Smt.G.Vasanthakumari, President

                        The complainant’s case is that, the first complainant was working as Senior Technical Assistant, Department of Botany, University of Kerala and was permanently residing at Kollam, that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are the manufacturers of TATA Indigo Car and 3^rd opposite party is the authorized dealer and 4^th opposite party is the authorized service centre of the TATA Indigo Car, that the first complainant decided to purchase the TATA Indigo Car on the notion that it is a good quality and free from defect, that accordingly first complainant decided to purchase TATA Indigo Car and paid Rs.10,000/- to Roopesh Sasidharan, the representative of Koyenco Motors as advance for booking the Indigo Car at Kollam, that on 17.04.2004 first complainant remitted the invoice value of Rs.4,33,460/- vide cheque in favour of M/s.Koyenco Motors Pvt Ltd and then the third opposite party issued invoice cum delivery receipt of a new Indigo GLX Car having Chassis No.601202CBZP25875 and Engine No.47757/44 CBZP 21291, that on 17.04.2004 the first complainant took delivery of the new Indigo GLX Car (Artic Silver) from the 4^th opposite party - St.Antony’s Automobiles, Kollam, an authorized service centre of TATA Motors, that at the time of delivery of the new car, the dealer is expected to handover the owner’s manual and service book along with car identification record, but those vital records were not handed over to the first complainant while taking delivery of the same, that to his repeated enquiries, he was told that  many owner’s manual and service books were missing from the office of the dealer and the same will be supplied within a short time, that after one month, the 3^rd opposite party issued the owner’s manual and service book along with car identification record, that to the surprise of the first complainant, it is learnt that the Chassis and Engine number  including the owner’s name and address were manipulated by erasing and overwriting in the car identification record, that the service coupons were seen issued in favour of another vehicle, that when this fact was brought to

(3)

the knowledge of Mr.Roopesh Sasidharan he has given an undertaking in writing that there were some confusion in the showroom of 3^rd opposite party regarding the service coupons and however they shall make all arrangements for getting the car serviced at any of their authorized service centre, that the alterations of very material particulars like chassis and engine numbers itself shows some foul play played by the dealer and however the first complainant has received those documents after expressing his protest, that in the mean time, the complainant registered his car and paid life tax amounting to Rs.18,800/-,  that he has also paid comprehensive insurance premium amounting to Rs.15,257/-,  that since the time of the delivery of the new vehicle from M/s.Antony’s Automobiles, there has been some electrical problem for the new car, that some bulbs of the car having been got burnt and those were replaced at M/s.St.Antony’s Automobiles  then and there, that on 21.04.2004, just two days of the registration of the car the reverse lamp was found not working and the first complainant had got it repaired at the 4^th opposite party’s workshop – St.Antony’s at Kollam, that after a few weeks, the left headlamp also burnt and it was replaced at Kollam, that on 23.06.2006, the first complainant brought his car to Kumaran Automobiles, Nagarcoil, which is another authorized service centre of TATA Motors, that they have done the usual first free service, but first complainant was forced to pay Rs.681/- , since the service coupon produced by the complainant was not accepted by them as it is not pertaining to his car, that on 09.07.2004 the right headlamp  bulb of the car was burnt and replaced at Kumaran Automobiles, and at that time the service technicians of Kumaran Automobiles noticed that there is some defect in electrical wiring system and the electrical wires and fuses were seen damaged and hence such damaged electrical wires and fuses were repaired, the complainant was told that the defects in the electrical system of the car  might be due to excess electric power emanated from the car and hence suggested to install a reverse horn in the car, that the complainant accepted the suggestion and accordingly a reverse horn was fitted in the car by spending Rs.430/-, that it is further learnt that there is some defect for the built-in timer and such defects were also corrected, that these series of defect occurring within a short span of time, made complainant to suspect that something is wrong with the electrical systems of the car , and as directed by the mechanic of the authorized centre, complainant brought the car to M/s. Kumaran Automobiles, Nagarcoil for expert repair, that complainant is told that there is some defect

