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: 205/2003 Filed on 23/05/2003 Dated : 30..04..2009
Complainant: Latha Kumari. P.S., 'Deepa Bhavan', Vempanoor, Aruvikara, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. J.C. Stephenson)
Opposite party: M/s. Selvi Coach Body Builders, Chikkandar Chavadi, Alanganallur Main Road, Madurai – 625 018, Tamil Nadu. (By Adv. U.Abdul Shukoor)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30/12/2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..03..2009, the Forum on 30..04..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
Brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant had entrusted and engaged the opposite party for constructing the body of Mini bus Tata 407 Turbo Chassis for a total amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. As per the terms agreed upon, the opposite party were to build the Mini bus body with Aluminium sheet and to provide thick Aluminimum sheet for the platform. But it was found that the opposite party has build the body with G.I sheet and has provided thin Aluminium sheet for the platform. As against agreed 'Chikkan' paint coat the opposite party has used ordinary paint. Instead of tail lamp 'Indica type' the fitting made is with ordinary type. According to the terms agreed upon the opposite party were to provide aluminium grill on the rear, but was not provided. Numbers of seats agreed on 16 + 1 whereas the opposite party has provided only 14 + 1, and that the opposite party took 85 days for completion of works and delivery of Mini bus as against 30 days, the period originally agreed upon. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after paying and settling the bills preferred by the opposite party after expressing the complainant's dissatisfaction over the poor workmanship and on their noted deviation from the agreed terms in not choosing the correct and specified materials for building the coach. Subsequently thereon, following accident, took the said vehicle to M/s. Dolphin Coach Builders, Madurai for repairs, where on the opposite party has instigated the police to intimidate the complainant and prevent her illegally from taking delivery of the vehicle despite the repair works completed at the workshop. The complainant has sustained damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the opposite party using low quality materials and deviating from specifications while constructing the body building of the coach. The opposite party is responsible and hence liable for the loss sustained by the complainant towards idling of the vehicle at M/s. Dolphin Coach Builders even after completion of repairs on account of their illegal action with the help of Police which is estimated to Rs.1,50,000/- and in total the complainant claims Rs.2,50,000/-.
2. The opposite party has filed their version contending that the cause of action took place at Madurai, Tamil Nadu and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is admitted that the complainant entrusted the opposite party, a Tata-407 Turbo Chassis for Mini bus body building, as per the quotation issued to her on 15/4/2002 by the opposite party. The cost of body building was Rs.2,40,000/- as per the specifications mentioned in the quotation, and the Mini bus body was built as per the agreement between the complainant and opposite party which is specified by mutual consent vide quotation dated 15/4/2002, issued to the complainant. The body panelling was with 18 guage Aluminium sheet and the roof, corner and glass frame works with 20 guage G.I sheet, as specified in item No.7 of the quotation. The flooring was made with Aluminium chekker plates and Double Coat Sparkle Metallic finish painting with Sieekens paint as specified in item No.8 and 16 of the quotation respectively, and that there was no specific direction regarding tail lamp fittings. Usually the original tail lamp fitting available with the chassis is used for tail lamp. Any additional light or light fitting of party's choice shall be supplied by them. Even though the allowable seating capacity is 12 + 1, as per R.T.A Rules, it was agreed to build two additional seats which was also built as per standards. As against the 50% advance payment, the complainant insisted for agreeing to her terms that the first installment of loan for body building granted from Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuam will be paid the opposite party. The opposite party hesitantly agreed to this with condition that the work will be started only after obtaining the first installment which she agreed. Before taking delivery of the vehicle on 14/7/2002, only Rs.86,400/- was paid by the complainant and Rs.1,53,600/- was due by her, which was agreed to be paid within a month of the delivery of the Built Mini Bus. The delay in delivery was contributed by the complainant as the first installment (advance payment to be made as per quotation) of body building from Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram was available only on 29/6/2002. But the work was started on 15/6/2002 because the complainant informed the advance payment will be ready on 15/6/2002. But it was late by two weeks and the DD was only for Rs.67,400/. After taking delivery of the built bus on 14/7/2002, DD from Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram for Rs.21,000/- only was paid by the complainant on 1/12/2002. Eventhough the opposite party approached for balance payments many times, she never cared for payment of the balance due by her, except the DD for Rs.21,000/-. At last the opposite party had to file a complaint before the Kudalpudur Police, Madurai. By Police action Rs.10,000/- was paid by her and Rs.5,000/- as the third installment by cash. Hence a total amount