Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/19/2018

G.Nanda Kishore, S/oDharmaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Vijaya Bharathi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 04.04.2018

Order Date:09.01.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.19/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

G. Nanda Kishore,

S/o. Dharmaiah,

Hindu, aged about 32 years,

Bathalavaram village,

Varadaiahpalem Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

Vijaya Bharathi Automobiles Pvt. Limited,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Having its office at:

D.No.9-27, Krishna Reddy Nagar,

Thanapalle Road,

Near Mango Market,

Tirupati – 517 503.                                                                          …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 30.11.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Sudarsan Babu, counsel for complainant, and Sri.G.Guruprasad, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12(1) of C.P.Act 1986, seeking direction to the opposite party, to terminate the finance contract with TATA Motors Finance Limited, for the car bearing No.AP-03-TV-6480, by paying the outstanding due of Rs.8,99,062.55 ps. as on the date of 07.03.2018, to direct the opposite party  to provide a new car under the same finance, to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for undergoing mental agony and financial loss suffered due to negligent and defective service and to pay costs of the complaint.   

            2.  The facts in brief are as follows:-  The complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, purchased motor car bearing No.AP-03-TV-5878 on 28.10.2014, from the opposite party by way of finance from Tata Motors Finance Limited, Tirupati, hereinafter called TMFL. In the month of May 2017, opposite party made an open offer of exchange and in that complainant has given the said car under exchange with a view to have a new car. The exchange offer was for Rs.3,50,000/- and out of that amount TMFL had taken Rs.2,00,000/- and the remaining balance left with the opposite party was Rs.1,50,000/-.  The opposite party raised invoice amount of Rs.7,14,092/- for the new car. The complainant has to pay Rs.69,846/-. Though Rs.1,50,000/- remained with opposite party, they insisted him to pay balance of Rs.69,846/- for having  a new car. The complainant paid that amount. The contract value of finance is Rs.9,84,175/- under different heads and that amount was financed by TMFL. The complainant had new car with registration No.AP-03-TV-6480. He has been regularly paying the installments to TMFL. But unfortunately on 18.06.2017, the vehicle met with an accident and immediately the same was reported to opposite party, who made arrangements to take the damaged vehicle to their garage for undertaking repairs. The opposite party had undertaken repair work vide job slip dt:21.06.2017 and at that time the meter reading was noted as 10,097 k.m and the approximate cost of repair was estimated at Rs.4,00,000/-. The car was duly insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupati, herein after called NIACL. The complainant was under bonafide impression that insurance company will pay the repair charges. But even after lapse of one month, the repair work was not undertaken by the opposite party. When he contacted opposite party on 14.07.2017, they demanded him to pay Rs.10,000/- to start repairs. The complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- on the same day vide receipt No.382, as he had no other alternative. But the opposite party had not started the repair work even after payment also, and the vehicle was kept in the same damaged condition in their garage. At last on 18.10.2017 opposite party raised tax invoice to effect the repairs for an amount of Rs.3,29,600/- and demanded the complainant to pay the said amount. The opposite party made all efforts to dodge the matter and caused economic loss to complainant as he was forced to pay EMIs to TMFL though the vehicle was not put to use. The opposite party used to give evasive answers to the complainant and used to say that there was no response from the insurance company and that repair work will be undertaken only if the insurance company gives assurance and transfers money to them. The insurance company made a mail dt:23.11.2017 to opposite party stating that an amount of Rs.2,86,500/- has been approved by the competent authority and that amount will be credited into the account of the opposite party through NEFT. It is further stated that difference amount has to be collected from the owner of the vehicle. The complainant had already paid Rs.10,000/- on 14.07.2017 and as such the remaining balance of Rs.33,100/- has to be paid by him, and at the request made by opposite party on 23.11.2017 further discount of Rs.10,000/-was given and as such complainant was forced to pay balance amount of Rs.23,100/-, which he paid through IDBI bank on 23.11.2017 vide receipt No.1213. The complainant took the vehicle on 27.11.2017 from the garage of opposite party, but he noticed running defects including non-functioning of AC of the car. The complainant immediately complained the same to opposite party and they advised him to run the car for few days and if the problems still persist, then they will rectify the defect. The complainant caused legal notice through advocate on 28.11.2017 alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party having received the same caused reply dt:15.12.2017 with false contentions. The car AC problem was not rectified and it started giving trouble again and again, and as such he brought the vehicle to opposite party on 18.12.2017. The opposite party having collected Rs.2,000/- for effecting repair of AC compressor, did not rectify the said defect and returned the vehicle to the complainant. 15 days thereafter the same problem occurred and vehicle was again taken to the opposite party on 30.01.2018 with service request of rectifying running repairs. Still the AC problem and running repairs continuing. The opposite party again collected Rs.899/- towards fitment charges and AC check-up charges vide tax invoice dt:06.03.2018, but the problem was not totally rectified and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant contacted authorized person of Tata Motors at Kadapa and as per his advise he took his vehicle to Tata Motors authorized service centre at Nellore with the complaint of steering hard, sound, running repair and non-functioning of AC vide job slip No.2968 dt:13.03.2018 with current meter reading as 15,859 k.m., and they informed him that the system is showing meter reading as 80,709 k.m. and as such they cannot effect any replacement, as the meter reading crossed its limit and the proper party to effect any replacement is only opposite party, who sold the car. The vehicle was therefore returned by Tata Motors, Nellore, to the complainant in the same condition. The opposite party cheated the complainant by wrongly feeding the reading as 80,709 in the system though infact the car ran only 15,859 km. The complainant kept the vehicle in the opposite party garage again for effecting repairs and the car is still in the same garage even on the date of filing of the complaint. The complainant is a consumer, as he purchased the car for earning his livelihood and as such this Forum got jurisdiction to try this complaint. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow this complaint.

