BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 83/2003 Filed on 25/02/2003

Dated: 28..02..2009

Complainants:

1. Consumer Vigilance Centre (CVC), Sreekovil, Kodungannoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.

2. A. Hema, T.C.9/2741(2), CSM Nagar, House No.262 A, Sasthamangalam – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

(By Adv. Ranjit.R)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. Prompt Services, BPL Customer Care Centre, “Govardhanam”, TC 30/1876, AIR Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

2. M/s. BPL Engg. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Savan Chambers, Diamond Hill, KR Elankath Road, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

3. M/s. BPL Ltd., C/o Roni Transport, Juma Masjid Road, Nettoor, Cochin.

This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that on behalf of the 2^nd complainant, the 1^st complainant had purchased a BPL 25” TV from BPL show room at Nagercoil, that suddenly on 16/12/2002 the said TV stopped functioning and on informing the 1^st opposite party, a technician of the 1^st opposite party came and examined the TV set and made repairs on it and after that when the technician switched on the TV a big explosion was heard inside the TV and that the 2^nd complainant was told by the technician that the picture tube was defective which needed replacement. There were no defect in the picture tube till 16/12/2002. The picture tube became defective on the hands of the service technician of the 1^st opposite party. On behalf of the 2^nd complainant, the 1^st complainant sent a letter to opposite parties and opposite parties issued a reply also. In the reply, opposite parties stated that the picture tube failed or would lead to the failure of horizontal out put transistor which was found defective in the complainant's TV set. Even after replacement of the transistor by the service technician of the 1^st opposite party the picture tube remained defective. Opposite parties did not settle the matter. Hence this complaint to replace the picture tube and repair the TV, failing which, to replace the TV set and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards cost.

2. 1^st opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complaint is without any bonafides, and that the complainant did not state the date of purchase of the TV. The 1^st opposite party received a complaint on 5/12/2002 from the 2^nd complainant regarding the non-functioning of her TV set. On receiving the complaint a technician of the 1^st opposite party visited on 7/12/2002 and examined the TV set. The technician found that the TV was not working. On examination it was found that a horizontal out put transistor is defective. He replaced the same and then found that the picture tube is defective. The failure of picture tube will lead to the failure of horizontal output transistor. On replacing the transistor it was understood that the picture tube had failed already. The picture tube failed in the course of repair is not correct. The allegation that a big sound was heard inside the TV is not correct. The technician after replacing the transistor switched on the TV and due to the internal arcing in the picture tube a sound was heard. It was only a small sparking sound and the same was due to defective in the picture tube. The technician confirmed that the complaint was due to the failure of the picture tube and informed the matter to the complainant. The complainant out of ignorance of technical knowledge misunderstood that the defect of picture tube was at the hands of the technician. The technician who attended the TV set is technically qualified and experienced. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.

3. 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties filed a reply contending that the complaint is not maintainable. Since the complainant purchased the model TV from Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu. The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Complainant did not furnish warranty period for the TV. Opposite parties denies that the TV went dead on 16/2/2002 since the opposite parties received the complaint of the 2^nd complainant on 5/12/2002. Opposite parties denies that any manufacturing defect of the TV as alleged in the complaint. The TV was properly functioning on December 2002 which would demonstrate that there was no inherent manufacturing defect. Hence opposite parties 2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

    

2. Whether complainant is entitled for replacement of TV set or refund of purchase price?

    

3. Other reliefs and costs?

5. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit. The service technician of the 1^st opposite party has been examined and cross examined as DW2. The expert commissioner has been cross examined by the opposite parties and Ext. C1 was marked.

6. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that on behalf of the 2^nd complainant, the husband of the 2^nd complainant had bought a BPL 25" TV from the authorised show room of BPL at Nagercoil, that suddenly on 16/12/2002 the said TV stopped functioning, that on informing the 1^st opposite party, a technician of the 1^st opposite party came, examined the TV set, made repairs on it and after that when he switched on the TV a big explosion was heard inside the TV and that the 2^nd complainant was told that the picture tube was defective which needed replacement and on receiving Rs.100/- from the 2^nd complainant towards service charge, the technician left the premises. It has also been the case of the 2^nd complainant that there was no complaint on picture tube prior to the service done by the technician of the 1^st opposite party, and the explosion was due to the faulty service done by the 1^st opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the field cash receipt dated 7/12/2002 for Rs.100/- issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the notice dated 21/12/2002 addressed to opposite parties 1 & 2 by the 1^st complainant. Ext P2 is the reply to Ext. P4 and Ext. P3 is the copy of acknowledgement card. Ext. P5 is the cash bill dated 6/6/1999 issued to 2^nd complainant by Sunder House Appliances, Nagercoil. Ext.P5 was marked subject to the objection of the opposite parties. As per Ext.P5 the TV set is seen purchased on 6/6/1999 from Sundar House Appliances, Nagercoil. Complainant did not produce warranty/guarantee card. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties that the TV set of the complainant is more than 4 years old and the warranty period is already over, that the allegation that big sound was heard inside the TV is not correct and due to the internal arcing in the picture tube a sound was heard, that it was a small sparking sound and the same was due to the defect in the picture tube. Expert commissioner has been vehemently cross examined by the opposite parties. In his cross examination, expert commissioner deposed:

"ആ TV-യുടെ picpicture tube defective ആണോ അല്ലയോ എന്ന് അറിയാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല". ആകെ മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞത്, transistor തകരാറ് മാത്രമാണോ? അതെ ....... transistor missing ആയിരുന്നു, ഒരു ട്രാന്‍സിസ്റ്റര്‍ അവിടെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അത് ഈ TV-യുടേതാണോ എന്ന് ഉറപ്പില്ല ".

TV-യുടെ picture tube defective ആണെന്ന്പറയുന്നു. നിഷേധിക്കാ മോ (QQ) Picture tube പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുമോ ഇല്ലയോ എന്ന് ഞാന്‍ നോക്കിയില്ല. അതിനാല്‍ എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല. On being asked whether the LOT was defective, Commissioner replied "എനിക്കറിയില്ല" Picture tube-ല്‍ high voltageവന്നാ‍ല്‍ defectiveആകാം. ചിലപ്പോള്‍ ffilament short ആകാം; fuse ആകാം.

TV work ചെയ്തുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുംപോള്‍ ‍reresistor കേടായാല്‍ LOTയി ലേക്ക് high voltage വരുന്നതിനും, ട്രാന്‍സിസ്റ്ററും പിക്ച്ചര്‍ട്യൂബും കേടാകാനും സാധ്യതയില്ലേ (Q) Yes (A). അപ്രകാരം കേടായിരുന്ന TVയുടെ റസിസ്റ്ററും ട്രാന്‍സിസ്റ്ററും replaceചെയ്ത് power supply കൊടുത്താലും TVവര്‍ക്ക് ചെയ്യില്ല. കാരണം ppicture tube already damaged ആണ്. Resistor കേടായി picture tube-ല്‍ high voltageവന്ന്കേടായതാണ്എന്ന് oopposite party-യുട technician പറഞ്ഞില്ലേ (Q) അവര് ‍പറഞ്ഞത്കൃത്യമായി report-ല്‍ എഴുതിയിട്ടുണ്ട് when asked expert commissioner about whether damage of the picture tube was due to the fault of the resistor while functioning the TV, he replied" അങ്ങനെയും വേണമെങ്കില്‍ സംഭവിക്കാം. On being asked whether TV would function if fuse and SMPS were defective, Commissioner replied: കുറഞ്ഞ voltage-ലും മിന്നലിലും ചിലപ്പോള്‍ അത് കേടാകാം. When asked what do you mean by poor workmanship, Commissioner replied:

ഞാന്‍ ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചത് mmanufacturing defectആണ്.