(4)

in the electrical system and however the same was repaired at M/s.Kumaran Automobiles, Nagarcoil, that the repairing of electrical system of a brand new car was quite unexpected and complainant condoned the same anyway, that on 26.09.2004 the first complainant has reported all these matters in writing to the Sales Officer, Mr.Roopesh Sasidharan, that he has replied and acknowledged the confusion regarding service coupon and assured that they shall make all arrangements for getting the car serviced at any of their authorized service centers, that complainant was also suspicious about the infrastructure and expertise of the service personnel of the authorized centers of Kollam and Nagarcoil, and hence the complainant has decided to bring his new car to M/s.Manikandan Automobiles, Ernakulam for doing the second service and accordingly on 02.12.2004 the first complainant has been driving the car on  his way to Manikandan Automobiles, Ernakulam along with his cousin, the 2^nd complainant herein, in front seat, that at about 5.25 PM , complainant was about to  reach Manikandan Automobiles at Ravipuram, Ernakulam and he was driving along the Alappat Road from West to East, that all of  a sudden , fire was seen on the bonnet portion of the vehicle and immediately complainant stopped the vehicle,  that he became upset and within no time the entire car caught fire, that fire engine rushed to the spot on information and poured water and by this time, the front portion of the car caught fire and it was completely burned off and damaged, that the engine assembly, cylinder cover, engine room accessories, wiring harness, battery, A/C condenser, radiator assembly etc including the driver and passenger seat, dash board were completely burnt and melted, and the front portion of the vehicle is completely burned off, that on getting information the police reached the spot, prepared the mahasar and also registered a case, that the damaged vehicle was then taken by the officials of M/s.Koyenco Automobiles to their body shop at Padivattom, that the damaged vehicle is still lying at the yard of Koyenco Automobiles, that the matter was also informed to M/s.United Insurance Company, the insurer of the vehicle, who has deputed their approved surveyor and loss assessor, that he has inspected the vehicle on many days, that he had also taken photographs of the car in its damaged position, that as per the report, the vehicle had some electrical complaints/ defect in the wiring system and the fire intensively at an area where wiring harness is fixed, that according to him there is manufacturing defect in the electrical wiring system, that

(5)

during the survey it was observed that the minimum repair charge for the vehicle would be about Rs.5,36,116/-, that the repair cost of  vehicle by purchasing new parts alone costs Rs.4,85,268/- without considering the internal damage, and hence the company offered settlement of the claim for a total amount of Rs.3,79,500/- on cash loss basis, and since complainant had no other option but to settle the claim by settling the insured amount on cash basis, he was constrained to settle the claim for Rs.3,79,500/- excluding salvage value, that accordingly complainant received  net amount of Rs.3,79,500/- towards amount in full and final settlement and thus complainant has sustained a loss of about Rs.63,960/- towards ex-showroom price alone of the vehicle, that he also lost Rs.18,800/- towards lifetime tax and a sum of Rs.17,673/- towards extra accessories, Dintroll coating, repairs and other charges, that the mental agony and tension suffered by complainant due to the damage of this car is unexplainable, that the owner of the car was witnessed to see  his car burning in the middle of the road while driving and the car was hardly seven months old, that the first complainant has not so far recovered from the shock and grief from the damages sustained to the car and the second complainant too, who was a co-passenger in the vehicle, that the sole cause for the entire unfortunate incidents and consequential damages are due to the defective  manufacturing of TATA Indigo car manufactured by first and second opposite parties, that the incident also tells upon the quality and perfection of the product manufactured by the opposite parties 1 and 2, that it is unheard that a newborn car having seven months old caught fire and burned off, that the service agents the opposite parties have noted the defect in the electrical system, more particularly wiring harness system and they repaired the same, but in spite of that vehicle got complete fire, that by the grace of God, the complainants could save their life, though they were inside the car at the time of fire, that the first complainant was also accompanied by his cousin, the second complainant herein, who was also sitting in the front seat, that his  mental agony and shock due to this incident is also to be considered, that the mental agony, shock and the grief suffered by complainant, as the owner of the vehicle cannot be equated in terms of money, but for legal purpose it is fixed to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- , that the second complainant is also entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony, shock and tension sustained by him as he was inside the vehicle at

