BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
C.C. No.27 of 2014
Between:
Virender Kumar Thariboyana S/o T.Gopal
Aged 26 years, Occ: Employee, R/o Sy.No.164
Flat No.201, Mehana Heights, Allywin Circle
Madinaguda, Miyapur-500049
*** Complainant
A N D
- M/s Tejaswi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
(Authorized Dealers of TATA Motors & Fiat)
Plot No.4/14, Opp: Cyber Towers, Khanamet
KPHB Road, Madhapur,
-
Rep. by its Managing Director
- M/s Fiat India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
(Manufacturing Plant)
B19, Ranjangaon, MIDC, Industrial Area
Ranjangaon Taluk, Shirpur,
Pune District, Maharashtra
Rep. by its Managing Director
- M/s Fiat Group Automobiles India Limited
(Corporate Office) Benefice, 3rd Floor
Mathurdas Mill Compound, Lower Parel(W)
Mumbai-400013 rep. by its Managing Director
*** Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainants: Sri K.Krishna Mohan
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 M/s Indus Law Firm
Counsel for the Opposite parties No.2&3 M/s Sunil C.G.
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is a complaint filed under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund the complete amount of Rs.10,68,090/- being the cost of the Vehicle together with compensation of Rs.10,40,000/- in total an amount of Rs.21,08,090/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that complainant had booked a car Linea Dynamic manufactured by the opposite party no.2 by paying an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- on 22.06.2012 to the opposite party no.1 who is the sole authorized dealer. The said vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 29.06.2012 by the opposite party no.1. The complainant purchased said vehicle by availing loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the State Bank of India. The case of the complainant is that within four days of purchase he had found that the steering wheel was wobbling and the vehicle was dragging to one side. Immediately on 03.07.2012 he handed over the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 for repairs and the opposite party by keeping the vehicle for several days delivered the car to the complainant stating that the vehicle was rectified by doing wheel balancing and wheel alignment. Thereafter within a week as the wobbling had increased and steering was dragging to a side, the complainant complained to the opposite party no.1 who advised the complainant to run the vehicle for few days and that the defect would rectify on its own on using the vehicle. Even after following the advice of the opposite party no.1 the problem persisted and as such on 25.07.2012 the complainant handed over the vehicle with the same complaint to the opposite party no.1. After two days of keeping the vehicle the opposite party no.1 returned the vehicle stating that it had changed the elastic pads and dissembled and assembled the front studs and replaced them. Within a fortnight the same problem persisted he again on 09.08.2012 returned the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 . The opposite party no.1 returned the vehicle to the complainant stating that they have done front wheel alignment check and adjustments.
3. It is further the case of the complainant that even after running the vehicle couple of months the same problem persisted instead the problem increased day by day and as such the complainant was forced to return the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 on 24.11.2012 for the same complaint. The opposite partyno.1 by keeping the vehicle for 3 days returned the vehicle stating that the swinging arm, front lower wish bone including the bush was replaced besides wheel alignment. As there is no improvement even after the said repairs, again the complainant on 12.12.2012 handed over the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 with the very same problem and the opposite party no.1 retained the vehicle with them for 10 days and returned the vehicle stating that they have rectified and changed the items as mentioned in the complaint. The same problem again and again persisting and the complainant has again and again handing over the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.1 every time stating that they have been replacing the parts but they have not solved the problem permanently. Vexed with the problem in the vehicle and the attitude of the opposite party no.1 in not solving the problem permanently, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16.06.2013 calling upon it to replace the said vehicle and also pay the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- but there was no reply from the opposite party no.1. The car remained with the opposite party no.1 for almost 43 days and the complainant had spent an amount of rS.30,000/- on repairs yet the defects remained the same. The complainant finally on 19.11.2013 took the car to AV Motors Fiat at Jeedimetla Service Centre and pointed the problem in the car and the said service centre charged Rs.10,826/- for the repairs and even after the said repairs the problems still persisting. Hence, the complaint with reliefs as stated in paragraph no.1 supra.