7. In her cross examination, PW1 has said: The TV set was purchased in the year 1999, on 5/12/2002 when switched on the TV, there were no picture and sound, but there were grains only and the same was informed to the technician of the 1^st opposite party. The technician of the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW2. In his examination in chief, DW2 has said that on getting the complaint from the consumer, he inspected the TV in dispute, and TV was dead. On inspection, horizontal output transistor and power supply resistence were out of order. DW2 deposed further that he changed the resistence and after checking the correct voltage, new horizontal output transistor was placed and thereafter when switched on the TV blue flame came from the picture tube thereby it was understood that the picture tube had already gone and the same was informed to the complainant and instructed her to bring the TV to the service centre, if she wants to replace the picture tube. DW2 further deposed the picture tube became defective not due to his fault. DW2 went on to say that there was no explosive sounds as alleged in the complaint and if there were explosion the entire picture tube would be burst and there were no grains on the screen. The entire TV was dead. Though DW2 has been vehemently cross examined by the complainant nothing was made out from him to establish that the picture tube became defective due to the fault of DW2. Nowhere either in the commission report or in deposition of the expert commissioner is it mentioned that the TV set was damaged at the hands of the service technician of 1^st opposite party. Complainant did not furnish the warranty card, nor did complainant allege manufacturing defect in the complaint, nor did complaint mention any trouble within the warranty period. Complainant has not succeeded in establishing the complaint. Deficiency in service is not proved. In view of the above, we find complainant is not entitled for replacement of TV set or refund of purchase price. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 28^th day of February, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No: 83/2003

APPENDIX

1. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : Hema

2. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Copy of Field cash receipt sl.No.13888 dated 7/12/2002 of Model No.BXR

P2 : Copy of reply notice dated 31/12/2002 issued to the complainant

P3 : Photocopy of two acknowledgement cards in which one of them is marked as date of delivery 01/01/2003

P4 : Copy of notice dated 21/12/2002 with Ref.No.CVC/OT/307/02 issued to opp. Parties.

P5 : Original cash bill No.1985 dated 6/6/1999 for Rs.19,350/-

3. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 Udaikrishnan

DW2 Pradeep Kumar.A

4. Opposite parties' documents: NIL

5. Court witness NIL

6. Court Exhibit:

C1 : Expert Commissioner's Report Mahazar dated 16/8/03

PRESIDENT

ad.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

O.P. No. 83/2003 Filed on 25/02/2003

Dated: 28..02..2009


 

Complainants:


 

1. Consumer Vigilance Centre (CVC), Sreekovil, Kodungannoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.

2. A. Hema, T.C.9/2741(2), CSM Nagar, House No.262 A, Sasthamangalam – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

(By Adv. Ranjit.R)


 

Opposite parties:


 

1. M/s. Prompt Services, BPL Customer Care Centre, “Govardhanam”, TC 30/1876, AIR Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

2. M/s. BPL Engg. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Savan Chambers, Diamond Hill, KR Elankath Road, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

3. M/s. BPL Ltd., C/o Roni Transport, Juma Masjid Road, Nettoor, Cochin.


 

This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:


 


 


 

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


 

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that on behalf of the 2^nd complainant, the 1^st complainant had purchased a BPL 25” TV from BPL show room at Nagercoil, that suddenly on 16/12/2002 the said TV stopped functioning and on informing the 1^st opposite party, a technician of the 1^st opposite party came and examined the TV set and made repairs on it and after that when the technician switched on the TV a big explosion was heard inside the TV and that the 2^nd complainant was told by the technician that the picture tube was defective which needed replacement. There were no defect in the picture tube till 16/12/2002. The picture tube became defective on the hands of the service technician of the 1^st opposite party. On behalf of the 2^nd complainant, the 1^st complainant sent a letter to opposite parties and opposite parties issued a reply also. In the reply, opposite parties stated that the picture tube failed or would lead to the failure of horizontal out put transistor which was found defective in the complainant's TV set. Even after replacement of the transistor by the service technician of the 1^st opposite party the picture tube remained defective. Opposite parties did not settle the matter. Hence this complaint to replace the picture tube and repair the TV, failing which, to replace the TV set and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards cost.


