Kerala

Idukki

CC/178/2018

Raji Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager TVS and Sons - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

28 Jan 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 3.10.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.178/2018

Between

Complainant : Raji Joseph,

Theruvamkunnel House,

Karimkkunnam P.O.,

Thattarathatta.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

TVS and Sons,

Idukki Road, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O.

2. The Manager,

TVS and Sons,

Erattayar Road, Kattappana,

Kattappana P.O.

(Both by Adv: Shiji Joseph)

3. The Manager,

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd,

Mahindra Tower, Akurli Road,

Kandivali, Mumbai – 400 101.

(By Advs: Saji Mathew, Denu Joseph

Lissy M.M. and Neethu Reghukumar)

O R D E R

SRI. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. This is a complaint under Section 12(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(The Act, for short). Complainant’s case is briefly discussed here under : (cont….2)

- 2 -

2. Complainant had purchased a Mahindra Bolero Pick up vehicle manufactured by 3^rd opposite party, namely, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., shown to be represented by it’s manager. Both 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are managers of authorized dealer of 3^rd opposite party, namely, M/s TV Sundaran Iyengar & Sons Ltd. of dealerships at Thodupuzha and Kattapana respectively. Vehicle was booked from dealership at Kattapana and delivered by 1^st opposite party at Thodupuzha. Complainant had booked the vehicle after paying advance of Rs.74,400/- on 13.9.2018. At the time of booking there was a vehicle of similar classification on display in showroom of 2^nd opposite party. Complainant was made to believe that he will be given a brand new vehicle as the vehicle in display at dealership. Believing this, complainant had decided to purchase the vehicle and booked the same as mentioned above. Cost of the vehicle was Rs.7,28,000/-. Out of this, complainant was given a deduction of Rs.22,500/- towards exchange bonus. Complainant had also taken insurance of Rs.24,000/- for the vehicle. A loan of Rs.6 lakhs was availed for the purchase of vehicle from Sundaram Finance Ltd., which was arranged by 1^st opposite party. Vehicle was promised to be delivered on the next day of booking, however, it was delivered only on 17.9.2018. When complainant had come to take delivery from 1^st opposite party, he had noticed that the vehicle was rusted in many parts and soiled. Vehicle had looked like a flood affected vehicle. Hence upon insistence by complainant, a warranty was given by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to replace the same in case it was flood affected. Initially, complainant was not prepared to take delivery of the vehicle as it was rusted and soiled. However, opposite parties 1 and 2 informed him that the vehicle was brought from Kattapana, after taking temporary registration in the name of complainant and therefore it cannot be replaced or returned. Believing this, complainant had, after accepting the warranty, as mentioned above, taken delivery of vehicle and had then duly registered the same with Road Transport Authority, on 19.9.2018. Registration number of the vehicle is KL-38G-6766. Soon after taking delivery of the vehicle from the dealer, complainant has sent an e-mail to 3^rd opposite party informing him about the condition of vehicle and sought for replacement. Though he was informed by reply mail that the complaint will be looked into, nothing was done by them. Opposite parties had taken money from the complainant after assuring him that they will deliver a brand new vehicle as displayed at the dealership. Before taking delivery, complainant did not have an opportunity to examine the vehicle. (cont….3)

- 3 -

Records were also created hurriedly in the name of complainant. Complainant had no intention to buy a rusted and mud splattered flood affected vehicle. Before delivering the vehicle, it was run for considerable distance. Vehicle sold to complainant was defective. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. They had also resorted to unfair trade practice in selling such a vehicle to complainant. Therefore complainant prays for replacement of the vehicle and award of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He has also prayed for Rs.10000/- towards litigation costs.

