By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant alleges manufacturing defects to the motor cycle purchased from opposite parties. It is his case that on 15-11-2000 he purchased a Bajaj Saffire Model motor cycle and it was registered as KL/10 K 8701. The warranty offered at the time of purchase was for one year and it was later extended to another year. The complainant states that by running 50kms itself, the motor cycle showed complaints of emitting sound from the engine. It was taken to third opposite party who delivered it after a week after repairs. Again the same complaint developed along with leak of engine oil and on 04-12-2000 the vehicle was entrusted to third opposite party for repairs, and it took another week fro repair and delivery of the vehicle. After a month the vehicle developed the same defects along with complaints to starting motor. The vehicle was entrusted to third opposite party after intimating the engineers of first opposite party. The vehicle was returned after a week with assurance that the defects are permanently rectified. Within a few days the exhaust assembly broke and was entrusted for repair. Third opposite party rectified the defect. On 19-9-2001 there was complaint of oil leak and was rectified by third opposite party by detaining the vehicle for 15 days. On 06-10-2001 the vehicle developed complaint of gear slip which was rectified by third opposite party. On 18-10-2001 the motorcycle developed starting trouble and there was oil leak. On 30-10-2001 the exhaust became defective. Within a month the vehicle became idle on the way. On 22-11-2001 the vehicle again showed complaints of gear slip. On 22-12-2001 the exhaust again broke. On 02-01-2002 the gear showed complaints of improper functioning and gear slip. By a few days the silencer had complaints. On 23-01-2002 the vehicle developed several complaints like starting trouble, oil leak, gear slip etc. On all occasions when the vehicle was given for repair it was delivered only after much delay due to non-availability of spares. On 30-5-2002 the complainant paid Rs.72/- for repair charges as demanded by opposite party. It is stated that all these complaints of the vehicle are due to manufacturing defects. After the vehicle was last entrusted for repair to third opposite party, a letter was send by third opposite party on 13-8-2002 to take delivery of the vehicle. That complainant refused to take delivery of the vehicle because the defects were not rectified by opposite party. Complainant had send a lawyer notice on 24-7-2002 narrating the defects and claiming refund of purchase price. That the vehicle was purchased after availing loan from the Bank. That defects are manufacturing defects which occurred within one year of purchase during the warranty period. Hence this complaint praying for refund of Rs.34,385.81 being the purchase price of the vehicle and also for interest, compensation and costs.

2. The opposite parties together filed a combined version. The purchase of the motor cycle by complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that the initial warranty offered for the vehicle was for one year from date of purchase and that it was later extended to another year. Opposite parties have vehemently denied defects and manufacturing defects to the vehicle. Specifically denying the averments regarding defects and repairs it is submitted by opposite parties that when the vehicle was brought for service on 04-12-2000, no complaint of oil leak was reported by the complainant and that the vehicle was delivered the next day itself. That none of the defects stated in the complaint were reported to opposite party. Whatever defects were reported were properly attended and rectified as is seen admitted by the complainant. The exhaust assembly of the vehicle broke only due to improper driving and use of the vehicle. The minor complaints were due to improper use of vehicle. The vehicle is permanently used in bad roads. That in such areas the vehicle should be used with proper care or else bottom portion of the vehicle will hit against rocks, humpts etc and can cause, oil leak, break of exhaust assembly and loosening of nuts and bolts. The owners manual supplied along with the vehicle gives all specifications regarding ground clearance. That the roads in Malappuram District are poor and the rider has to use the vehicle carefully on such roads. The drivers in Malappuram District are below 18 years and do not care for the vehicle adequately. That the vehicle had no defects and the defects reported were due to improper use. The complainant had the habit of not taking delivery of the vehicle in time and several times opposite party issued letters and even by registered post requesting him to take delivery of the vehicle. The complaint is filed beyond the warranty period. The vehicle was used by the complainant for more than 2 years and the claim for a new vehicle is to make unlawful enrichment. Without prejudice, it is submitted that opposite party is willing to do necessary repairs of the defects if any on payment of charges. That the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed.

3. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A8 marked for him. The expert Commissioner was examined as PW1 in I.A.203/2009. On behalf of opposite parties the Service Manager of third opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 marked.

4. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite party has committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

5. Point (i):-

The grievance of the complainant is that the Bajaj Saffire Motorcycle purchased by him has manufacturing defects and that opposite parties have neither rectified the defects nor replaced the vehicle. The complaint is resisted by opposite parties denying any defect or manufacturing defect to the vehicle.

6. The purchase of the motor cycle and the price paid by the complainant towards the value of the vehicle is not disputed. The initial warranty offered for one year and the extension of warranty for another year is also admitted. Ext.A1 sales invoice shows that the date of purchase is 14-11-2000 Ext.A2 is the owners manual with warranty certificate evidencing the initial warranty of one year from the date of sale or till the vehicle has covered 12,000kms, whichever event shall occur first. As per Ext.A3 the warranty is extended to another year ie., upto 14-11-2002. This complaint is filed on 08-11-2002.

7. Complainant has pleaded in detail regarding the defects with dates of repair done which has been reiterated in the affidavit also. To avoid repetition they are not narrated again. Apart from the affirmations in the affidavit the complainant relied upon Ext.A2, Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 to prove the allegation of defects. On perusal of these documents we have to say that there are very little documents produced on the side of complainant corresponding to the dates of repairs averred in detail by him. Ext.A4 is an acknowledgement issued to complainant by opposite party when the vehicle was entrusted for repair on 02-01-2002. The next date on which the vehicle was given for repair as per Ext.A5 is 21-3-2002. After this date, admittedly the complainant has not taken delivery of the vehicle and has left the vehicle with the opposite parties. Complainant alleges that he did not take delivery of the vehicle because opposite parties could not rectify the defects of the vehicle. Against this opposite parties contend that the vehicle was ready for delivery after repair and that complainant abandoned the vehicle by not even paying the repair charges of Rs.72/-. That this complaint was filed 5 months later only with the intention of getting a new vehicle. It is also submitted by opposite parties that the complainant has used the vehicle for almost two years after purchase and that the vehicle has run more than 10,000kms within the first year of purchase itself.

8. The repeated complaints alleged to the vehicle by the complainant are, oil leak, gear slip, starting trouble, brake complaint, damage to silencer, exhaust assembly etc. As already stated though complainant avers and affirms that the vehicle was taken for repair to third opposite party on several dates and that these type of defects persisted even after repair it is not supported by sufficient documentary proof. Complainant does not state that opposite parties failed to issue documents. Not a single bill for payment towards repair charges or payment for spare parts is produced by the complainant. For that matter, he does not have a case that he spend any money for the repairs. Complainant has not put forward a case that all these repairs alleged by him were done free of cost each time by third opposite party. Even by the case of complainant the only amount demanded as repair charges was Rs.72/- which was for the repairs done when the vehicle was entrusted to third opposite party for the last time. Though complainant affirmed to have paid this amount during cross examination he changed his stand and deposed that he has not paid the charges of Rs.72/- demanded by opposite party.

9. To appreciate the contention that the vehicle had persisting defects, the counsel for complainant drew our attention to the counterfoils of the service coupons in Ext.A2. This document which is the owners manual contains the free service and paid service coupons. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that the defects/complaints to the vehicle were noted upon the counterfoils of the service coupons by third opposite party each time the vehicle was given for repair. It was submitted that these endorsements would establish that the vehicle had persisting defects as narrated in the complaint.

10. Per contra, the counsel for opposite party submitted that the endorsements stating complaints to the vehicle on the counterfoil of the service coupons were not entered by opposite party and that these endorsements are fabricated so as to suit the case of complainant. It was also submitted that there is no practice of entering the complaints made by the customer on the counterfoils of service coupons but that customer complaints are entered in the job cards. The customer will be given the first copy of the job cards and the carbon copy is retained with the dealer/third opposite party. To establish their contention opposite parties relied on Ext.B2 to B4. Opposite parties totally denied and disputed these endorsements.

