Ex.B1 to B8.
20. The points that arise for consideration are :
i) Whether the Complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act?
ii) Whether there is any ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the Opposite parties and whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
iii) To what relief ?
21. POINTS No.1 AND 2 : It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased the subject vehicle i.e., LAND ROVER from the Ops for the sale consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- inclusive of accessories, registration, etc., It is also not in dispute that the same was got insured with insurance company and registered with the registering authority with registration mark AP28BQ5455. The only dispute is that within no time, the complainant experienced problem with horn, locking of the car and break down in the forest area while in journey.
22. The vehicle which is under dispute is a top brand vehicle having name and reputation and known for it class and quality. Even it is also the claim of the Opposite parties that before releasing the subject vehicles, their technical team will thoroughly inspect for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for despatch to the authorized dealers. It is also not in denial that the subject vehicle was not brought before them with minor complaints, as the case may be. But as per them, the complaints notified by the complainant are very minor but not inherent defects so also the manufacturing defects.
23. Admittedly, the subject vehicle was purchased on 22.08.2011 and the same was taken to the Ops for repairs with complaint of noise in the rear side, horn problem, car locking and break down of the vehicle in the middle of journey, which are not in denial. In support of his claim, the complainant filed as much as 31 documents. Ex.A6 to A8 would go to show that the vehicle was taken for repairs and servicing from time to time by the complainant and even minor repairs were also attended. Ex.A11 goes to show that there was break-down of the vehicle on 17.05.2012 and the same was attended to by the Ops. Ex.A16 goes to show that the problem of horn was attended to by the Ops at no cost. Had really there been no problem, the Ops could not have attended the problem.
24. We may state that had there been no problem, there was no need for the complainant to address e-mails and getting the notice issued to the opposite parties. Admittedly, the problems complained by the complainant arose within the period of warranty. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicles manufactured by the Opposite parties are faulty and the same can be evidenced from Ex.A29 to A31. This factum is not denied by the Opposite parties for the reasons best known. In this regard, we may state that any consumer when he buys a new vehicle, he is under the impression that a new vehicle is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new vehicle would be defect free.
25. In the instant case, the vehicle which the Complainant purchased is a world renowned vehicle with class and category. A new vehicle could be deficient as well. It could be that some errors are insignificant but there may be many others which substantially impair use of the vehicle. If the vehicle is defective, a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price and in the instant case, the complainant had rightly opted for the same. Though the burden to prove the defect would be on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of defects or its cause or source. The warranty which is given for a vehicle is a warranty for whole of the vehicle and when it is found that the vehicle does not perform properly, the warranty would be taken to have been breached even if no individual part could be identified as defective. It is not always necessary for the consumer to give expert testimony though if he does so it will add to the weight of the evidence. However, it must be shown that the use of the vehicle has been substantially impaired on account of the defects. In the present case, the Complainant by exhibiting the above documents had brought on record that there is a defect in the vehicle. If the defects are insignificant that could not be a case of replacement or refund.
26. We may state further that the fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, however, has to take into consideration consumer state of mind as well. After all, he had invested very huge amount in the new vehicle to buy peace of mind hoping that the vehicle is dependable and trouble free having regard to its class, category, luxury, etc., But then coming to a consumer forum, consumer must first give notice to both to the dealer and manufacturer and both of them must be given reasonable opportunity to repair the defect if it is not inherent manufacturing defect. It is not that consumer has to take the vehicle to the workshop time and again for repairs to be carried out. It will depend upon case to case. It must also be understood that vehicle has to be returned for repair to an authorised dealer and not to the distant manufacturer itself. As such, we
27. From the e-mail addressed by the complainant to the Opposite parties dated 18.12.2012, it is evident that the complainant faced grave inconvenience and unnecessary harassment due to the vehicle in question. Even the Ops failed to provide standby vehicle to the complainant when he was in need, which is evident from Ex.A23. Even from the perusal of e-mail dated 17.12.2012 responded by the Ops, it is evident that the car stopped in shiridi which would amount to defect in the vehicle. From the documents referred to supra, we can infer that the vehicle supplied to the complainants suffers from quality and workmanship, which is nothing but manufacturing defect. The further question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him, at the hands of the Ops as he was compelled to make complaints from time to time, within short span of purchase thereof. The mere fact that the vehicle had to be taken for servicing to the Opposite Parties, again and again, within the short span of purchase of the same, for the rectification of defects referred to above, could be said to be sufficient, to prove the mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the points No.1 and 2 framed for consideration at paragraph No.20, supra, in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite parties.
28. POINT No.3: In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct the Opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.38,00,000/- (including the cost of vehicle at Rs.42,00,000/-) within four weeks and on failure to comply with, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order until payment, together with costs of Rs.5000/-.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated: 27.03.2017
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant : For Opposite parties :
Affidavit evidence of Manish Affidavit evidence of Nadir E Chinoy,
Gupta, Complainant as PW1. CEO of OP No.1 as RW1.