3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have appeared. Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed separate written versions denying the claim of complainant. Case of 1^st opposite party is briefly narrated here under :

4. First opposite party admits that it was dealer of 3^rd opposite party at Kattappana and has a branch office in Thodupuzha. That it is incorrect to say that 1^st opposite party had arranged for finance / loan for purchase of vehicle. It is incorrect to say that the vehicle sold to complainant was not a brand new vehicle. Vehicle was driven from 3^rd opposite party’s manufacturing plant in Pune to Thodupuzha, a distance of 1480 kms. All commercial vehicles are brought to dealership by driving those from manufacturing plants. Owing to oxidation, iron parts of vehicle appeared to be rusty, which is a common occurrence. Just like all other commercial vehicles, complainant’s vehicle was also driven from the manufacturing plant to dealer shop. There after it was kept in an open yard. Though the vehicle was dirty, upon its arrival, it was cleaned before delivery. Engine room was not cleaned since washing with high pressure pump was prohibited by manufacturer as this will damage the sensors. Complainant’s vehicle is not flood affected. Commissioner who had inspected the vehicle has not found any signs of the vehicle being flood affected. A brand new vehicle was delivered to complainant which was road worthy. This has been certified by AMVI also at the time of registration process. Hence complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

5. No separate written version was filed by 2^nd opposite party.

6. Case of 3^rd opposite party is briefly discussed here under : (cont….4)

- 4 -

According to 3^rd opposite party, sale of vehicle to end customer is in the exclusive domain of dealer. Manufacturer is not involved in the same. Manufacturer sells its vehicles to its authorized dealers according to their demand upon receipt of consideration. Sale of vehicle by manufacturer to dealer will be complete by raising invoice and delivering the vehicle to dealer. Thereafter, the dealers who hold a motor trading license issued from Motor Vehicles Department of the State will sell the vehicles produced from manufacturers to end customers. Opposite party No.3 is not involved in delivery of the vehicle to any particular customer. Vehicles are delivered to dealers after required inspections, there was no defect in the vehicle delivered to the complainant at any point of time. Complaint is not maintainable for the reason that a manager of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. is shown as opposite party. M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is a public limited company. Directors or employees of company cannot be fastened with any liability for any of the transactions of the Company. 3^rd opposite party again reatriates that transactions between Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and M/s. TVS and Sons Pvt. Ltd. are on principal to principal basis. There was no transaction between 3^rd opposite party company and complainant. That apart, complaint relates to defect of a vehicle which was purchased for commercial purpose. Therefore, complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Allegations of the complainant, that the vehicle is rusted and flood affected, were not intimated to opposite party by complainant before institution of complaint. Complainant had purchased a Mahindra Bolero Pick up vehicle from opposite party No.1. after inspecting the vehicle to his satisfaction. 3^rd opposite party is not aware of financial arrangements / assistance availed by the complainant at the instance of 1^st opposite party or otherwise. Mahindra and Mahindra is selling its vehicles with specified warranty. Mahindra Bolero Pick up vehicles are having standard warranty. Terms of warranty are given in owner’s manual. Standard vehicle warranty is to the effect that the vehicle is free from defects in material or workmanship under normal use as mentioned in owner’s manual. Under the warranty conditions, authorized dealer will repair or replace any parts there of including all equipment of trade being limited to trade accessories except those components and parts covered by special warranty given by their respective manufacturers like that of battery, tyres etc. Warranty period is 365 days without any mileage restriction. To avail warranty, it is to be reported by authorized (cont….5)

- 5 -

dealer. Defect is to be proved to the satisfaction of 3^rd opposite party, however, 3^rd opposite party does not take responsibility for any defect which cannot be discovered by ordinary factory inspection. Complainant is well aware of the warranty as the same is given in the owner’s manual with him. Complainant is not entitled to make any claim as per the warranty given. It is incorrect to say that the vehicle was not looking like a brand new vehicle, that it had covered a distance of 1482 kms and in a shabby condition or that it was affected with flood. At the time of AMVI inspection for pakka registration, no defects were noticed by authorities. Vehicle was given for 1^st service on 14.3.2019 when it had run 4520 kms. At that time also no concerns were raised by complainant. Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Same is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

7. Complainant had, after filing this complaint, filed an application for inspection of the vehicle by an expert commission. This was allowed and the then Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector of Thodupuzha was appointed as Commissioner for inspecting the vehicle. Commissioner had inspected the vehicle on 17.10.2018 with notice to both sides and has submitted C1 report regarding its condition along with 11 numbers of photographs taken at the time of inspection.