of Rs.1,42,400/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party against the quoted amount of Rs.2,40,000/- for body building. Without making balance payment of Rs.1,32,000/- the complainant was successfully plying the vehicle on road for about ten months. Even though the opposite party demanded payment of balance, she was hesitant to pay the balance. While so, the opposite party came to understand that the vehicle is kept at another workshop at Madurai. Hence the opposite party complained before the Kudalpudur Police and managed to get three installment payment.The complainant has come before the Hon'ble Forum not with clean hands, instead of paying the balance amount due to the opposite party, the complainant has filed a malicious complaint suppressing all material facts. The opposite party is raising a counter claim of Rs.97,600/- which is due from the complainant which may be granted, rejecting the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- claimed as compensation against the opposite party on false and frevilous grounds. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant's husband has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. Ext.D1 has been marked on the part of the opposite party. An expert commissioner appointed by the Forum has filed a detailed report which has been marked as Ext. C1.
4. On the contentions raised, following issues raise for consideration: (i)Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? (iii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5. Point No.(i) : There is no dispute with regard to the entrustment of the chassis by the complainant for Mini body building of a Tata-407 with the opposite party. The aspect to be looked into is the place of cause of action.
As per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain: PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
6. Hence accordingly whether any cause of action has arisen within the jursidiction of this Forum is to be considered. Undisputedly, the opposite party is at Madurai which is evident from the records on file. Moreover, the complainant has no case that the opposite party has any branch at Thiruvananthapuram which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The opposite party who is at Madurai has only been made a party. At this juncture, the next aspect to be looked into is whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
7. The complainant has pleaded that the production and finalization of quotation statement, and acceptance of initial payment were at Thiruvananthapuram and hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The opposite party has neither challenged the same nor has denied the said pleadings. In such a circumstance, we find that since part of the cause of action having been arisen within the local limits of Thiruvananthapuram, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
8. Points No. (ii) & (iii) : The main allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party has not done the work as per the terms agreed upon between the parties. Ext.P1 is the copy of the specification for construction of luxury mini van body dated 30/4/2002, produced by the complainant. Ext.D1 is specification for construction of luxury mini van body dated 15/4/2002 produced on behalf of the opposite party. It has been agreed by the complainant that Ext.D1 is the carbon copy of Ext.P1, but D1 has not been signed by the complainant but P1 is seen signed by both parties; moreover both the dates differ and certain entries are also different. Ext.P1 is the document which is seen signed by both parties, and as per Ext. P1 the seating capacity mentioned is Permit Rules (12 + 1) Nos extra seat 4 Nos. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has provided only 14 + 1 instead of 16 + 1. The commissioner has reported that "the number of seats provided in the vehicle is not according to the requirements of the complainant, as against the requirement 16 + 1, only 12 + 1 is provided". The Commissioner has reported that the paint used is a single tone metallic paint. As per Ext.P1 the painting to be used is double coat sparked metallic finish. With regard to the rear lights, the commissioner has reported that rear lights do not match to that of an 'indica' type, the provided one is an ordinary one of rectangular shape used in Tata vehicles. But as per Ext.P1, there is no specific mentioning with regard to 'indica' type, if at all the complainant had specifically ordered for the same, it would have definitely found a place in Ext.P1.
9. The opposite party has contended that the complainant had paid only Rs.1,42,400/- as against a total sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and as such an amount of Rs.97,600/- is still due from the complainant. The complainant has pleaded that the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after paying/settling the bills preferred by the opposite party. The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that, the vehicle was taken to M/s. Dolphin Coach Builders, Madurai for repairs following an accident, and the opposite party has instigated the Police to intimidate the complainant and illegally prevent the complainant from taking delivery of the vehicle even after the completion of the repair works. The complainant has nowhere in the complaint mentioned the date of delivery of the bus by the opposite party. Moreover, the complainant has admitted that the vehicle was taken to another coach builders for repair works following an accident. At this juncture, the aspect to be noted is that the expert commissioner has inspected the vehicle after the alleged accident. In such a circumstance, the actual work done by the opposite party could not be ascertained.