4. The opposite party no.1 filed its written version admitting the booking of the car, availment of loan from the bank and subsequent delivery of the vehicle along with temporary registration and contended that on 03,07.2012 the complainant brought his car to the opposite party no.1 and complained that the steering wheel was wobbling and the vehicle was dragging to one side and the opposite party no1. Adjusted the wheel alignment and wheel balancing and delivered the car. The complainant run the vehicle for 15 days without any problem and again he visited the opposite party no1 25.07.2012 and the opposite partyno.1 personnel had changed the elastic pads both left hand side and right hand side and dissembled and assembled the front studs and replaced them and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 27.07.2012 and after satisfying with the repairs he had taken delivery of the car. On 09.08.2012 the complainant again brought the said vehicle to the opposite party no.1 and requested to do wheel alignment and wheel balancing and accordingly carried out the same.
5. The complainant used the vehicle for a period of 3 months without any problem and again came on 24.11.2012 and the opposite party no.1 had replaced the swinging arm for both the left and right hand sides. The complainant on 12.12.2012 brought the vehicle with various complaints and the job card details furnished by the complainant shows the repairs carried out by the opposite party no.1. Whenever the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite partyno.1 its personnel done their job with due care and caution and satisfied the complainant and the complainant had taken delivery of the car each time only when he satisfied with the services and taken the delivery of the car. Hence, the opposite partyno.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The opposite party no.2 filed its written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under CP Act. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no privity of contract between the opposite partyno.2 and the complainant. The opposite party no.1 was an authorized dealer of Tata Motors Limited. Tata Motors Limited used to purchase Fiat branded cars from the opposite partyno.2 and sell them to its authorized dealers as such there is no privity of contract even between the opposite party no.2 and opposite partyno.1. The complaint filed against it suffers from mis-joinder of parties.
7. The vehicle is subjected to stringent quality tests including road tests before being purchased by Tata Motors for its onward sale/distribution. If there is even some minor defect in the vehicle, Tata Motors out rightly rejects to buy such vehicle from the opposite party no.2. Mere informing the apprehended problems/recording them on the job cards at the service station does not substantiate the allegations made by the complainant and has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Even as per the terms of warranty, which is as good as a contract between the manufacturer and the customer, if during the warranty period any part of the vehicle is found faulty or beyond repairs to the satisfaction of the opposite partyno.2 at the most such part can be replaced and not the entire vehicle. Therefore, the demand made by the complainant is even beyond the terms of warranty. The complainant purchased the vehicle in the month of June 2012 and he has filed the complaint on 30.01.2014 i.e., almost after using the vehicle for one year and 7 months. Had there been any manufacturing/serious defect in the vehicle of the complainant it would have been impossible for him to use the vehicle even for a single day. The complainant has also not produced on record any approved laboratory’s report to substantiate his allegation about the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Hence, the opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. The opposite party no.3 filed its written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant cannot be considered as a ‘ consumer’. There is no privity of contract between the opposite party no.3 and the complainant. The relationship between the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.3 are on principal to principal basis and as such the opposite party no.1 is not an agent of the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 is not held responsible or liable for any of acts of the opposite partyno.1. The alleged problem faced by the complainant regarding wobbling in the steering wheel can happen due to various reasons due to the usage of the vehicle and defect if any occurred to the vehicle subsequent to the usage of the same cannot be put on the shoulders of the opposite partyno.3. The relief sought in the complaint is liable to be rejected on the above said grounds against the opposite party No.3. Hence, the opposite party no.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. On his behalf, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A40. On behalf of the opposite party no.1, the General Manager has filed his affidavit. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 have not filed any evidence affidavits. The opposite parties have also not filed any documents in support of their case.
10. The complainant present in person. No representation for opposite partyno.1. Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 present and filed written arguments. Heard the complainant and the counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3.
11. The points for consideration are:
- Whether the complainant proves that he is a consumer within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not carrying out the repairs to the defects pointd out by the complainant?
- If so to what relief?
12. Point No.1 : The counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 would contend that the complainant cannot be considered as a ‘ Consumer’ as defined under C.P.Act, 1986. The instant complaint has been filed by the owner of the car seeking compensation or refund of the cost of the car because of various defects including the manufacturing defect as defined by Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Word defect has been defined by Section 2(1)(f) as under :-
Defect means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
13. Similarly the word deficiency in service has been defined by Section 2(1)(g) as under :-
Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
14. Section 14 of the Act entitles a consumer to seek any one or more of the following reliefs in case allegations are proved :-
(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;
(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant;
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:
[Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;]
(e) to[remove the defects in goods] or deficiencies in the services in question;
15. As is apparent from the definition of word defect, defect in a vehicle does not necessarily mean inherent manufacturing defect for the purpose of declaring a vehicle defective. Any fault, imperfection or shortcoming demonstrated by the circumstances of nature of defects, job cards and visits to the garage for removing one defect or the other are the determining criteria. Thus such damages for manufacturing defect is no bar to decide the reliefs as provided by Section 14 of the Act.