11. We have given careful accord to these rival submissions and have perused counterfoils in Ext.A2 and also Ext.B2 to B4 job cards. In the counterfoil of first service dated, 04-12-2000 the endorsements made are 'complaints – engine trouble, oil leaking, starting trouble, gear slipping.' But as per Ext.B2 job card the customer complaints noted on the same date are 'to check speedometer, light assembly, fuel guage check, Brake handle adjust, abnormal sound check on running.' Needless to say that the complaints noted in Ext.B2 were minor complaints for which much repair and repair charges is not necessary. Whereas the complaints noted in ext.Ext.A2 counterfoil says engine trouble, starting trouble, gear slipping, oil leak for which definitely some extra repair work has to be done. Though complainant contends that the vehicle was retained for a week for repair on date of Ext.B2 it is noted that the vehicle was delivered after service on the next day itself. On a detail perusal of Ext.B2, on the reverse side it is noted that for the repairs/service done on 04-12-2000 the total charges paid by complainant is only Rs.124.41 ie., Rs.122/- towards price of oil and Rs.2.41 towards price of spares. Complainant does not have a case that he paid anything more on this occasion of repair. He has no case that when the vehicle was delivered to him after 04-12-2000 he was not satisfied with the repair/service done. Considering the nominal amount spend for repair on 04-12-2000 we have to infer that the endorsements on this counterfoil of 04-12-2000 stating major complaints to vehicle is not probable.

12. Complainant contends that the vehicle developed defects on running 50kms and that he entrusted the vehicle for repair to third opposite party prior to 04-12-2000. But as per the documents produced by him the vehicle was taken to third opposite party for the first time on 04-12-2000 and that too for the first free service. The vehicle as per Ext.A2 had run 659kms by this date. He again states that after the repair on 04-12-2000 the vehicle again developed defects within a month and that he entrusted the vehicle for repair again after intimating the engineers of opposite party. That the vehicle was then returned after a week. But there are no documents to support these instances of repair. From Ext.A2 counterfoils it is seen that the vehicle was taken to third opposite party after 04-12-2000 only for it's second free service. The date is not noted in the counterfoil but the kms run by the vehicle at the time of second service is 3761kms. This is not disputed by the complainant. Again on this counterfoil of second service coupon there are endorsements of complaints to the vehicle. These endorsements read as 'complaints – Broken silencer, starting engine sound – Broken kicker – oil leakage, Break complaint.' In the corresponding job card of second service is Ext.B3, the kilometers run by the vehicle is 3761 and tallies with that noted in Ext.A2. The date is 12-2-2001. Thus it is revealed that the vehicle was brought to third opposite party after 04-12-2000 only on 12-2-2001 and the vehicle has run 3761kms by the time of second service. The customer complaints noted in Ext.B3 job card are 'stating motor working to check, F/T sound (shield) Brake to adjust, Fuel tank cap 'o' ring fix properly, engine abnormal sound (above 40kms)'. On the reverse side of Ext.B3 it is seen noted that spark plug, spark plug cap, and Fuel cap assembly were replaced. No amount was paid by complainant and the replacements were done as part of warranty as seen from Ext.B3. If the endorsements made on the counterfoil of the second service is to be believed then complainant ought to have made payments for the repair of broken silencer broken kicker etc. No challenge has been made in this regard on the side of complainant. Again the complainant does not have a case that he spent any amount for repairs/replacements during this second service. The third free service was done on 19-3-2001 as seen from Ext.A2 counterfoil. The vehicle has covered 4601kms by this time. Thereafter as per Ext.B4 job card the vehicle was taken for repair on 20-6-2001. The vehicle has covered 7675kms by this time ie; within 7 months of it's purchase. This is not disputed by the complainant. The customer complaints noted in Ext.B4 are, 'oil leak through right engine bottom side, Rear touching sound from under HL/cover side sound rear, Tyre to rotate rear to front.' Necessary actions of repair are seen taken as per these job cards. Again the amount paid by complainant on this occasion of repair is only Rs.85/-. It is seen that the starter clutch assembly was replaced as part of warranty. The vehicle was thereafter taken for the 4^th service (paid service) as seen from the counterfoil in Ext.A2, on 19-9-2001. the vehicle had covered 9839kms on this date as noted in the counterfoil. No endorsements of complaints/defects are made on this counterfoil. As already stated the next dates on which the vehicle was taken to opposite party was 02-1-2002 as per Ext.A4 and on 21-3-2002 as per Ext.A5 which is the last occasion after which complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle.