            3.  The opposite party filed the written version contending as follows – The complaint is not maintainable. At the outset complaint allegations are denied. The allegation that the complainant for the purpose of earning livelihood purchased a car bearing No.AP-03-TV-5878 on 28.10.2014 from opposite party is false. Infact the car is meant for commercial purpose. It is admitted that in the month of May 2017, opposite party made an offer of exchange and complainant has returned the said car under exchange offer with a view to have a new car, but it is not correct to say that exchange offer is for Rs.3,50,000/- and out of that amount TATA Motors, who financed complainant had taken Rs.2,00,000/- to their credit and remaining balance left was Rs.1,50,000/- and the said amount was with the opposite party, and that the opposite party raised invoice amount of Rs.7,14,02/- for the new car and TMFL has offered Rs.6,44,246/- as finance amount apart from incidental charges and after deduction of finance amount of Rs.6,44,246/- from the invoice amount of Rs.7,14,092/-, the amount still payable is Rs.69,846/- and though an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- remained with them, they insisted the complainant to pay Rs.69,846/- to have a new car, and that the opposite party fraudulently retained Rs.1,50,000/- with them. Infact there is no amount in the hands of opposite party. The complainant did not pay Rs.70,000/- to the opposite party as alleged. It is not known that complainant regularly paid installments to TMFL. It is admitted that on 18.06.2017, the vehicle  met with an accident, but it is not true to say that complainant reported to opposite party immediately after the accident. It is admitted that opposite party had undertaken repair work vide job slip dt:21.06.2017 and by that time the reading was noted as 10,097 k.m. The estimated cost of repair was Rs.4,00,000/-. It is denied that they failed to undertake repair work even after lapse of one month and that they demanded Rs.10,000/- to start repair woks when the complainant approached on 14.07.2017. It is admitted that the vehicle was insured with NIACL. It is admitted that on 18.10.2017 opposite party raised tax invoice to effect repairs for an amount of Rs.3,29,600/-. It is denied that due to dodging matter by opposite party, the complainant was put to financial loss, as he was forced to pay EMIs to TMFL without any income from the vehicle, as it was kept in the garage without effecting repairs. It is denied that opposite party used to give evasive answers to the complainant for not affecting the repairs of the car. They never stated that if insurance company gives assurance and transfer money then only they will undertake the repairs of the car. The allegations in Paras. 10,11,12 and 13 of the complaint are denied. According to the opposite party, complainant has purchased TATA Zest XM white colour car from the opposite party on 31.03.2017, and they came to know that the said car met with an accident and negligent driving of the complainant resulting in extensive damage to the car, and the same was brought to the opposite party service centre for assessing damage and to effect repairs on 20.06.2017. The opposite party estimated the cost of repair at Rs.5,62,988/- and estimation copy was given to the complainant and also to insurance company, as the vehicle was covered under insurance policy. Inturn insurance company sent a surveyor to examine the damaged car on 21.06.2017. The complainant submitted all required documents to the surveyor on 03.07.2017 and after that insurance company gave work approval on 07.07.2017 to opposite party service centre. Thereafter, opposite party asked the complainant to pay advance of Rs.10,000/- for placing order for spare parts for the damaged vehicle. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 14.07.2017 to opposite party. Thereafter opposite party received spare parts on 30.07.2017 from the company and completed repair work on 02.10.2017. Thereafter on information by opposite party, the authorized surveyor made final inspection of the accident car for approval and that tax invoice was prepared by the opposite party on 18.10.2017 for Rs.3,29,600/-, but insurance company approved claim for Rs.2,86,500/- on 01.11.2017. The opposite party informed to the complainant on 02.11.2017 regarding approval of claim by insurance company and requested to pay balance amount of Rs.33,100/- (Tax Invoice Rs.3,29,000 – Claim approved by the Insurance Company Rs.2,86,500/- = Rs.43,100 – Rs.10,000 advance amount = Rs.33,100/-). The opposite party thereafter informed the complainant over phone to take delivery of the vehicle on 02.11.2017, but complainant did not respond and again on 04.11.2017 and on 11.11.2017 the opposite party sent reminders by way of letter to the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle by paying Rs.33,100/-. Even then the complainant did not respond to take delivery of the car. Meanwhile the finance company tried to seize the complainant’s vehicle kept in the garage for non-payment of installments and the same was resisted by the opposite party. Lastly on 23.11.2017 when the complainant came to take delivery of the vehicle, the opposite party gave Rs.10,000/- concession and accordingly complainant paid Rs.23,100/- and receipt was issued to that effect on the same day. The complainant had taken delivery of the car without any objection from the opposite party on the same day, but on 28.11.2017 again the complainant came to the service centre stating that AC of the car is not functioning and left the car in the garage. The complainant left the car at the service centre with malafide intention to gain wrongfully and approached the Forum by suppressing the true facts. The opposite party on goodwill gesture rectified AC of the car at the cost of Rs.8,000/- but collected only Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. But again complainant came to the opposite party with AC problem and opposite party found that compressor of AC hit by the rock / speed breaker and hence gas and oil are leaking. The opposite party collected Rs.899/- on 06.03.2018 for rectifying the said defect. Again the complainant came to opposite party service centre with car complaining about AC problem on 14.03.2018 and the same was rectified by opposite party by charging Rs.9,204/- on goodwill gesture and intimated the same to complainant on 24.03.2018, but the complainant did not come to take delivery of the car from the garage and file this false complaint against the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non adding necessary parties such as Insurance Company, TMFL etc. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            4.  Complainant filed chief evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of opposite party one S.Venkataramana, Managing Director, filed chief evidence affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B5.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            6.  Point:-  In the written arguments filed by the complainant it is contended that the complainant had purchased new car vide registration No.AP-03-TV-6480 from the opposite party under finance from TMFL, Tirupati, and that the cost of the vehicle was Rs.9,84,175/- and further contended that the vehicle met with an accident on 18.06.2017 and upon intimation, opposite party made arrangement to take the damaged vehicle to their garage, to undertake the repairs vide job slip dt:21.06.2017 and at that time reading was noted as 10,097 k.m. and the estimated cost of repair was Rs.4,00,000/- and the same was to be paid New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tirupati, as the car was duly insured with them. It is the contention of the complainant that there was inordinate delay in effecting repairs by opposite party and several times the complainant had to visit the opposite party for some problem or the other, but repairs were not done to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is further contended that in the system, opposite party wrongly fed the information with regard to kilometers run by the car as 80,709 but infact the car had run only 15,859 k.m. It is further contended that the complainant could not use the car, as the car was kept in the opposite party garage for so many months. Thus he suffered financial loss due to payment of EMIs without income from the vehicle, as TMFL put pressure on him to pay monthly installments.  