(6)

the time of incident, that the first complainant received a sum of Rs.3,79,500/- from the Insurance Company in September 2005 and thereafter the complainant was constrained to buy a new Maruti vehicle – WAGON –R, till that time, the complainant has been sustaining monetary loss by way of hiring taxi and rent a car, that the complainant is entitled to get compensation on that account also, which is approximately fixed to Rs.27,000/- @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of fire till the date of reimbursement of claim by the Insurance Company, that accordingly the first complainant is entitled to get special damages of Rs.1,42,690/- as per the Memo of Accounts shown below:

Memo of Accounts

Ex-showroom price of the Vehicle                                    : Rs. 4, 43, 460.00

Insurance Premium                                                         : Rs.     15, 257.00

Life Tax                                                                 : Rs.     18, 800.00

Dintroll coating charge & TPC coating charge                   : Rs.        7, 715.00

Extra accessories including seat cover                             : Rs.        5, 000.00

Repair & replacement charges since delivery of new car: Rs.        4,958.00

                                                                                        -----------------

                                                                   Total  : Rs.      4,95,190.00

Less Insurance claim reimbursed by M/s.United

India Insurance Co, towards fire claim                             : Rs.     3,79,500.00

                                                                                         ---------------

                                                Net Loss                : Rs.      1,15,690.00

Add – Loss on account of hiring of alternate vehicle

for 9 months @ Rs.3000/-                                      : Rs.         27,000.00

                                                                                         -------------------

                           Total Loss                                    : Rs.       1,42,690.00/-

                                                                                               ============

and that the complaint is to direct the opposite parties to pay the said sum and also Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the first complainant for the mental agony and tension and Rs.50,000/- to the second complainant.

(7)

The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed joint version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that it is not maintainable as the same is barred by

limitation, that as stated by the complainant, the cause of action for filing the complaint petition arose on 17.04.2004, the day on which he took delivery of the new vehicle and on 21.04.2004, the date on which the first alleged complaint with respect to the electrical fitting occurred in the vehicle, that as alleged by the first complainant the subsequent complaints in his vehicle occurred only because of his alleged defective electrical fitting, that the complaint petition is filed only on 12.06.2006, that is much after the period of two years from the date of the first alleged complaint in the vehicle, that the complaint petition is therefore liable to be dismissed as one filed out of time, under Section 24 A of the Act, that the first and second opposite parties do not admit that the first complainant is a consumer as defined Under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the complainant is not entitled to maintain the above complaint petition and is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, that the second complainant is not entitled either in law or on facts to maintain the above complaint petition along with the first complainant, that the first complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties  1 & 2, that the complaint petition is therefore liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of unnecessary parties, that there is no merit or basis in the statement of the complainant that he was trapped in buying the Tata Indigo Car, that the complainant had , after being personally convinced of the performance of the Indigo car, booked for the same, that he had personally inspected the vehicle,  that only after being convinced and satisfied with the same, he had taken delivery of the vehicle, that the complainant ever  brought to the notice of these opposite parties with regard to the alleged discrepancy regarding the entries in the owner’s manual, that the statement of the first complainant that he had received the document under protest is denied, that these opposite parties are not aware of the amount paid by the first complainant towards registration charges, etc, these opposite parties also do not admit of the alleged replacement of the electrical bulbs at the 4^th opposite party’s workshop, that the first complainant had approached    M/s.Kumaran Automobiles for some electrical check up in his vehicle only on 13.11.2004 after the vehicle had plied 9779 kms and they  had attended to the same to his satisfaction, that when the first complainant had taken his vehicle to M/s.Kumaran Autombiles on 23.06.2006  at

(8)

5098 kms and on 09.07.2004 at 5925 kms he had no complaint with regard to the electrical fittings in his vehicle and the other allegations in this connection are denied, that on the basis of the claim made by the first complainant, the Insurance Company had settled the matter in accordance with their rules and regulations and the conditions of the policy, that these opposite parties cannot be held liable or responsible for the deductions, if any, effected by the Insurance Company, that these opposite parties cannot be held liable on the basis of the surveyor’s report, that the vehicle sold to the first complainant do not suffered from any manufacturing defect and in view of the same allegation that these opposite parties caused mental agony, loss and grief to the complainants and thereby liable to compensate them are denied as misconceived and without merit, that the further claim of the first complainant on the basis of the alleged loss sustained by him on account of the amount settled by the Insurance Company, the amount spent by him for purchase of a new car etc is misconceived and without merit, that the claim is made  by the complainants without any bonafides and with ulterior motives and the complaint petition is only to be dismissed with cost to these opposite parties.