 

2. 1^st opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complaint is without any bonafides, and that the complainant did not state the date of purchase of the TV. The 1^st opposite party received a complaint on 5/12/2002 from the 2^nd complainant regarding the non-functioning of her TV set. On receiving the complaint a technician of the 1^st opposite party visited on 7/12/2002 and examined the TV set. The technician found that the TV was not working. On examination it was found that a horizontal out put transistor is defective. He replaced the same and then found that the picture tube is defective. The failure of picture tube will lead to the failure of horizontal output transistor. On replacing the transistor it was understood that the picture tube had failed already. The picture tube failed in the course of repair is not correct. The allegation that a big sound was heard inside the TV is not correct. The technician after replacing the transistor switched on the TV and due to the internal arcing in the picture tube a sound was heard. It was only a small sparking sound and the same was due to defective in the picture tube. The technician confirmed that the complaint was due to the failure of the picture tube and informed the matter to the complainant. The complainant out of ignorance of technical knowledge misunderstood that the defect of picture tube was at the hands of the technician. The technician who attended the TV set is technically qualified and experienced. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.


 

3. 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties filed a reply contending that the complaint is not maintainable. Since the complainant purchased the model TV from Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu. The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Complainant did not furnish warranty period for the TV. Opposite parties denies that the TV went dead on 16/2/2002 since the opposite parties received the complaint of the 2^nd complainant on 5/12/2002. Opposite parties denies that any manufacturing defect of the TV as alleged in the complaint. The TV was properly functioning on December 2002 which would demonstrate that there was no inherent manufacturing defect. Hence opposite parties 2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


 

4. The points that arise for consideration are:


 

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

    

2. Whether complainant is entitled for replacement of TV set or refund of purchase price?

    

3. Other reliefs and costs?


 

5. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit. The service technician of the 1^st opposite party has been examined and cross examined as DW2. The expert commissioner has been cross examined by the opposite parties and Ext. C1 was marked.


 

6. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that on behalf of the 2^nd complainant, the husband of the 2^nd complainant had bought a BPL 25" TV from the authorised show room of BPL at Nagercoil, that suddenly on 16/12/2002 the said TV stopped functioning, that on informing the 1^st opposite party, a technician of the 1^st opposite party came, examined the TV set, made repairs on it and after that when he switched on the TV a big explosion was heard inside the TV and that the 2^nd complainant was told that the picture tube was defective which needed replacement and on receiving Rs.100/- from the 2^nd complainant towards service charge, the technician left the premises. It has also been the case of the 2^nd complainant that there was no complaint on picture tube prior to the service done by the technician of the 1^st opposite party, and the explosion was due to the faulty service done by the 1^st opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the field cash receipt dated 7/12/2002 for Rs.100/- issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the notice dated 21/12/2002 addressed to opposite parties 1 & 2 by the 1^st complainant. Ext P2 is the reply to Ext. P4 and Ext. P3 is the copy of acknowledgement card. Ext. P5 is the cash bill dated 6/6/1999 issued to 2^nd complainant by Sunder House Appliances, Nagercoil. Ext.P5 was marked subject to the objection of the opposite parties. As per Ext.P5 the TV set is seen purchased on 6/6/1999 from Sundar House Appliances, Nagercoil. Complainant did not produce warranty/guarantee card. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties that the TV set of the complainant is more than 4 years old and the warranty period is already over, that the allegation that big sound was heard inside the TV is not correct and due to the internal arcing in the picture tube a sound was heard, that it was a small sparking sound and the same was due to the defect in the picture tube. Expert commissioner has been vehemently cross examined by the opposite parties. In his cross examination, expert commissioner deposed:


 

"ആ TV-യുടെ picpicture tube defective ആണോ അല്ലയോ എന്ന് അറിയാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല". ആകെ മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞത്, transistor തകരാറ് മാത്രമാണോ? അതെ ....... transistor missing ആയിരുന്നു, ഒരു ട്രാന്‍സിസ്റ്റര്‍ അവിടെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അത് ഈ TV-യുടേതാണോ എന്ന് ഉറപ്പില്ല ".


 

TV-യുടെ picture tube defective ആണെന്ന്പറയുന്നു. നിഷേധിക്കാ മോ (QQ) Picture tube പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുമോ ഇല്ലയോ എന്ന് ഞാന്‍ നോക്കിയില്ല. അതിനാല്‍ എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല. On being asked whether the LOT was defective, Commissioner replied "എനിക്കറിയില്ല" Picture tube-ല്‍ high voltageവന്നാ‍ല്‍ defectiveആകാം. ചിലപ്പോള്‍ ffilament short ആകാം; fuse ആകാം.


