KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURA
OP No. 08/2005
JUDGMENT DATED: 20.1.2011
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
T.R. Raghu,
28/2465Ponoth Temple Road,
Kadavanthra, Kochi – 20. -- COMPLAINANT
(By Adv.C.K.Pavithran & Ors.)
Vs.
1. M/s.JCB India Ltd.,
23/7, Mathura Road,
Ballabgarh, Pin 121 004,
Haryana.
2. The Managing Director, -- RESPONDENTS
India Techs Ltd.,
39/4006, Kelmer’s Complex,
Sreekandath Road,
Ravipuram, Kochi-16.
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
2. The complainant purchased JCB JS-75 Tracked Excavator bearing Machine No. 109073 from the first opposite party through their authorized dealer the second opposite party on 23rd August 2003. The machine was having warranty certificate issued by the first opposite party for 12 months or 2000 hours whichever is earlier from the date of purchase. The machine was purchased paying nearly Rs. 24,00,000/-. Immediately after purchase the machine developed manufacturing defects and other material defects. By the letter dated 18-12-2003 the opposite parties were informed about the defects. Cabin foundation side crack, bucket adaptor crack, IDLAR shake and bucket crack were the defects. The Service Engineer of the second opposite party inspected the vehicle; but he could not do anything regarding the crack, which was noticed. He advised for use of only OEM approved grease. The complainant has only used high quality grease. The aforesaid suggestion was made in order to find fault with the complainant. Since no action was taken on the complaint regarding cracks on the cabin foundation, bucket crack etc, the complainant sent letter dated 25-02-04 explaining his grievance to the opposite parties. The second opposite party by the letter dated 22-03-2004 alleged misuse of the machinery in rocky sites against warranty conditions and only because of that misused the crack was developed. The aforesaid allegation was not true. The complainant never misused the machine so as to spoil the machine which was purchased by spending Rs. 24 lakhs. No reply was furnished by the first opposite party, the manufacturer of the machinery. The second opposite party arranged to weld and join the broken cabin and bucket as a face saving activity, ignoring the objection raised by the complainant. The cracks found on the machinery is a manufacturing defect and the same cannot be repaired and that the machine requires replacement. Even during the warranty period the complainant was forced to purchase materials like shine plate, bush, dipper seal, seal dust etc for replacement and repair. He was forced to spend a sum of Rs. 40,710/- towards purchase of materials during the warranty period. The complainant sent notice dated 21-07-2004 demanding replacement of machinery and refund of Rs. 40,710/- which was obtained by the second opposite party during the warranty period. The second opposite party by letter dated 06-10-2004 declined the request. No reply was received from the first opposite party. The opposite party is duty bound to replace the machinery because of the fact that the damage was caused due to the manufacturing defect during the warranty period. The refusal to replace the machinery is a defective service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant suffered much mental agony and financial loss due to the aforesaid defective services of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained due to the manufacturing defect of the machinery. The cause of action for the complaint arose on 23-08-2003, the date on which the machinery was purchased and thereafter on 18-12-2003 when the defect in the machinery was noted and also on 22-03-2004, 06-10-2004 the dates on which the request of the complainant was negatived. Therefore, the complainant claimed replacement of the machinery with immediate effect by the first opposite party and also for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and refund of Rs. 40,710/- which the complainant spent during the warranty period. He has also claimed a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. He also claimed cost of the complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint in OP No. 08/2005 was served on opposite parties 1 and 2 and they entered appearance through Counsel of their choice.