16. Section 3 provides as under :-
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
17. Therefore, it is not proper to say that the complainant is not a consumer and as such the Consumer Fora/State Commission has no jurisdiction. The damages for manufacturing defect in the vehicle is no bar to decide the reliefs as provided by Section 14 of the Act.
18. POINTS NO.2 and 3: The counsel for the complainant very vehemently submitted that there is a manufacturing defect, therefore, replacement of the car or the payment of the cost of the car amounting to Rs.3,82,436/- be made. On the other hand it is argued by the Counsel for the OPs that there is no manufacturing defect at all. It may be stated at this stage that neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have filed any evidence to show as to what is the manufacturing defect in the car in question and the burden lies on the complainant to establish that there is manufacturing defect in the car in question so as to seek relief of the replacement of the car. It may be revealed here that the complainant has not filed any expert evidence to point out as to what was the manufacturing defect.
19. The complainant submitted that he booked a car on 22.06.2012 by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite partyno.1 who is the sole authorized dealer in Hyderabad for Fiat Company of cars and the complainant took delivery of the car on 29.06.2012 by paying an amount of Rs.8 lakhs after having finance from the Bank. The main allegation of the complainant is that within four days of purchase of the car he had found that the steering wheel was wobbling and the vehicle was dragging to one side and the same was complained to the opposite party no.1 on 30.07.2012. The opposite partyno.1 after keeping the said car for 4 days delivered it stating that the vehicle had been rectified of its faults. Like, that the complainant had given the vehicle with persistent problem to the opposite party no.1 seven times for days together but the opposite party no.1 could not rectify the said defects of the vehicle.
20. On the other hand the opposite party no.1 contended that whenter the complainant brought the subject vehicle to the opposite party no.1, the opposite party personnel done their job with due care and caution and to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant had taken the car each time only when he satisfied with services and taken the delivery of the car and as such there is no negligence on its part.
21. The opposite party no.2 and 3 contended the alleged problem faced by the complainant regarding wobbling in the steering wheel can happen only due to mishandling of the vehicle and the same cannot be called as a defect much less a manufacturing defect. The complete transaction with respect to the alleged complaint was between the opposite partyno.1 and the opposite party no.2 in no manner involved or responsible for the repairs of the vehicle carried out by the opposite party no.1. They also contended that mere apprehensions on the job cards at the service station is not conclusive to prove that the apprehended problem actually exists in the vehicle. Actual existence of the problem can only be established after proper examination of the vehicle by the duly qualified and competent service person.
22. Admittedly the complainant took delivery of the car on 29.06.2012 and as per record the complainant took the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 on 09.08.2012 for first free service. Ex.A9 is the copy of tax invoice dated 09.08.2012 wherein it was mentioned that they done the front wheel alignment check and adjust for free of cost. Ex.A10 is the copy of tax invoice dated 27.11.2012 wherein the personnel of the opposite party no.1 replaced both the left and right swinging arms, R/R Front Lower Wishbone and also done front wheel alignment. Ex.A11 is the copy of tax invoice dated 22.12.2012 wherein it is shown replacement of brake pad set, Gas spring Rear Prop. Mirror Glass LH, Wheel Arch Protection Front LH Brake Disc, hatch back/bonnet balancer with pins, remove & install brakedisc (each side), replace Braker pad L.H. Side R/p, Fitment charges fender lining R/P and replace brake pad R.H.Side R/P and the opposite party no.1 charged Rs.776.69 as the vehicle was in the warranty period. Ex.A12 is the copy of job card dated 21.02.2013 wherein the complaints of the complainant are that Steering wobbling for that the opposite party no.1 had done wheel alignment, balance wheel, standard checks etc. for free of cost. Ex.A13 is copy of tax invoice dated 13.02.2013 wherein the opposite party no.1 had done bumper front, Assy. Front fog lamp, fog grill LH, Sheet metal welding/repair front, sheet metal welding/repair, fender denting, sheet metal welding/repair front door R/RF, sheet metal welding/repair LH Front door R/RF, Sheet metal welding/repair LH front door denting, sheet metal welding door painting, sheet metal and for that the opposite partyno.1 collected Rs.11,789/-. Ex.A17 is the copy of assurance letter dated 19.03.2013 of the opposite partyno.1 to the complainant which reads as under:
First of all we deeply regret for the inconvenience caused
With reference to the above subject history of the case at our workshop
On 27/07/2012 at 3,033 kms, vehicle reported with complaints of vehicle pulling to one side and suspension noise
Action Taken: In our test drives we have checked and observed there is a defect in the front elastic pad. So replaced the same and rectified the complaints.