8. Thereafter case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to tender evidence. Complainant has not tendered any oral evidence. Ext.P1 to P6 were marked on his side. Ext.P1 is photo copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle, Ext.P2 is copy of invoice, Ext.P3 is copy of insurance certificate, Ext.P4 is copy of e-mail sent by complainant to 3^rd opposite party, Ext.P5 is copy of replies sent by opposite party and Ext.P6 is a letter addressed to complainant by 1^st opposite party taking responsibility in case of any damage being caused were the vehicle is found to be flood affected.

9. No oral evidence was tendered by opposite parties 1 and 2. Area Customer Care Manager of 3^rd opposite party was examined on it’s behalf as DW1. Ext.R1, copy of warranty and owner’s manual was proved by him. Thereafter evidence was closed and both sides were heard. Now the Points which arises for consideration are:

(cont….6)

- 6 -

1) Whether the vehicle was defective in any manner ?

2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and whether they had resorted to any unfair trade practice ?

3) Whether opposite parties 1 to 3 are answerable to the claim of complainant ?

4) Whether complainant is entitled to get the vehicle replaced ?

5) Whether he is entitled for compensation as prayed for ?

6) Order as to Costs.

10. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

Learned counsel for the complainant has, in brief, referred to pleadings, addressed by complainant, which according to him, stands supported by Exts.P1 to P6 documents. Able counsel would submit that complainant had gone to take delivery of a brand new vehicle as displayed at the dealership, but was disappointed to see that the vehicle delivered to him was rusted and dirty. Opposite parties were liable to give him a new vehicle for the consideration received from him which ran into lakhs of rupees. Despite asking for replacement of vehicle, there was no response from opposite parties, especially from 3^rd opposite party. Therefore, a new vehicle should be directed to be delivered to complainant and he should be also awarded the compensation and costs prayed for.

11. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 would submit that the vehicle delivered to complainant was a brand new one. It had a sound engine and was road worthy. This is proved from Ext.C1 report. That apart, it was registered in the name of complainant only after requisite checks by the Motor Vehicle Authorities. As all commercial vehicles, Bolero Jeep / Pick up purchased by complainant was driven to dealership in Thodupuzha from manufacturing plant in Pune. Altogether a distance of 1480 kms were covered. Thereafter it was kept in open yard of 1^st opposite party, until the vehicle was delivered to complainant. Engine block and wheel hubs are made of cast iron, exposure to moisture will cause oxidation and a red stain like appearance will be caused to these parts. This is normal in case of commercial vehicles. Vehicle is still with the complainant and he is using it also. There is no defect in the goods delivered to (cont….7)

- 7 -

complainant. Nor was there any deficiency in service. Opposite parties including 3^rd opposite party have not resorted to any unfair trade practice. That being so, complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in his complaint. Same is to be dismissed with costs.

12. We have gone through the pleadings and evidence tendered in this case. It is seen from written version filed by 3^rd opposite party that it has also taken a contention that complaint is not maintainable as purchase was for a commercial purpose. That being so, complainant will not come within the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. It is mentioned in the pleadings addressed by complainant that the vehicle was purchased for use in connection with ‘Kammara” cultivation. Kammara cultivation involves raising of intercrops in rubber estates. That being so, there is nothing from the pleadings to deduce that purchase of vehicle was for any commercial use. No evidence is let in by 3^rd opposite party to prove that the vehicle was intended for commercial purposes and also used by the complainant for such purposes. Therefore we are of the view that contentions regarding maintainability will not survive. It is also contended that manufacturing company is not properly impleaded as it’s manager is arrayed as 3^rd opposite party in the cause title. This contention has lost it’s efficacy, since no motions were made in preliminary stages regarding misjoinder. Besides, manufacturer has appeared, filed written version, signed by it’s authorized signatory and let in evidence also. There is proper and effective representation of manufacturer in this case.