10. The complainant has not filed any complaint immediately after taking delivery of the vehicle. What prevented the complainant from filing the complaint immediately after taking possession of the vehicle has not been explained. This complaint has been filed after the accident and the repair works hitherto. The complainant has not pleaded in the complaint why the bus in dispute was not taken to the opposite party's workshop for further repairs after the accident, if at all the opposite party had violated the terms of the agreement, the complainant ought have filed at that juncture itself. Hence the complainant has been filed after the repairs by a 3rd party. Moreover, the complainant has also alleged that the opposite party had prevented the complainant from taking the vehicle from the Dolphin Coach Builders. Taking all the circustances into consideration, we find it very hard to believe that, the opposite party has illegally prevented the complainant from taking the vehicle from Dolphin Coach Builders.
11. The Ext.C1 is a report containing the description of the bus in dispute after an accident and repairs thereafter by some other workshop. The actual work carried on by the opposite party has not been brought out in evidence and the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the opposite party had not done the work in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant has failed to establish his complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed.
If at all the opposite party is entitled for any balance amount from the complainant, the opposite party can seek the remedy, if any, from the appropriate court of law and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any counter claims.
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, on this the 30th day of April, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.205/2003 ORDER Complainant's winess: PW1 : Valsala Kumar.T.R
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of specification for construction of luxury Mini van body dated 30/4/2002 P2 : Copy of cash/credit bill dated 14/7/2002 P3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 28/4/2003 P4 : Copy of postal receipt dt. 29/4/2003.
III. Opposite party's witness: NIL Opposite party's documens:
D1 : Original document for specification for construction of luxury mini van body dated 15/4/2002.
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: 205/2003 Filed on 23/05/2003 Dated : 30..04..2009
Complainant: Latha Kumari. P.S., 'Deepa Bhavan', Vempanoor, Aruvikara, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. J.C. Stephenson)
Opposite party: M/s. Selvi Coach Body Builders, Chikkandar Chavadi, Alanganallur Main Road, Madurai – 625 018, Tamil Nadu. (By Adv. U.Abdul Shukoor)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30/12/2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..03..2009, the Forum on 30..04..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
Brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant had entrusted and engaged the opposite party for constructing the body of Mini bus Tata 407 Turbo Chassis for a total amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. As per the terms agreed upon, the opposite party were to build the Mini bus body with Aluminium sheet and to provide thick Aluminimum sheet for the platform. But it was found that the opposite party has build the body with G.I sheet and has provided thin Aluminium sheet for the platform. As against agreed 'Chikkan' paint coat the opposite party has used ordinary paint. Instead of tail lamp 'Indica type' the fitting made is with ordinary type. According to the terms agreed upon the opposite party were to provide aluminium grill on the rear, but was not provided. Numbers of seats agreed on 16 + 1 whereas the opposite party has provided only 14 + 1, and that the opposite party took 85 days for completion of works and delivery of Mini bus as against 30 days, the period originally agreed upon. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after paying and settling the bills preferred by the opposite party after expressing the complainant's dissatisfaction over the poor workmanship and on their noted deviation from the agreed terms in not choosing the correct and specified materials for building the coach. Subsequently thereon, following accident, took the said vehicle to M/s. Dolphin Coach Builders, Madurai for repairs, where on the opposite party has instigated the police to intimidate the complainant and prevent her illegally from taking delivery of the vehicle despite the repair works completed at the workshop. The complainant has sustained damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the opposite party using low quality materials and deviating from specifications while constructing the body building of the coach. The opposite party is responsible and hence liable for the loss sustained by the complainant towards idling of the vehicle at M/s. Dolphin Coach Builders even after completion of repairs on account of their illegal action with the help of Police which is estimated to Rs.1,50,000/- and in total the complainant claims Rs.2,50,000/-.