The third opposite party filed separate version raising more or less the same contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 & 2.

                   The 4^th opposite party filed separate version contenting that the 4^th opposite party is not a necessary party to this complaint, that the complaint lacks jurisdiction and for the purpose of creating jurisdiction this opposite party has been impleaded, that the 4^th opposite party is only one of the service centers of Tata Motors, at Kollam and it is not an authorized dealer of the cars produced by Tata Motors, that there is no cause of action against the opposite parties as the entire  matter has been settled by the first complainant with the Insurance Company and as such this complaint is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to the 4^th opposite party.

(9)

      The points that arose for consideration are:

(1)      Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

(2)      Whether the car manufactured and supplied by the opposite party 1 to 3 suffers from any manufacturing defect?

(3)      Whether the complainant has sustained damage on account of the loss of vehicle due to fire, if so, what is the extent of damage?

(4)      Reliefs and costs?

For the complainant PWs 1 to 3 were examined and marked exhibits P1 to P17 series. For the opposite parties DWs 1 and 2 examined. No documents produced.

Point No.1    : The first and foremost contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complaint is barred by limitation. Admittedly the car was purchased and delivered through the 4^th opposite party on 17.04.2004 and from the very beginning there has been continuous problems, more particularly the electrical problems and the car was subjected to repair on 21.04.2004, 23.06.2004, 09.07.2004 and 26.09.2004 and finally on 02.12.2004, the complainant has taken the car to the authorized workshop of the opposite parties at Ernakulam and on the way to workshop at about 5.25 p.m. the car got fire and it was burnt and damaged. It follows that, the car got fire within the warranty period. According to the complainant, the cause of action for this complaint itself is the fire accident of the car on 02.12.2004 and this complaint was filed on 12.06.06, which is well within two years of the cause of action and according to the opposite parties the first alleged complaint with respect to the electrical fitting occurred in the vehicle on 21.04.2004 and all the subsequent complaints occurred only because of the alleged defective electrical fitting carried out on 21.04.2004 and the complaint filed on 12.06.2006, is after the period of two years from the date of the first alleged complaint in the vehicle and as such the compliant is barred by limitation and is only to be dismissed. Considering the allegations and counter allegations, it can be seen that from the very beginning there has been continuous problems. On 21.04.2004 just two days after the registration of the car, the reverse lamp was found not working and the first complainant had got it repaired at the 4^th

(10)

opposite party’s workshop and after a few weeks the left headlamp also burnt and it was replaced at Kollam on 23.06.2004. The first service done at M/s.Kumaran Automobiles, Nagarcoil on payment of service charge Rs.681/-, since the service coupon produced by the complainant was not accepted by them, as it is not pertaining to the car and on 09.07.2004 the right headlamp bulb of the car was burnt and it was replaced at Kumaran Automobiles and when the first complainant has been driving the car to M/s.Manikandan Automobiles, Ernakulam on the way it got fire and hence the complaint. Even though the case of the opposite parties is that all the subsequent complaints in the vehicle occurred only because of the alleged defective electrical fitting carried out on 21.04.2004, they have not substantiated the same by adducing evidence. In this case, the first complainant was examined as PW1 and the second complainant as PW2 and the surveyor, who has conducted the survey of the damaged vehicle as PW3. But nothing was brought out in their cross-examination also to substantiate the above contention. As we have already mentioned, from the very beginning there has been continuous problems more particularly the electrical problems and finally on 02.12.2004 at about 5.25 p.m on the way to the authorized workshop of opposite parties at Ernakulam got fire. So it can be seen that there is continuous cause of action. More over, it is pertinent to note that on 13.01.2006, itself the complainant sent lawyer notice to the opposite parties claiming damages and compensation, to which the opposite parties sent the reply denying the allegations on 01.12.06 only. In that score also the complaint is within time and it is not barred by limitation and as such not hit by Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. Point found accordingly.