13. Thus in total as revealed from the records placed by either side the vehicle was taken to third opposite party on the following dates:- 04-12-2000, 12-2-2001, 19-3-2001, 20-6-2001, 19-9-2001, 02-01-2002, 21-3-2002. Out of this the first three dates are the occasions when the vehicle was entrusted for free service by using the free service coupons and on 19-9-2001 the vehicle was entrusted for paid service. The counsel for opposite party submitted that entrusting the vehicle for the periodical maintenance of free services is entirely different from entrusting the vehicle for repair due to deects. When the vehicle is entrusted for periodical maintenance service usually oil check and change, adjustments and checking of brake and other systems are done. That these are done as part of the free service offered and not because the vehicle has any defect. This argument is not without force. The complainant though contends that the vehicle had major defects after running 50kms itself has used the vehicle for almost two years covering about 9839kms within 10 months of purchase. Even though he states that he had to take the vehicle for repair frequently to third opposite party he does not have a case that he spend money for replacement of parts or repair charges. The endorsements seen in the counterfoils of service coupons in Ext.A2 which the complainant wants us to accept and rely on are regarding major complaints to the vehicle. On considering the totality of the evidence adduced regarding repairs and services done tot he vehicle we have to say that these endorsements cast a shadow of doubt regarding their genuineness. Firstly Ext.A2 along with these counterfoils were not produced along with the complaint but at a very late stage of the case ie; on 10-9-2009. Secondly looking at the nature of these counterfoils it is seen that there is no space or earmarking to note down the customer complaints. It contains ear marking to fill in the date, kms and to affix the seal of the dealer. There is no space on the counterfoils to note down customer complaints and it appears that the endorsements are mussed up into the small space. Thirdly the pattern of hand writing and words used in the counterfoils entirely differ from that used in the job cards by third opposite party. The oral evidence of complainant in this regard is as under:

"Ext.A2-വിന്‍െറ counterfoil-ല്‍ ഞാനും എനിക്ക് വേണ്ടപ്പെട്ടവരൊ എഴുതിചേര്‍ത്തതാണ് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയല്ല. Complaint എന്നു എഴുതിയതിന്‍െറ താഴെ ഒപ്പില്ല. മേലെ എഴുതിയ pen-ലെ മഷിയുടെ നിറവും താഴെയുളള എഴുത്തിന്‍െറ മഷിയുടെ നിറവും വ്യത്യാസമുണ്ട് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയാണ്. "

From the above discussions we are unable to give credit tot he endorsements in the counterfoil of the service coupons contained in Ext.A2 document, upon which the complainant has laid major thrust to prove his contentions.

14. Apart from Ext.A2, to prove the case of defects the complainant had filed I.A.150/2007 on 28-12-2007 for appointing an expert to inspect and report about the defects of the vehicle. Sri. Harish Koya, B.Tech., Lecturer in Automobile Engineering, S.S.M. Polytechnic, Tirur was appointed as expert. Ext.C1 is the first report dated, 02-4-2008 submitted by the Expert Commissioner wherein the expert has reported that the vehicle has no manufacturing defects. The relevant portion of Ext.C1 is reproduced as under:

"I inspected the motor cycle thouroughly on 29-03-08 in the premises Bajaj Authorised Service Centre KVR Automobiles, Angadipuram, Perintalmanna in the presence of both the concerned parties. At the time of Verification I found that the following defects.

1. The battery of the motor cycle fully discharged.

2. Defective Ignition switch.

After rectifying the trouble, I started the motor cycle both Manually by using Kicker and Self starter by using the electric motor. The Road test of the motor cycle was conducted with the owner and Service consultant. During the road test I found that there is no troubles in the transmission system, the Power fully transmitted into the wheel without gear slipping. Brake system of the motor cycle is fully effective. There is no oil leakage and Engine damage. Hence I certify that at this time the motor cycle having no manufacturing defects."