 

TV work ചെയ്തുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുംപോള്‍ ‍reresistor കേടായാല്‍ LOTയി ലേക്ക് high voltage വരുന്നതിനും, ട്രാന്‍സിസ്റ്ററും പിക്ച്ചര്‍ട്യൂബും കേടാകാനും സാധ്യതയില്ലേ (Q) Yes (A). അപ്രകാരം കേടായിരുന്ന TVയുടെ റസിസ്റ്ററും ട്രാന്‍സിസ്റ്ററും replaceചെയ്ത് power supply കൊടുത്താലും TVവര്‍ക്ക് ചെയ്യില്ല. കാരണം ppicture tube already damaged ആണ്. Resistor കേടായി picture tube-ല്‍ high voltageവന്ന്കേടായതാണ്എന്ന് oopposite party-യുട technician പറഞ്ഞില്ലേ (Q) അവര് ‍പറഞ്ഞത്കൃത്യമായി report-ല്‍ എഴുതിയിട്ടുണ്ട് when asked expert commissioner about whether damage of the picture tube was due to the fault of the resistor while functioning the TV, he replied" അങ്ങനെയും വേണമെങ്കില്‍ സംഭവിക്കാം. On being asked whether TV would function if fuse and SMPS were defective, Commissioner replied: കുറഞ്ഞ voltage-ലും മിന്നലിലും ചിലപ്പോള്‍ അത് കേടാകാം. When asked what do you mean by poor workmanship, Commissioner replied:


 

ഞാന്‍ ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചത് mmanufacturing defectആണ്.


 

7. In her cross examination, PW1 has said: The TV set was purchased in the year 1999, on 5/12/2002 when switched on the TV, there were no picture and sound, but there were grains only and the same was informed to the technician of the 1^st opposite party. The technician of the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW2. In his examination in chief, DW2 has said that on getting the complaint from the consumer, he inspected the TV in dispute, and TV was dead. On inspection, horizontal output transistor and power supply resistence were out of order. DW2 deposed further that he changed the resistence and after checking the correct voltage, new horizontal output transistor was placed and thereafter when switched on the TV blue flame came from the picture tube thereby it was understood that the picture tube had already gone and the same was informed to the complainant and instructed her to bring the TV to the service centre, if she wants to replace the picture tube. DW2 further deposed the picture tube became defective not due to his fault. DW2 went on to say that there was no explosive sounds as alleged in the complaint and if there were explosion the entire picture tube would be burst and there were no grains on the screen. The entire TV was dead. Though DW2 has been vehemently cross examined by the complainant nothing was made out from him to establish that the picture tube became defective due to the fault of DW2. Nowhere either in the commission report or in deposition of the expert commissioner is it mentioned that the TV set was damaged at the hands of the service technician of 1^st opposite party. Complainant did not furnish the warranty card, nor did complainant allege manufacturing defect in the complaint, nor did complaint mention any trouble within the warranty period. Complainant has not succeeded in establishing the complaint. Deficiency in service is not proved. In view of the above, we find complainant is not entitled for replacement of TV set or refund of purchase price. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.


 


 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.


 


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 28^th day of February, 2009.


 


 


 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER


 


 


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

ad.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


 


 

O.P.No: 83/2003


 

APPENDIX


 

1. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : Hema

2. Complainants' documents:


 

P1 : Copy of Field cash receipt sl.No.13888 dated 7/12/2002 of Model No.BXR

P2 : Copy of reply notice dated 31/12/2002 issued to the complainant

P3 : Photocopy of two acknowledgement cards in which one of them is marked as date of delivery 01/01/2003

P4 : Copy of notice dated 21/12/2002 with Ref.No.CVC/OT/307/02 issued to opp. Parties.

P5 : Original cash bill No.1985 dated 6/6/1999 for Rs.19,350/-


 

3. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 Udaikrishnan

DW2 Pradeep Kumar.A

4. Opposite parties' documents: NIL


 

5. Court witness NIL


 

6. Court Exhibit:


 

C1 : Expert Commissioner's Report Mahazar dated 16/8/03


 

PRESIDENT