2. The opposite party has filed their version contending that the cause of action took place at Madurai, Tamil Nadu and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is admitted that the complainant entrusted the opposite party, a Tata-407 Turbo Chassis for Mini bus body building, as per the quotation issued to her on 15/4/2002 by the opposite party. The cost of body building was Rs.2,40,000/- as per the specifications mentioned in the quotation, and the Mini bus body was built as per the agreement between the complainant and opposite party which is specified by mutual consent vide quotation dated 15/4/2002, issued to the complainant. The body panelling was with 18 guage Aluminium sheet and the roof, corner and glass frame works with 20 guage G.I sheet, as specified in item No.7 of the quotation. The flooring was made with Aluminium chekker plates and Double Coat Sparkle Metallic finish painting with Sieekens paint as specified in item No.8 and 16 of the quotation respectively, and that there was no specific direction regarding tail lamp fittings. Usually the original tail lamp fitting available with the chassis is used for tail lamp. Any additional light or light fitting of party's choice shall be supplied by them. Even though the allowable seating capacity is 12 + 1, as per R.T.A Rules, it was agreed to build two additional seats which was also built as per standards. As against the 50% advance payment, the complainant insisted for agreeing to her terms that the first installment of loan for body building granted from Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuam will be paid the opposite party. The opposite party hesitantly agreed to this with condition that the work will be started only after obtaining the first installment which she agreed. Before taking delivery of the vehicle on 14/7/2002, only Rs.86,400/- was paid by the complainant and Rs.1,53,600/- was due by her, which was agreed to be paid within a month of the delivery of the Built Mini Bus. The delay in delivery was contributed by the complainant as the first installment (advance payment to be made as per quotation) of body building from Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram was available only on 29/6/2002. But the work was started on 15/6/2002 because the complainant informed the advance payment will be ready on 15/6/2002. But it was late by two weeks and the DD was only for Rs.67,400/. After taking delivery of the built bus on 14/7/2002, DD from Kerala Financial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram for Rs.21,000/- only was paid by the complainant on 1/12/2002. Eventhough the opposite party approached for balance payments many times, she never cared for payment of the balance due by her, except the DD for Rs.21,000/-. At last the opposite party had to file a complaint before the Kudalpudur Police, Madurai. By Police action Rs.10,000/- was paid by her and Rs.5,000/- as the third installment by cash. Hence a total amount of Rs.1,42,400/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party against the quoted amount of Rs.2,40,000/- for body building. Without making balance payment of Rs.1,32,000/- the complainant was successfully plying the vehicle on road for about ten months. Even though the opposite party demanded payment of balance, she was hesitant to pay the balance. While so, the opposite party came to understand that the vehicle is kept at another workshop at Madurai. Hence the opposite party complained before the Kudalpudur Police and managed to get three installment payment.The complainant has come before the Hon'ble Forum not with clean hands, instead of paying the balance amount due to the opposite party, the complainant has filed a malicious complaint suppressing all material facts. The opposite party is raising a counter claim of Rs.97,600/- which is due from the complainant which may be granted, rejecting the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- claimed as compensation against the opposite party on false and frevilous grounds. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant's husband has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. Ext.D1 has been marked on the part of the opposite party. An expert commissioner appointed by the Forum has filed a detailed report which has been marked as Ext. C1.
4. On the contentions raised, following issues raise for consideration: (i)Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? (iii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5. Point No.(i) : There is no dispute with regard to the entrustment of the chassis by the complainant for Mini body building of a Tata-407 with the opposite party. The aspect to be looked into is the place of cause of action.