15. Raising objections against this report, the complainant filed I.A.275/08 praying to set aside the report. After hearing the submissions put forward by either side the petition was disposed by remitting the report to the same Commissioner for further inspection. The Commissioner then filed Ext.C3 interim report dated, 12-12-2008 stating that the complainant did not co-operate with the inspection and refused to bring the vehicle to the venue of inspection suggested by the Commissioner. On 19-01-2009 both sides were heard on Ext.C3 interim report. It was submitted by the complainant that the vehicle is kept in the garage of third opposite party and that it is not in a pliable condition. That the tax and insurance of the vehicle is not paid for the last several years. As an amicable solution, this Forum directed the Commissioner to inspect the vehicle at the place where it is presently garaged. The Commissioner thereafter filed Ext.C2 report after his inspection as per directions of the Forum. The relevant portion of Ext.C2 report is as under:

"1) The battery of the motor cycle fully discharged. So I connect a new Battery and started the scooter both manually by using kicker and self starter by using electric motor, there is no complaint in the starting. It can be easily started.

2) The road test of the scooter was conducted with the service consultant. During the road test I found that there are no troubles in the transmission System, the power was fully transmitted to the wheel without any gear slipping.

3) Brake system of the scooter is fully effective.

4) There is no oil leakage and engine damage, no abnormal sound heard from the engine.

5) As the vehicle is in good condition, there is no need of any further road test."

16. Against Ext.C2 report the complainant raised objections and filed i.A.203/2009 to set aside the report. This was opposed by opposite party. The main allegations levelled against the Expert by the complainant in the affidavit filed along with I.A.203/2009 was that the Commissioner acted in a partisan manner and that he has not conducted any inspection. It was also alleged that the commissioner had worked as service consultant of opposite party and that he could not report against opposite party. An enquiry was conducted in this petition on 19-6-2009 and the Commissioner was examined as PW1. He testified in accordance with Ext.C1 and C2 reports. After perusing the evidence adduced in the petition and hearing the two sides this Forum by order dated, 09-7-2009 disallowed the prayer of the complainant seeking to set aside Ext.C2 report. However, in order not to deprive the complainant a chance to prove his case, and as we strongly felt that no purpose will be served by remitting the report to the same commissioner, the complainant was allowed a further chance to take steps for taking out a fresh Commission. The complainant was directed to file a fresh panel of experts for being appointed as Commissioner and the case was posted for steps to 22-7-2009 and 31-7-2009. On both these dates the complainant sought adjournments. Being a very old case the prayer for further adjournment was granted on condition of payment of costs of Rs.300/- by the complainant. On 22-8-2009 the complainant neither paid the costs nor did he take any further steps, for issuing a new Commission. Thus Ext.C1 and C2 are the only expert reports before us regarding the vehicle. It is pertinent to state that Sri. Harish Koya was appointed as Expert from the panel submitted by the complainant himself. Both Ext.C1 and C2 reports have stated that the vehicle has no defects and that it is in a running condition.

17. The counsel appearing for the complainant Sri.S.Prasad attacked Ext.C1 and C2 reports and submitted that the court is not bound to follow report of an expert blindly. The learned counsel relied upon the dictum laid in AIR 1994 Kerala 308 Law Society of India Vs. FACT and others. We do not have any quarrel with this submission put forward by the counsel for complainant. We do not think that we are bound to follow blindly the opinion of an expert placed before us. But when an issue comprises of a subject of which knowledge can only be acquired by special training or experience definitely the opinion of an expert has to be given it's due weightage unless proved to be totally apathetic.

18. Before analysing the expert report we have sufficiently adverted to the documentary evidence adduced on the side of complainant regarding the alleged defects and repair. The complainant has left the vehicle at the custody of third opposite party after 21-3-2002. Though he contends that it was because opposite party could not rectify the defects we do not appreciate this contention to be justifiable. He has not specifically stated what were the defects on the date of last entrustment of the vehicle for repair. He does not have a case that he went and checked the vehicle after the repairs and found that the vehicle had still defects. Admittedly opposite party had issued Ext.A6 letter asking him to take delivery of the vehicle. Two months later Ext.A7 notice was issued by complainant alleging defects to the vehicle to which opposite party has issued Ext.A8 reply notice again stating that the vehicle is ready for delivery and requesting the complainant to take the vehicle after paying the repair charges of Rs.72/-. But the complainant did not act accordingly. His deposition in this regard is as under:

1. "Ext.A6-ല്‍ demand ചെയ്ത Rs.72/-ക ഞാന്‍ അടച്ചിട്ടില്ല. ഞാന്‍ proof affidavit-ല്‍ Rs.72/- അടച്ചു എന്നു പ്രസ്താവിച്ചത് തെറ്റാണ്. 20 തവണ എതൃകക്ഷി സ്ഥാപനത്തിലേക്ക് warranty കാലത്ത് കൊണ്ടു പോയി എന്നുളളത് രേഖയൊന്നും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. ആകെ രണ്ടു രേഖയാണ് എതൃകക്ഷി സ്ഥാപനത്തില്‍ ‍കൊണ്ടു പോയതിന് ഹാജരാക്കിയത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയല്ല. അതിലെ ഒടുവിലെ രേഖ പ്രകാരം വണ്ടി repair-നു നല്കിയ ശേഷം പിന്നീട് delivery എടുത്തിട്ടില്ല. എന്‍െറ അന്യായത്തിന്നും proof affidavit-ലും പറയുന്ന തീയ്യതികളില്‍ വാഹനത്തിന്ന് കേടുകള്‍ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു എന്നു കാണിക്കുന്നതിന്ന് രേഖകളുണ്ട്. എന്‍െറ കൈവശമുളള എല്ലാ രേഖകളും ഞാന്‍ ഫോറത്തില്‍ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. എനിക്ക് ഇപ്പോള്‍ സ്വന്തമായി four wheeler- കള്‍ ഉണ്ട്. Two wheeler-ഉം ഉണ്ട്."

2. "ഈ കേസില്‍ Commissioner ആയ PW1 -നെ appoint ചെയ്തത് എന്‍െറ അപേക്ഷ പ്രകാരമാണ് appoint ചെയ്തത്. PW1 ആദ്യം വാഹനം പരിശോധിക്കുന്നതിന്നു വേണ്ടി ഓടിച്ചു നോക്കിയപ്പോള്‍ ഞാന്‍ വാഹനത്തിന്‍െറ പിറകിലെ seat-ല്‍ ഇരുന്നിരുന്നു."

3. "PW1 K.V.R. (എതൃകക്ഷി )യുടെ consultant ഒരിക്കലും ആയിരുന്നില്ല. PW1 തിരൂര്‍ Polytechnic-ലെ lecturer ആണ് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയാണ്."

The complainant though contends that the vehicle is in not in a running condition and has become idle, has testified that he was a pillion rider at the time when PW1 (Commissioner) conducted the first inspection and road test of the vehicle. This can only lead to the conclusion that the report of the expert that the vehicle is not having any defects is reliable and acceptable.

18. From the totality of facts, materials and evidence placed before us we are able to conclude that the complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour. We do not find any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The vehicle was attended and repaired during it's warranty period by third opposite party. The expert reports reveal that the vehicle is still in a running condition. Further the complainant has used the vehicle for almost two years and has runt he vehicle for more than 10,000kms during it's first year of purchase itself. On the occasions when the vehicle was taken for repair during the warranty period the defects have been rectified as is proved from Ext.C1 and C2 as well as the intermittent admissions in the complaint itself. Counsel for complainant laid thrust upon the decision laid in 2009 NCJ 522 (NC) Sona Auto agency (P) Ltd. Vs. Sasindra Nath Banerjee and Another. We fail to understand how this decision will assist the case of the complainant. In the said case though there was no report of expert it was undisputed that from time to time, the dealer attended and attempted to rectify the major problems exhibited by the vehicle after it's purchase. The recurrence of problems was proved by the complainant through the multiple correspondences he made with opposite parties. The complainant therein had left the scooter with the dealer due to continued malfunctioning. It was also found by the Commission that the vehicle had run only 300km within the first year of purchase. In the instant case before us there are two concurrent reports of expert and further the alleged defects do not stand provedby the complainant. Hence the decision do not have any application to the fact of this case. On such score we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

19. In the result we dismiss the complaint with costs of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred only) to be paid by the complainant to third opposite party which was already ordered on 31-7-2009 on condition for adjournment which the complainant did not pay till date.