On 09.08.2012 at 5,123 kms, vehicle reported for first free schedule service.
Action Take: in our test drives we have checked and service done as per the schedule
On 06.012.2012 at 8.663 kms, vehicle reported with the running complaints of steering wobbling and under carriage noise
Action Taken: in our test drives we have checked and observed there is a defect in the lower arm, so replaced the same and rectified the complaints
Note: Also observed abnormal tyre wear, informed same to customer for replacement
On 22/12/2012 at 21,159 kms, vehicle reported with running complaints of steering wobbling, brake complaint and door lock problem.
Action Taken: in our test drives we have checked and replaced the brake discs, brake pads and rectified the brake complaint, adjusted the door lock and rectified the complaint. Steering wobbling complaint related with the uneven tyre wear was informed the same to customer for replacement.
On 13.02.2013 at 25,397 kms vehicle reported for body repairs
Action Taken: Jobs done as per the damages under insurance
On 21/02.2013 at 25,512kms vehicle reported with running complaints of vehicle pulling and jerking while applying brakes, Blue & Me nor working, Steering Wobbling
Action Taken: In our test drives we have checked and replaced wheel discs, wheel alignment and wheel balancing done and rectified the steering wobbling and vehicle pulling complaints, checked and observed blue & Me operation working as per standards (Air bag complaint not attended due to parts unavailability, same informed to customer that we will attend after receiving part)
As such there is no technical concern in the vehicle based on our Technical observations and trails during the service visits.
After discussions with FIAT/TATA Motors officials, we confirmed that problem has been resolved and vehicle is performing according to manufacturing standards.
23. A perusal of the service history of the car mentioned in the above documents goes to show that the complainant mainly report about problem of steering wobbling and the opposite party no.1 made replacement of the spare parts of the car during the process of repair.
24. Not only that the letter addressed by the opposite party no.1 Ex.A17 to the complainant discloses the complaints made by the complainant and the action taken by the opposite party no.1. A overall perusal of the documents placed on record establish that the vehicle posed the problem of steering wobbling and the opposite party no.1 attended to the problems, however, not to the satisfaction of the complainant as such this Commission finds substance in the contention of the complainant that the vehicle posed the problem of steering wobbling. However, posing the said problem by the vehicle does not mean that the vehicle is inherently defective and need to be replaced with a new vehicle.
25. The Counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have advanced a submission that there is no expert report filed by the complainant to show that the car in question is having manufacturing defect, therefore, complainant is not entitled to claim any relief. It is true that there is no expert report to show that there was a manufacturing defect and neither the complainant nor the opposite parties moved an application to this effect that the car in question may be examined by expert. If there is no expert report, it does not mean that the car in question is not having manufacturing defect. It has been held by Honble National Commission in Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. Kirit Kumar Jagjivan Das Patel III (2005) CPJ 86 (NC) that if no affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties denying manufacturing defect by the expert, it does not mean that the vehicle in question was not having any manufacturing defect. It has also been observed by the Honble National Commission in Scooters India Ltd & anr. vs Madhabananda Mohanty & Ors II (2005) CPJ 136(NC) that 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 defect. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, it is not necessary to file the expert evidence in order to come to conclusion whether the vehicle in question having the manufacturing defect. In this case the averment made by the complainant is that the vehicle in question is having the manufacturing defect. The said defect specifically admitted by the opposite party no.1 in his letter Ex.A17 but it stated that the defects have been removed or rectified whenever the car is brought to the service station of the opposite partyno.1, and if there is any need, the spare parts were also changed. The net result is that during the period of about one year, the vehicle in question which was purchased by the complainant for Rs.8,88,630/- after spending the considerable amount, was taken to this service station number of times. The complainant has also filed Tax Invoices and job cards which goes to show that there is a defect of steering wobbling or vehicle pulling to one side and suspension noise and the opposite party no.1 even replaced various parts to rectify the problem and the complainant also spent some amount for getting it repaired. All these facts are not disputed by any of the party.