4. The first opposite party filed written version contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable in law. The complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. The machine Track Excavator was purchased for commercial purpose and the same was purchased for making profit. The said machine is operated by person or persons other than the complainant himself. The complainant has not relied upon any expert opinion to substantiate his allegations in the complaint. The warranty certificate was issued with the terms and conditions therein. As per the warranty certificate both the purchaser and seller agreed to have jurisdiction of Courts at Faridabad for the purpose of resolution of claims or disputes with respect to the purchase of the said machine. The complaint filed before this Hon’ble State Commission is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. The said machine was purchased on 23-08-2003 and installed for operation on 26-08-2003. The said machine was having warranty for 12 months or 2000 hours whichever is earlier. The warranty period of the machine has already been expired in the month of August 2004. In January 2005 the machine has already cloaked 2225 working hours. The complaint is filed to get unlawful enrichment by demanding replacement of the machinery. The demand for the amount spent for replacing the wear and tear parts is unsustainable. The complainant is continuously using the machine even after filing of the complaint. On 21-09-2005, the machine had worked 2753 hours. There is no manufacturing defect in the machine. The opposite parties rendered sincere and efficient after sale service support to the machine as and when required. The warranty of machine is subject to the terms and conditions. The complaint is filed by deliberately withholding/suppressing material particulars, facts and documents. The complainant and his representatives have acknowledged satisfaction with respect to the working of the machine. The complaints if any caused to the machine is due to the improper operation of the machine and due to lack of care and attention to the machine on the part of the complainant and the operators. The machine has been operated in rocky area and it resulted in causing cracks. The complainant failed to use the approved lubricants. The opposite parties have replaced some spare parts of the machine purely as a gesture of goodwill and just to satisfy the demands of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The service reports issued by the second opposite party would reveal the sincere and effective services rendered by the opposite parties. Hence the first opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. The second opposite party filed written version contending as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. He purchased the JCB Excavator for commercial purpose and the same is put into use for commercial purpose. There was no complaint of any manufacturing defect or material defects on installation of the machine. The second opposite party carried out the free services and the necessary spares were replaced under warranty. The complainant availed the warranty services. There is no manufacturing defect for the machinery. The cracks developed on the machine because of use of the same in rocky area. The complainant was not using approved OEM grease. There is no warranty for wear and tare parts and also for items like oil, grease, oil seals etc. The complainant alleged manufacturing defect on the eve of the end of warranty with ulterior motive and malafide intention. The said machine was put into its optimum use of level. The machine was let out commercially within the warranty period. The present claim is bogus with intention of making unlawful gain. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. The complainant has no cause of action as alleged. Hence, the second opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complaint in OP.8/05 is maintainable in law?
2. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
3. Whether this State Commission is having the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the complaint in OP.8/05?
4. Whether there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 ?
5. Is there any manufacturing defect in the JCB JS 75 Tracked Excavator as alleged by the complainant?
6. Is there occurred violation of any of the warranty conditions as contended by opposite parties 1 & 2?
7. What order as to reliefs and costs.
7. Evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and a witness on his side as PW2. Exts.A1 to A13 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the second opposite party DW1 was examined. Exts.R2 (1) to (25) were also marked on the side of the second opposite party. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the first opposite party.
8. Point Nos. 1 to 3: The complainant purchased JCB JS 75 Tracked Excavator Bearing machine No.109073 from the second opposite party India Techs Ltd. Admittedly, first opposite party M/s.JCB India Ltd, Haryana is the manufacturer of the said JCB machine. The aforesaid machine was sold through the second opposite party/dealer, India Tech Ltd. The machine was purchased by the complainant on 23.8.03 and the same was installed on 26.8.03. The said machine was having warranty for a period of 12 months or 2000 hours whichever is earlier. The warranty period is to be computed from the date of its purchase or from the date of its installation. Thus, the warranty period had expired on 26.8.04. The complaint in OP.8/05 was preferred on 26.2.05. It can be seen that the present complaint is preferred within 2 years from the date of expiry of the warranty period. So, the complaint in OP.8/05 is preferred within the period of limitation.
9. Ext.A1 is the warranty certificate with the terms and conditions incorporated therein. As per A1 warranty, the said machine is covered by a warranty for 2000 hours or 12 months whichever is earlier, for manufacturing defects. The warranty conditions would also make it clear that the manufacturer is only liable to repair or replace the parts free of all charges for the defects in the goods arising from faulty design, material or workmanship which shall become apparent within the warranty period of 12 months or 2000 hours whichever occurs first from the date of sale/installation. It would also show that the said warranty does not extend to failures due to defects or attributable to wear and tear, improper adjustments, neglect, alteration of specification or accident and that no claim will be considered if parts manufactured by other manufacturers are used or for use of lubricants other than the manufacturers recommended lubricants.