Point No.2 :-   The definite case of the complainant is that, the new car purchased by him from the opposite parties got fire and it was due to the manufacturing defects of the car. But it is denied by the opposite parties. Let us examine. Whether the car got fire due to the manufacturing defect or not? Admittedly, the new car was delivered on 17.04.04 at Kollam and after a series of repairs car got fire on 02.12.2004, which is within 8 months of the purchase of the car. It follows that the car got fire within the warranty period. In this case, as we have already mentioned, on 21.04.2004, the reverse light of the car was found not

(11)

working and the first complainant had got it repaired at the 4^th opposite party’s workshop at Kollam, by replacing the fuse of the electrical system. Ext.P4 receipt would substantiate the same. After that the left head lamp of the car was burnt and it got repaired at 4^th opposite party’s workshop. Then the first service of the car was done at Kumaran’s Automobiles, Nagercoil. Ext.P5 would substantiate the same. Subsequently on 09.07.2004 the right head lamp bulb of the car was burnt and the same was replaced at Kumaran’s Automobiles and at that time according to the complainant he was told by the service technicians of the Kumaran Automobiles that, there is some defects in the electrical wiring system as the electrical wires and fuses were damaged. It was further, told that the defect in the electrical system in the car might be due to excess electric power emanated from the car and hence suggested to install reverse horn in the car. Complainant accepted the suggestion and accordingly replaced all the damaged electrical system including cut outer, fuse, wire, head light etc by spending Rs.1,980/- towards the cost of materials. A sum of Rs.430/- was separately charged towards labour cost. Ext.P6 and P7 would substantiate the same. After that the complainant sent a detailed complaint to the opposite parties by virtue of Ext.P8 letter dated: 26.09.2004 requesting the opposite parties to discuss the matter with TELCO, the manufacturer of the car and to find out what is wrong with the brand new car. But, it is in evidence that the opposite parties have not taken any steps to inspect the car and to find out the defects. Thereafter the complainant decided to take the car to M/s.Manikandan Automobiles, Ernakulam which is the number one and biggest service centre of the TATA car and the complainant along with his brother was in the car and on nearing to the said workshop fire was seen on the bonnet portion and they immediately stopped the vehicle and gotout. Within no time the car got fire. On information fire engine rushed to the spot and poured water. By this time, the engine assembly, cylinder cover, engine room accessory, wiring harness, battery, AC condenser, radiator assembly and also seat, dash board etc completely burnt and melted. Police registered FIR by virtue of Ext.P10 and then prepared final report Ext.P10 (a). The photograph of the burnt car was marked as Ext.P11 and the media report of this incident was marked as Ext.P12. Ext.P4 to P7 would show that the car was subjected to repair more particularly for electrical systems. Ext.P8 is specific complaint made by the owner of the car in this respect. However, after the fire of the car, the matter was reported to M/s.United India Insurance

(12)

Company, with whom the car was insured and they have deputed their surveyor to assess the loss and also to know the cause and nature of damage. PW3 Dharamarajan, from Ernakulam was appointed to conduct survey of this damaged vehicle. He has prepared Ext.P13 report to the insurer. He has done a comprehensive survey of cause, nature and extent of loss of damage of the car. He opinioned that “the past service history of the vehicle shows that the vehicle might have some electrical complaints/defects in the wiring system. Moreover the fire affected intensively at an area where the wiring harness is fixed. This points towards the manufacturing defects in the electrical wiring system. In my opinion this might be the casue of fire. This states the cause of accident seems to be relevant with the damage observed”. It follows that that the vehicle has manufacturing defects more precisely regarding the electrical wiring system. It is pertinent to note that the surveyor was not cross - examined by the opposite parties. Accordingly, there is no reason to disbelief PW3, the surveyor and Ext.P13 survey report. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt.Lilabai DeviChand Jain ( 2009 (4) CPR 98 (NC) ) our Hon’ble National Commission held that “Surveyor report carries vital significance and cannot be brushed aside on untenable grounds “. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sh.Subash Kumar (2010 (1) CPR 265 (NC) ), our National Commission held that   “ In insurance claim cases, the detailed report of the surveyor cannot be ignored and it has considerable evidential value, unless it is discredited by producing evidence to the contrary.” In United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs M/s. Bharat Zinc Limited (2010 (2) CPR 34 (NC) ) Our National Commission held that “surveyors report forms a firm and independent basis for determining the loss occasioned to the insured.” The customer support Manager of the TATA motors, Cochin was examined as DW1.He has admitted before the Forum that he has not seen the survey report. He has also admitted that, they have not even appointed an independent surveyor after the survey by the insurance company. With the available evidence we have no hesitation to safely conclude that the car was having manufacturing defect and the cause of damage is due to the manufacturing defect of the electrical wiring system as spoken by Ext.P13 surveyor report and by PW3. Point found accordingly.