13. Coming to the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, it is pertinent to note that 1^st opposite party has admitted in its written version that vehicle purchased by complainant was driven from manufacturing plant in Pune to the dealership in Thodupuzha, involving a distance of 1480 kms. It was also contended that oxidation process, which causes a rust like appearance in cast iron parts of the vehicle, is a common occurrence in similar vehicles. However, none of the opposite parties have a case that these facts were divulged to the complainant before the vehicle was sold to him. It is the specific case of complainant that, he was made to believe that he will be given a brand new vehicle as the one displayed in dealership. Instead a rusted and dirty vehicle which appeared to be flood affected was delivered to him. This case of the complainant is to some extent admitted in written version filed by 1^stopposite party. If it were to be a fact (cont….8)

- 8 -

that commercial vehicles are driven long distances before delivery to the intended purchaser and that rusting of cast iron parts was a common phenomenon, as counsel would put it, due to oxidation process, then it was the bounden duty of 1^{st& 2nd} opposite parties to disclose those facts to complainant, before purchase. This has not been done and we would hold that such non-disclosure would amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.

14. As far as 3^rd opposite party is concerned, it has filed written version claiming that standard vehicle warranty as per Ext.R1 was given which is applicable in the present case also. If this is so, we wonder how 3^rd opposite party can avoid its liability to replace parts of inferior quality of the vehicle delivered to complainant. In its written version and also in Ext.R1, warranty given by 3^rd opposite party, which is termed as ‘standard vehicle warranty’, covers defects in material and workmanship under normal use as mentioned in owner’s manual. Now the question is that, what is normal use ? Admittedly, the vehicle was driven from manufacturing plant in Pune to dealership in Thodupuzha, which involves 1480 kms. Thereafter when the vehicle was inspected by the commissioner on 17.10.2018, odometer reading was 2068 kms. Thus total kilometers run as on the date of inspection was slightly more than 2000 kms. Commissioner has reported that at the time of inspection rust formation was found on engine block and upon both front and rear wheel hubs. Engine block and wheel hubs were of cast iron. Apart from those parts made of cast iron block, rust was found upon bonnet also on right hand portion near to front wind shield washer. Now bonnet is not of cast iron. It was supposed to be of iron or alloy metal, superior in quality than cast iron. Portion of the bonnet where moisture could accumulate was also rusted. All this rust formation was at a time when the vehicle had run only 2068 kms. Such rusting appears to us as untimely and not as a common phenomenon, as contended by learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2. None of the opposite parties have a case that vehicle was put to abnormal or unusual use by complainant. That being so, rusting of parts in such a short duration, both of, distance covered and time involved, appears to us as premature. Evidently, inferior quality cast iron blocks were used for manufacturing engine block and also wheel hubs. Similarly, metal sheets of iron used for manufacture of bonnet, like other panels were also of inferior quality. Therefore we find that the ‘brand new’ vehicle delivered to complainant was not of the requisite quality. Admittedly, vehicle was meant to be used as a pick up (cont….9)

- 9 -

and such vehicles are subject to worst working and climatic conditions. These are used in rough terrains and often will have to be driven beyond tarred or well formed roads. These are often parked in open. That being so, such vehicles should be manufactured, using materials of requisite quality which could withstand tough working conditions and ravages of nature.