As per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain: PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
6. Hence accordingly whether any cause of action has arisen within the jursidiction of this Forum is to be considered. Undisputedly, the opposite party is at Madurai which is evident from the records on file. Moreover, the complainant has no case that the opposite party has any branch at Thiruvananthapuram which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The opposite party who is at Madurai has only been made a party. At this juncture, the next aspect to be looked into is whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
7. The complainant has pleaded that the production and finalization of quotation statement, and acceptance of initial payment were at Thiruvananthapuram and hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The opposite party has neither challenged the same nor has denied the said pleadings. In such a circumstance, we find that since part of the cause of action having been arisen within the local limits of Thiruvananthapuram, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
8. Points No. (ii) & (iii) : The main allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party has not done the work as per the terms agreed upon between the parties. Ext.P1 is the copy of the specification for construction of luxury mini van body dated 30/4/2002, produced by the complainant. Ext.D1 is specification for construction of luxury mini van body dated 15/4/2002 produced on behalf of the opposite party. It has been agreed by the complainant that Ext.D1 is the carbon copy of Ext.P1, but D1 has not been signed by the complainant but P1 is seen signed by both parties; moreover both the dates differ and certain entries are also different. Ext.P1 is the document which is seen signed by both parties, and as per Ext. P1 the seating capacity mentioned is Permit Rules (12 + 1) Nos extra seat 4 Nos. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has provided only 14 + 1 instead of 16 + 1. The commissioner has reported that "the number of seats provided in the vehicle is not according to the requirements of the complainant, as against the requirement 16 + 1, only 12 + 1 is provided". The Commissioner has reported that the paint used is a single tone metallic paint. As per Ext.P1 the painting to be used is double coat sparked metallic finish. With regard to the rear lights, the commissioner has reported that rear lights do not match to that of an 'indica' type, the provided one is an ordinary one of rectangular shape used in Tata vehicles. But as per Ext.P1, there is no specific mentioning with regard to 'indica' type, if at all the complainant had specifically ordered for the same, it would have definitely found a place in Ext.P1.
9. The opposite party has contended that the complainant had paid only Rs.1,42,400/- as against a total sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and as such an amount of Rs.97,600/- is still due from the complainant. The complainant has pleaded that the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after paying/settling the bills preferred by the opposite party. The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that, the vehicle was taken to M/s. Dolphin Coach Builders, Madurai for repairs following an accident, and the opposite party has instigated the Police to intimidate the complainant and illegally prevent the complainant from taking delivery of the vehicle even after the completion of the repair works. The complainant has nowhere in the complaint mentioned the date of delivery of the bus by the opposite party. Moreover, the complainant has admitted that the vehicle was taken to another coach builders for repair works following an accident. At this juncture, the aspect to be noted is that the expert commissioner has inspected the vehicle after the alleged accident. In such a circumstance, the actual work done by the opposite party could not be ascertained.
10. The complainant has not filed any complaint immediately after taking delivery of the vehicle. What prevented the complainant from filing the complaint immediately after taking possession of the vehicle has not been explained. This complaint has been filed after the accident and the repair works hitherto. The complainant has not pleaded in the complaint why the bus in dispute was not taken to the opposite party's workshop for further repairs after the accident, if at all the opposite party had violated the terms of the agreement, the complainant ought have filed at that juncture itself. Hence the complainant has been filed after the repairs by a 3rd party. Moreover, the complainant has also alleged that the opposite party had prevented the complainant from taking the vehicle from the Dolphin Coach Builders. Taking all the circustances into consideration, we find it very hard to believe that, the opposite party has illegally prevented the complainant from taking the vehicle from Dolphin Coach Builders.
11. The Ext.C1 is a report containing the description of the bus in dispute after an accident and repairs thereafter by some other workshop. The actual work carried on by the opposite party has not been brought out in evidence and the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the opposite party had not done the work in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant has failed to establish his complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed.
If at all the opposite party is entitled for any balance amount from the complainant, the opposite party can seek the remedy, if any, from the appropriate court of law and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any counter claims.
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, on this the 30th day of April, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.205/2003 ORDER Complainant's winess: PW1 : Valsala Kumar.T.R
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of specification for construction of luxury Mini van body dated 30/4/2002 P2 : Copy of cash/credit bill dated 14/7/2002 P3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 28/4/2003 P4 : Copy of postal receipt dt. 29/4/2003.
III. Opposite party's witness: NIL Opposite party's documens:
D1 : Original document for specification for construction of luxury mini van body dated 15/4/2002.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