(13)

Point No.3

          The total invoice price of the new car was Rs.4,42,860/-. The insurance company settled the case on total basis by paying Rs.3,79,500/-.It is to be noted that thus the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.63,360/-. Apart from that the amount paid for life tax of the vehicle and repair charges till the date of accident are there. Ext.P17 (a) shows that on 22.09.2004 he has paid Rs.7715/- towards dintroll coating charge and TPC coating charge in Kumaran Automobiles. Ext.P17 (b) shows that on 13.11.2004 he paid Rs.1,854/- in Kumaran Automobiles for wheel cover, cable tie, car cover etc. Ext.P4 shows that on 21.04.2004 he paid Rs.13/- in St.Antony’s Engineering theatre for fuse.Ext.P5 shows that on 23.06.04 he paid Rs.681/-in Kumaran Automobiles for oil filter, engine oil, protector etc. Ext.P6 would show that on 09.07.04 he paid Rs.1,980/- in Kumaran Automobiles for fuse, wire, reverse horn, head light etc. Ext.P7 would show that he paid Rs.430/- on 09.07.04 in Kumaran Automobiles for cut outer, halogen bulb changing charges, reverse horn, horn fitting charges, full wash etc. He is entitled to get the above amounts from the opposite parties. Even though the complainant has prayed for taxi charges for 9 months in the absence of documentary evidence that is disallowed. Thus there is special damage to the tune of Rs.76033/-. He claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as general damages for the mental agony, tension etc suffered by him. It is true that he might have suffered mental agony and tension. Anyway he escaped from any burns. So, also while in vehicle, he was aware that, the car is suffering from some manufacturing defect. Compensation on that score is limited to Rs.5,000/-. So also the second complainant claimed Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and tension suffered by the second complainant, who was a co–passenger. It is pertinent to note that, second complainant is neither a consumer nor a beneficiary and he will not come under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act and so his claim is disallowed. Point found accordingly.

Point No.4

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.76033/- as special damages and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the first complainant as general damages. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to

(14)

costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order, in default it will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of order.

           Dated this the 31^st day of December 2011.

G.Vasanthakumari          :Sd/-

R.Vijayakumar      :Sd/-

INDEX

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW1                      ----Dr.S.Unnikrishnan

PW2                      …- K.P.Radhakrishnan Nair

PW3                      …  P.S.Dharmarajan

List of documents for the complainant

P1                         ……Cash receipt for Rs.10,000/- dtd :05.03.04

P2                         ……Invoice cum delivery receipt dtd :13.04.2004

P3                         ……Car Identification and record

P4                         ……Bill dtd:21.04.2004 issued by St.Antony’s Engineering company

P5                         ……Bill for Rs.681/- dtd:23.06.04 issued by Kumaran Automobiles

P6                         ….. Bill for Rs.1,980/- dtd :09.07.04 issued by Kumaran Automobiles

P7                         ……Bill for Rs.430/- dtd :09.07.04 issued by Kumaran Automobiles

P8                         …..Letter dtd: 26.09.04 sent by complainant to opposite party

P9                         …..Letter dtd: Nil issued by Assistant Manger, Sales Koyenco Pvt Ltd

P10                       …..FIR in Crime No.462/2004 of Ernakulam Town South Police

P10(a)                    …..Final Report Crime No.462/2004 of Ernakulam Town South police

P11                       …..Photographs

P12                       …..Newspaper cutting

P13                       …..Survey Reports dtd: 28.03.2005

P14                       …..Letter of settlement dtd: 18.07.05

P15                       …..Newspaper cutting

P16                       …..R.C.book of KL 1 A/c.9895

P17(a)                    …..Bill for Rs.7715 dtd :22/09/2004

P17(b)                    …..Bill for Rs.1854/- dtd :13.11.04

List of witnesses for the opposite party

DW1                      …..Shaji

DW2                      …..Leela.G