Affidavit evidence of Thinlay Chukki,
Manager (Law) of OP No.2 as RW2.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant :
Ex.A1 is the copy of brochure of the subject car.
Ex.A2 is the copy of road side assistance assurance given by the OP No.1.
Ex.A3 is the copy of Tax Invoice, dated 22.08.2011 bearing No.INLINE/1112/0028, for Rs.34,88,193/-.
Ex.A4 is the copy of the sale certificate under Form-21 furnished by the OP No.1 in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A5 is the copy of insurance cover dated 20.08.2011 for the subject vehicle, issued by TATA AIG Insurance.
Ex.A6 is the copy of tax invoice for Rs.16,061/- dated 10.02.2012 and Invoice for Rs.9,017/- dated 10.02.2012 in respect of the subject vehicle, furnished by the OP No.1.
Ex.A7 is the copy of tax invoice dated 10.09.2012 for Rs.28,936/- and the workshop labour invoice for Rs.19,315/- issued by OP No.1 in respect of the subject vehicle.
Ex.A8 is the copy of Tax invoice dated 12.11.2012 for rupees zero, in respect of the subject vehicle issued by OP No.1.
Ex.A9 is the copy of receipt bearing No.06-00-00245020, dated 22.08.2012 for Rs.68,329/-.
Ex.A10 is the copy of e-mail, dated 18.05.2012 and 19.05.2012 addressed by the Opposite parties internally as also to Manish Gupta, the complainant.
Ex.A11 is the copy of letter dated 18.05.2012 addressed by the OP No.2 to the Complainant.
Ex.A12 is the copy of Jaguar Land Rover sustainable development policy dated November 2010.
Ex.A13 is the copy of e-mail dated 20.12.2012 addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.
Ex.A14 is the copy of bill for Rs.6,329/-, dated 16.12.2012 showing the booking of guest room at St.Laurn, meditation & Spa, shirdi.
Ex.A15 is the copy of Certificate of Registration of the subject vehicle, bearing registration mark AP28BQ5455, issued by the Registering Authority, RTA Medchal.
Ex.A16 is the copy of Tax Invoice, dated 20.04.2012 for rupees zero, issued by OP No.1 in respect of the subject vehicle.
Ex.A17 is the copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 01.10.2009, issued by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, in respect of the OP No.1 company.
Ex.A18 is the office copy of notice dated 22.12.2012 got issued by the complainant to the Opposite party No.1 marking copies to Ops 2 and 3.
Ex.A19 is the copy of postal receipt.
Ex.A20 is the copy of postal receipt.
Ex.A21 is the copy of postal receipt.
Ex.A22 is the copy of postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A23 are the copies of e-mails, dated 17.12.2012 and 18.12.2012 addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.
Ex.A24 is the copy of letter dated 10.02.2013 addressed by the Opposite party No.2 to the counsel for complainant.
Ex.A25 is the copy of letter dated 12.03.2013 addressed by the Assistant Registrar, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi to the counsel for the Complainant.
Ex.A26 is the copy of orders in C.C.No.44/2013 dated 28.02.2013 on the file of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Ex.A27 is the copy of reply dated 04.03.2013 to the notice dated 22.12.2013 got issued by the Opposite parties to the counsel for the complainant.
Ex.A28 is the copy of letter dated 26.02.2013 got addressed by the Opposite parties to the counsel for complainant.
Ex.A29 is the copy of the news item published in the Economic Times, with a caption “JLR recalling 11,000 vehicles in China over faulty sensors”.
Ex.A30 is the news item published in Times of India, dated 18.07.2013 with the caption “Automobile firm, dealer ordered to replace faulty car”.
Ex.A31 is the copy of news item published in Mumbai Mirror, dated 09.10.2013 with the caption “Salman takes to Twitter to complaint about his fancy car”.
For Opposite parties :
Ex.B1 is the copy of job card dated 18.05.2012, in respect of the subject vehicle.
Ex.B2 is the copy of job card dated 17.12.2012, in respect of the subject vehicle complaining break down of the vehicle, vehicle not starting.
Ex.B3 is the copy of Tax Invoice, dated 21.12.2012 for rupees zero, in respect of the subject vehicle.
Ex.B4 is the copy of details for technical assistance: 907467, dated 18.12.2012.
Ex.B5 is the copy of Road Test report, in respect of the vehicle No.AP28BQ5455.
Ex.B6 is the copy of e-mails, dated 16.05.2013 , and 18.12.2012 addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite parties; e-mail.
Ex.B7 is the copy of letter dated 26.02.2013 addressed by the Opposite party No.2 to the counsel for the complainant.
Ex.B8 is the copy of Invoice, dated 26.12.2012 for Rs.46,594/- furnished by the europ assistance in favour of the OP No.1.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated: 27.03.2017