10. There is also a condition incorporated in A1 warranty certificate regarding jurisdiction of courts. It is as follows:-
“Any claim or obligation in connection with the sale of JCB India products shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Faridabad – Haryana only”
11. The first opposite party M/s JCB India Ltd; took the contention that this State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.8/05 because of the aforesaid condition incorporated in the warranty certificate limiting the jurisdiction of courts in Faridabad – Haryana only. But, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant who purchased the JCB Excavator had agreed to the said condition incorporated in A1 warranty certificate. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the JCB Excavator machine from the second opposite party/India Techs Ltd; Ravipuram, Kochi-16. It is true, that the said machine was manufactured by the first opposite party M/s JCB India Ltd. The aforesaid machine was installed at the premises of the complainant and the installation was carried out by the second opposite party/India Techs Ltd, Ravipuram, Kochi-16. Ext.A4, A5 and A6 cash/cheque receipts issued by the second opposite party would also make it clear that the complainant effected payment towards the sale consideration at Ernakulam. Ext.A7 invoice dated 23.8.03 issued by the second opposite party/India Tech Ltd; would also make it clear that the complainant purchased the JCB Excavator machine on payment of Rs.23,50,000/- to the second opposite party. Thus, there was no condition stipulated in A4 to A7 documents regarding territorial jurisdiction of courts which can entertain the disputes if any; with respect to the purchase of the said machine. It is to be noted that it is only after effecting payment of the sale consideration and after delivery of the machine purchased from the second opposite party, Ext.A1 warranty was given. Thus, there was no consent on the side of the complainant limiting the jurisdiction of courts in Faridabad – Haryana only. The aforesaid condition incorporated in A1 warranty certificate limiting the jurisdiction of courts in Faridabad – Haryana only can be treated as a condition without the knowledge or concurrence of the complainant/purchaser. It can very safely be held that the aforesaid condition will not bind the complainant who purchased the JCB machine from the second opposite party at Kochi. There can be no doubt or dispute that the cause of action for the complaint in OP.8/05 has arisen in Kochi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this State Commission. It is correct to say that the first opposite party, the manufacturer of the JCB machine being located in Haryana, the complaint against the first opposite party can also be filed before the courts in Haryana. The mere fact that the courts in Haryana are having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.8/05 cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the courts within whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen have no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. So, the contention of the first opposite party that this State Commission is not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in OP.8/05 is legally un-sustainable. Hence, the said contention is rejected.
12. The opposite parties 1 & 2 vehemently contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant purchased the JCB Excavator for commercial purpose. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines the term “consumer” as follows:-
2(1) (d) “consumer” means any person who -
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
[Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment]
13. The aforesaid definition for consumer would make it clear that the purchaser of goods for consideration for resale or for any commercial purpose cannot be considered as consumer coming within the ambit of the definition under Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of C.P.Act, 1986. The aforesaid definition would also make it clear that any person who availed the services for consideration for any commercial purpose cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) II) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) is an exception to the said definition. The aforesaid explanation would make it clear that the person who purchased goods or availed the services on consideration for commercial purpose can be considered as a consumer if the goods purchased or service availed was exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.
14. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the JCB Excavator from opposite parties 1 & 2 on 23rd August 2003 for using the same in connection with his contract works. The complainant is a Government contractor having Civil A class contractor license and registration. Ext.A13 document would show that the complainant is a registered Civil A class contractor having a construction company by name M/s.V.R.S. Construction Company in Kadavanthra, Kochi-20. A12 document would also make it clear that the complainant has been working as a PWD contractor and he has been undertaking works under PWD Roads Division, Idukki for the years 2000-2001 to 2004 – 2005. The complainant as PW1 has also admitted the fact that he is an A class contractor and he is having work experience in doing Civil works. It is further deposed by PW1 that he has been using the JCB Excavator for executing his civil work contracts. It is further deposed by PW1, that he is having 3 lories, one Excavator, one Jack hamour and other equipments and materials required for execution of Civil work contracts. It is also admitted by PW1 that he has employed workers for executing the civil work contracts. The evidence of PW1 would show that he is not having the license to operate the JCB Excavator and he has employed one operator for operating the JCB. He has also appointed a supervisor to supervise the working of the JCB. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the complainant purchased the aforesaid JCB Excavator for using the same for commercial purpose. The JCB machine which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties 1 & 2 has been used for his commercial activities of execution of Civil work contracts. There can be no doubt that the machine was purchased for making profit by employing the same for his commercial activities of execution of civil work contracts. If that be so, it can very safely be held that the complainant purchased the JCB machine for commercial purpose. In such a situation the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. The complainant has no case that he purchased the machine or that he has been using the JCB machine exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant has no such case in his written complaint or in his oral testimony. He has also no case that the JCB machine has been used by the complainant himself with the assistance of others exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. On the other hand, the testimony of PW1 would make it clear that he is a civil work contractor having A class contractor license and doing PWD works contract. It is also admitted by PW1 that he used to execute civil works contracts having estimate of 1 to 2 cores in an year. The complainant cannot be treated as a petty contractor executing the contract works in a small scale way for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. On the other hand, the evidence of the complainant as PW1 would make it abundantly clear that he is running an establishment by name M/s VRS Construction Company by employing so may workers and that the said establishment is being run for making profit. It can also be concluded that the subject JCB machine and other machines are owned by the complainant and the same are being used for commercial purpose of executing civil contract works. Thus, in all respects the complainant will not come under the definition of consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986. If that be so, the complaint in OP 08/2005 is not maintainable before this State Commission. These points are answered accordingly.