15. And this is not the end of it. DW1, the Customer care manager who was examined on the side of 3^rd opposite party, has given evidence that vehicle was manufactured in the last week of July, 2018. It was delivered to complainant only on 15.9.2018, as per Ext.P2 copy of invoice. 1^st opposite party has filed written version stating that vehicle, after its arrival from Pune was kept in the open yard of dealership. It is pertinent to note that 2018 had witnessed worst ever floods which had inundated the State. The torrential downpour was the heaviest recorded in the history, except for the one experienced in 1921. During this time, vehicle was laying in the open yard of the dealer for a period of 15 to 20 days before it was delivered to the complainant. According to complainant, vehicle given to him was very much rusted and dirty. Therefore it had appeared to him as flood affected. He had initially refused to take delivery owing to this and later reluctantly taken the vehicle only upon P6 written guaranty / undertaking given by 1^st opposite party that the vehicle will be taken back and replaced in case it is found to be flood affected. 1^st opposite party would say that the vehicle was cleaned before delivery, excepting engine bay as high pressure pump could not be used to spray water inside, as this will damage the sensors. We find it difficult to believe the case so projected by 1^st opposite party that the vehicle was cleaned from outside before delivering to the complainant. If it were to be cleaned, in all probabilities complainant would not have insisted for Ext.P6 warranty. We are aware that complainant has not given any oral evidence. But then, what has happened in the yard of 1^st opposite party, is a matter within it’s exclusive knowledge. It was for 1^st opposite party to lead evidence to prove that vehicle was cleaned and serviced before delivery as it was driven for more than 1000 K.M. and kept in open yard for 15 to 20 days. However, no evidence was tendered in this regard by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

16. To put it shortly, the vehicle was driven 1480 kms before delivery, from manufacturing plant in Pune to the dealership in Kerala. Thereafter it was kept (cont….10)

- 10 -

unattended in the open yard of dealer, exposed to ravages of nature for nearly 15 to 20 days. It was then delivered to complainant in the same condition without even proper cleaning. Such acts on the part of 1^st and 2^ndopposite parties would certainly amount to deficiency in service. As far as contentions with regard to engine condition and road worthiness of vehicle are concerned, we would agree with the submissions of learned counsel for 1^st opposite party to the effect that registration of the vehicle as such is prima facie evidence of the vehicle being road worthy. Thereafter inspection by expert commissioner also revealed that the engine was working normally and vehicle was in running condition. Apart from this, admittedly, complainant is using the vehicle even now. Therefore we find that the vehicle was not flood affected. Its engine was running normally and it was road worthy also. However, as mentioned earlier, premature rusting of cast iron parts and bonnet of the vehicle would prove that the cast iron and sheet metal used in the manufacturing process were of inferior quality.

17. Third opposite party has taken a contention that transaction between it and 1^st opposite party was on principal to principal basis. That vehicle is sold by manufacturer to the dealer as sale invoice is raised for each transaction. Therefore 3^rd opposite party claims that it is not liable for the transactions between dealer and end customer. This contention may hold good in case of disputes regarding payments or amounts due with regard to sale between dealer and end customer, but not regarding the quality of vehicle manufactured by it. 3^rd opposite party has admitted that the vehicle is covered by standard vehicle warranty given by it, for which it is answerable, despite the fact that the vehicle was sold to the end customer. Ext.P4 is copy of an e-mail sent by complainant to 3rd opposite party. In the said email, complainant has specifically alleged that the vehicle supplied to him was used one and therefore it is to be replaced. Ext.P5 series, two in numbers, are copies or reply mail sent by 3^rd opposite party. Though an assurance was given by 3^rd opposite party that grievance of complainant would be looked into, nothing was done by it. That being so, we find that 3^rd opposite party is responsible for the supply of defective goods to complainant. It is also responsible for deficiency in service, in as much as nothing further was done apart from sending of Ext.P5 series, for alleviating the grievance of complainant. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are under the same dealership. Purchase as per records was from 2^nd opposite party. Hence it was the duty of 2^nd opposite party to ensure that vehicle was fit to be delivered to complainant. For these (cont….11)