26. The Hon’ble National Commission in Nachiketa P Shirgaonkar vs. Pandit Automotive Ltd. & anr III (2008) CPJ 308 (NC) held that
“ in todays world there are several manufacturers and they have flooded the market with several brands of vehicles. They are also alluring the customers by issuing advertisements in the print and electronic media making huge claims about the capacity and quality of their vehicles. Naturally, encountered with these problems the consumer must have been shell shocked compelling him to knock at the doors of the Consumer Forum. Even before the Consumer Forum in the written submission filed by OP1 there is a clear admission of the manufacturing defects. Hence, we are convinced that the vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects. There is a clear case of res ispa loquitur i.e. facts speak themselves hence there is no need to refer the vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion.
27. It is, therefore, clear that the vehicle, which was purchased in June, 2012 and has covered 25,512 Kms., was taken number of times to the Service Station within a period of one year having the defect, of course the opposite partyno.1 was replaced some of the parts and the complainant had to incur some amount on such repairs.
28. The counsel for the opposite partyno.1 had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Sushila Automobiles Pvt Ltd., vs Dr.Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors wherein the National Commission held that for replacement by a new vehicle, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert automobiles/mechanic engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. In the absence of any such report the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to remove of the defect/or replacement of the parts. When the opposite party no.1 itself admits that there is defect in car with regard to steering wobbling perhaps it may be due to various reasons and to that effect the opposite party no.1 also replaced/repaired some parts. If the vehicle did not pose such problem why the opposite party no.1 replaced the said parts within one year of the purchase of the said vehicle.
29. Even if it is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the vheicle in toto cannot be ordered to be replaced in view of the judgment of the Honble Surpeme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs Susheel Kumar Gabtora reported in AIR 2006 SCC 1586 wherein the Supreme Court opined that warranty condition referred only to the replacement of the defective part and not of the car. In another case, the Honble National Commission held in M/s TELCO Ltd., another Vs. M.Moosa, 1986-94 page 1367 (NS) that the section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act authorizes the forum to have the defects removed even if there are numerous defects which can be rectified and that it will be very hard on the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defects appear which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court we do not find the complainant entitled to the refund of its cost. As there was defect found in the vehicle or established by the complainant, it goes without saying that the service rendered by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 does not meet the standard requirement meant therefor. The complainant sought for refund of the cost of the car but in view of the above said judgment we are not inclined to award cost of the vehicle instead we direct the opposite parties to repair/replace the parts which cause the problem of steering wobbling within a fortnight to the complainant in a roadworthy condition duly certified by an automobile engineer. The complainant also entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him.
In the result, the complaint is allowed holding and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 jointly and severally to repair/replace the parts which causes the problem of steering wobbling within a fortnight to the complainant in a roadworthy condition duly certified by an automobile engineer and the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
14.11.2017
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
For complainant
Ex.A1 Copy of receipt dated 22.06.2012
Ex.A2 Copy of commitment form
Ex.A3 Copy of price list w.e.f. 01.04.2012
Ex.A4 Copy of arrangement letter
Ex.A5 Copy of Electronic Clearing Service (Debit Clearing) Form
Ex.A6 Copy of Tax invoice
Ex.A7 Copy of Temporary Registration certificate of Registration
Ex.A8 Copy of Tax Receipt dated 05.07.2012
Ex.A9 Copy of Tax Invoice 09.08.2012
Ex.A10 Copy of Tax Invoice dated 27.11.2012
Ex.A11 Copy of Tax Invoice dated 22.12.2012
Ex.A12 Copy of Job Card dated 21.02.2013
Ex.A13 Copy of Tax Invoice dated 13.02.2013
Ex.A14 Copy of Job Card dated 21.02.2013
Ex.A15 Copy of Tax Invoice dated 22.12.2012
Ex.A16 Copy of letter dated 29.06.2012
Ex.A17 Copy of Assurance Letter dated 19.03.2013
Exs.A18 to A37 Copies of email correspondence between the parties
Ex.A38 Copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2013
Ex.A39 Copy of Spare Parts Invoice
Ex.A40 Copy of labour invoice
For opposite parties
NIL
PRESIDENT MEMBER