16. Point Nos. 4 to 6: The complainant has got a case that the opposite parties sold the JCB machine having manufacturing defect. Ext.A2 is the letter dated 21-07-2004 issued by the complainant to opposite parties 1 and 2. A perusal of A2 letter would make it clear that the definite case of the complainant was that the said machine developed crack on excavator, bucket and cutting kit due to bad quality of metal used for manufacturing the said machine. The opposite parties denied the alleged manufacturing defect. On the other hand, the opposite parties would contend that the machine developed cracks because of the improper use of the same. It is contended that the cracks were developed on the machine because of its use in rocky area. The complainant has also got a case that the said JCB machine is beyond repair and the same is to be replaced by a new machine. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his case regarding bad or low quality of metal used for manufacturing the JCB machine. The burden is heavily upon the complainant to establish the alleged manufacturing defect. It was incumbent upon the complainant to substantiate his case of manufacturing defect by adducing expert evidence. The subject JCB machine ought to have been made available for expert examination. But no such evidence is forthcoming from the side of the complainant to substantiate the case of manufacturing defect.
17. The opposite parties have also not adduced any acceptable evidence to substantiate their case that the cracks developed on the machine because of the improper use of the same. The opposite parties could not establish their contention that the cracks developed because of its use in rocky area. Thus, the opposite parties have also failed to substantiate their case regarding improper use of the machine. It is the duty of the complainant to prove the allegation of manufacturing defect. But the complainant failed to establish the alleged manufacturing defect in the machine. The mere fact that cracks developed on the machine cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the said cracks developed due to manufacturing defect. Thus, the complainant failed to substantiate his case regarding manufacturing defect.
18. Ext.A1 is the warranty certificate with the conditions of warranty incorporated therein. As per A1 warranty certificate the manufacturer is only liable to repair or replace the defective parts. There is no provision in A1 warranty for replacement of the entire machine. It is also to be noted that the A1 warranty was provided by the first opposite party manufacturer M/s JCB India Limited. It is come out in evidence that the cracks developed on JCB machine were repaired/rectified by welding those cracks. It is also come out in evidence that after welding the said cracks the JCB machine was employed for more than thousand hours. The evidence of PW1, the complainant would make it clear that JCB machine has been using continuously and it has covered more than 2000 hours. The available materials on record would make it clear that the second opposite party dealer rendered effective service during the warranty period and also even after the warranty period. There is nothing on record to show that the second opposite party, the dealer and the service center failed to render the service to the complainant by attending the complaints or defects pointed out by the complainant. The materials on record would show that the second opposite party being the dealer and the service center of the first opposite party manufacturer attended the complaints made by the complainant and rectified the defects by doing necessary repairs to the JCB machine.
19. A1 warranty would also make it clear that there is no warranty for wear and tear items and also for lubricants and oil seals etc. The definite case of the opposite party is that Rs. 40,710/- was collected towards the wear and tear items. There is no evidence available on record to show that A9 series of bills are not with respect to the purchase of wear and tear items. The complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his case that the opposite parties collected the said sum of Rs. 40,710/- during the warranty period towards the cost of the parts covered by A1 warranty. In this circumstance the claim for refund of Rs. 40,710/- cannot be upheld. The opposite parties can be justified in declining refund of the sum of Rs. 40,710/-. The facts, circumstances and available evidence on record would show that the JCB machine developed cracks during the warranty period. There is nothing on record to show that the said cracks were due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle. It can also be seen that the said cracks were repaired and rectified by doing necessary repairs and that the JCB machine has been working smoothly even after the warranty period of 12 months and 2000 hours. Ext.R2 series of documents produced from the side of the second opposite party would make it clear that the second opposite party rendered free services during the warranty period. It would also show that even some of the wear and tear items were also replaced free of charge during the warranty period. It can also be seen that the complainant failed to use approved grease (lubricants). DW1 has also deposed that the failure to use approved OEM grease caused excessive vibrations resulting in development of cracks on the JCB machine. The complainant could not produce any acceptable evidence to show that he used only OEM approved grease. The suggestion incorporated in R2 series of machine inspection reports would show that the complainant failed to use OEM approved grease and thereby the Service Engineers of the second opposite party recommended use of OEM approved grease.