- 11 -

reasons we find that both are responsible for deficiency in service. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have also resorted to unfair trade practice as all aspects of delivery were not informed to complainant before he had purchased the vehicle. Since these facts were exclusively with in the knowledge of these parties, they were bound to inform the complainant about the same. For those reasons, we find that opposite party No. 3 is liable for defect in vehicle mentioned above, deficiency in service, dealership company represented by opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable for deficiency in service and also for having resorted to unfair trade practice. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

18. Point Nos. 4 and 5 are considered together :

Complainant has, as first relief, sought replacement of vehicle. Evidence tendered would reveal that the vehicle was being used by complainant after taking delivery and it is still being used by him. We have already found that vehicle was not flood affected and that it was road worthy. Defects noticed were rusting of engine block, wheel hubs made of cast iron and a portion of bonnet. Ordinarily, in case of defective components, replacement of those parts would have been sufficient. However, in the present case this will not be sufficient as replacement also could be done only with components manufactured out of same cast iron and sheet metal. Same issues will arise again. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that complainant’s grievances can be redressed by ordering sufficient compensation in lieu of such replacement. Considering the parts involved and nature of defect, we are of the view that first prayer of the complainant can be substituted by ordering payment of costs involved, of components and labour, by award of Rs.50,000/-. Manufacturer represented by 3^rd opposite party shall be also liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service for not acting upon the standard vehicle warranty given by it for the vehicle.

19. It is also seen that the dealership had defaulted by not providing sufficient service and also by not representing the entire facts related to the vehicle before its delivery. Complainant had suffered mental agony owing to disappointment in being given a vehicle which was rusted and mud stained instead of a new vehicle. Considering all the facts, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.25,000/-is to be awarded to the complainant by dealer represented by opposite parties 1 and 2, on both counts. Point Nos.4 and 5 are answered accordingly. (cont….12)

- 12 -

20. Point No.6 :

Considering the circumstances, we are find that dealer represented by opposite party No.1 & 2 together are liable to pay litigation costs of Rs.5000/- and manufacturer represented by opposite party No.3 is also liable to pay same costs, to complainant.

21. In the result, petition is allowed in part upon the following terms :

1. Manufacturing Company represented by Opposite party No.3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant towards replacement costs, including labour, of the defective / inferior parts and also for deficiency in service with interest @ 12% from 15/09/2018, the date of delivery of vehicle till today and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of payment or realization.

2. Dealer company, represented by opposite parties 1 and 2,is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to complainant for deficiency in service and for having resorted to unfair trade practice, with interest @ 12% from 15/09/2018 till today and thereafter @ 9% per annum till date of payment or realization.

3. Dealer company, represented by opposite parties 1 & 2, is directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs, same costs to be paid by manufacturing company represented by 3^rd opposite party also to complainant.

4. Amount ordered to be paid as per clauses 1 to 3 above, shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to realize the same by proceeding against opposite parties and their assets in accordance with law. Send a copy of this order to parties by registered post for compliance.

Pronounced by this Commission, on this the 28^th day of January, 2022

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P, MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER (cont….13)

 

- 13 -

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Noel Antony

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - photo copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle.

Ext.P2 - copy of invoice.

Ext.P3 - copy of insurance certificate.

Ext.P4 - copy of e-mail sent by complainant to 3^rd opposite party.

Ext.P5 - copy of replies sent by opposite party.

Ext.P6 - letter addressed to complainant by 1^st opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - copy of warranty.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC NO.178/2018

 

Complainant : Raji Joseph,

Theruvamkunnel House,

Karimkkunnam P.O.,

Thattarathatta.

 

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

 

 

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

TVS and Sons,

Idukki Road, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O.

 

2. The Manager,

TVS and Sons,

Erattayar Road, Kattappana,

Kattappana P.O.

 

(Both by Adv: Shiji Joseph)

 

3. The Manager,

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd,

Mahindra Tower, Akurli Road,

Kandivali, Mumbai – 400 101.

 

(By Advs: Saji Mathew, Denu Joseph

Lissy M.M. and Neethu Reghukumar)