20. PW2, the operator of JCB machine has deposed that the said JCB machine has been working continuously and smoothly and that even after welding the cracks the JCB machine worked for a pretty long period. The evidence of PW2 would also show that even now the machine has been working smoothly. Thus, the materials on record would show that the complainant used the JCB excavator machine to its optimum level. The case of the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be believed or accepted. Thus, on merits also the complaint in OP 08/2005 deserves dismissal. These points are also found against the complainant.
21. Point No. 7: See the decreed portion.
In the result, the complaint in OP 08/2005 is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
s/L
APPENDIX
Complainants Exts.
Ext.P1 : Warranty certificate issued by the opposite parties.
Ext.P2 : Lawyer’s Notice dated 21.7.04 with postal receipt.
Ext.P3 : Reply Notice dated 6.10.04
Ext.P4 : Xerox copy of cash receipt for Rs.1,00,000 dated
14.8.03
Ext.P5 : Xerox copy of DD bearing No.961155 dated 22.8.03.
Ext.P6 : “ cash receipt No.934 dated 23.8.03.
Ext.P7 : Invoice dated 18.8.03
Ext.P8 : Photographs (4 in No.)
Ext.P9
Ext.P9 (a): Bill No.1701 dated Nil for Rs.3857/-
“ (b): Bill N.030 dated 30.11.04 for Rs.570/-
“ ( c): “ 029 “ 30.11.04 for Rs.4,441.65/-
“ (d) “ 7497 “ 4.6.04 FOR Rs.907/-
“ (e) “ for Rs.1010/-
“ (f) Bill dated 4.6.04 for Rs.2,450/-
“ (g) “ 3.6.04 for Rs.1,834.10
“ (h) “ “ Rs.12,388.32
“ (i) “ 4.6.04 for Rs. 1,968.99
“ (j) “ 25.5.05 for Rs.20,152/-
Ext.P10 : Negative of Photos produced as document No.8
Ext.P11 : Catelogue of machinery JCB.JS 75
Ext.P12 : Schedule of work done by complaint issued from the
office of the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Idukki.
Ext.P13 : Xerox copy of the licence No.11A/91-92 issued by the
Government in favour of the complaint.
Complainants Witness
PW1 : T.R.Reghu
PW2 : Ajo.K.John
Opposite parties Exts.
Exts.R2 (i) : Inspection report dated 17.9.03
“ (2): “ “ 17.10.03
“ (3) : “ “ 25.11.03
“ (4) : “ “ 23.12.03
“ (5) : “ “ 19.1.04
“ (6) : “ “ 26.8.03
“ (7) : “ “ 27.2.04
“ (8) : “ “ 20.3.04
Ext.R2 (9) : A true copy of the Reply letter dated 22.3.04
Ext.R2 (10)): The acknowledge,ment card
Ext.R2 (11) : A true copy of the letter dated 31.3.04.
“ (12) : The acknowledgement card.
“ (13) : Inspection Report dated 20.4.04.
“ (14) : Inspection Report dated 17.5.04.
“ (15) : Inspection Report dated 18.6.04
“ (16): Service visit report dated 9.7.04.
“ (17): Inspection report dated 24.8.04
“ (18): A true copy of the reply letter dated 6.10.04
“ (19): The acknowledgement card
‘ (20): Inspection report dated 4.11.04.
“ (21): A true copy of the reply letter dated 21.12.04.\
“ (22): The acknowledgement card.
“ (23): Inspection report dated 29.1.05( Photocopy)
“ (24): Inspection report dated 21.9.05 (Photocopy)
“ (25): Authorization letter.
OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS
DW1:George Francis
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