            7.  On the other hand, the opposite party contended that they have attended the repair works of the car belonging to the complainant and kept ready the vehicle, but the complainant did not come to take delivery of the car. It is further contended by the opposite party that at the cost of Rs.899/- vide invoice dt:06.03.2018, they have rectified the defect in AC compressor and kept ready the car for delivery on 14.03.2018, but the complainant with malafide intention did not take delivery of the car. It is further contended by the opposite party that the complainant did not add necessary parties such as Insurance Company and TMFL, and as such complaint has to be dismissed on that count.

            8.  The admitted facts are like this – the complainant purchased car bearing No.AP-03-TV-5878 on 28.10.2014 from opposite party, and thereafter in an exchange offer made by opposite party, complainant had purchased new car. It is an admitted fact that opposite party raised invoice amount of Rs.7,14,092/- for the new car and TMFL has offered Rs.6,44,246/- as finance amount apart from incidental charges. It is also an admitted fact that new car bearing No.AP-03-TV-6480 met with an accident on 18.06.2017. It is also an admitted fact that opposite party has undertaken repair work vide job slip dt:21.06.2017 and by that time meter reading was noted as 10,097 k.m. It is also an admitted fact that on 14.07.2017, opposite party has demanded Rs.10,000/- as advance for taking up repair work and that amount was paid vide receipt No.382 dt:14.07.2017, which was marked as Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is Registration Certificate of the accident car. Ex.A2 is policy schedule cum certificate of insurance issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., for the said car and the same is not disputed. The job slip dt:21.06.2017 is marked as Ex.A3 and the same is not disputed. The tax invoice dt:18.10.2017 marked as Ex.A5 is also not disputed. Ex.A6 is cashless settlement of claim. Ex.A7 is photocopy of mail with regard to discount approval dt:23.11.2017 is also not disputed. As per Ex.A7 the insurance company approved Rs.2,86,500/- towards repair charges for the estimated repair amount of Rs.3,29,600/- and that the balance amount has to be borne by the owner of the car i.e. the complainant. It is also admitted fact that opposite party demanded Rs.33,100/- and as per Ex.A7 discount of Rs.10,000/- was given and ultimately Rs.23,100/- was paid by the complainant towards repair charges excluding Rs.2,86,500/- borne by the insurance company. Ex.A8 is receipt for Rs.23,100/- dt:23.11.2017 and the same is not disputed. Ex.A9 is office copy of legal notice dt:28.11.2017, for which opposite party issued reply in Ex.A10 dt:15.12.2017. Ex.A11 is receipt in original dt:18.12.2017 for Rs.2,000/- towards effecting AC compressor repair. Ex.A13 is attested true copy of tax invoice dt:06.03.2018 for Rs.899/- relating to AC repair. The contention of the complainant is that the problem was not totally rectified and as such opposite party committed deficiency in service. It is the submission of counsel for complainant that they approached Tata Motors authorized service centre at Nellore with complaint of steering hard, sound, running repair and AC not working vide job slip No.2968, which is marked as Ex.A14. But to the surprise of the complainant, the said service centre dealer informed that the milometer reading is showing 15,859 k.m. but in the system milometer reading is displaying as 80,709 k.m. and as such they cannot effect any replacement, as the meter crossed its limit and proper party to effect repair is only opposite party, who sold the car. Ex.A15 is job slip dt:14.03.2018. Ex.A16 is photocopy of contract details as on 07.03.2018, this document is not in dispute. The opposite party marked  5 documents.  Ex.B1 dt:21.06.2017 pertains to full estimate report showing the repair liability of Rs.5,62,988/-. Ex.B2 is photocopy issued by opposite party to the complainant through courier service dt:04.11.2017 stating that total estimation report has given to the complainant on 21.06.2017 and that required documents were submitted on 03.07.017 for insurance claim and that insurance company had given approval on 07.07.2017 and after that they started the work and placed order for spare parts and that the surveyor has done R.I on 04.10.2017, and that further requested the complainant to pay the remaining amount of Rs.33,600/- excluding insurance liability. Ex.B3 is photocopy of letter issued by opposite party to complainant dt:11.11.2017 along with courier receipt dt:13.11.2017. Under Ex.B3 complainant was informed that repair work is completed and asked the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. Ex.B4 is photocopy of satisfaction note issued by the complainant in favour of opposite party dt:19.12.2017. As per Ex.B4 complainant has given certificate expressing full satisfaction over the repair work done by the opposite party. Ex.B5 is photocopy of tax invoice of R.M.Car A/c Spares dt:23.03.2018, which shows that complainant had paid Rs.9,204/-. The documents filed by the opposite party cannot be disputed in the absence of any proof submitted by the complainant.

            9.  As seen from the documentary evidence, soon after accident of the car on 18.06.2017, it was brought to the notice of service centre of opposite party on 21.06.2017 for assessing damage and repairs. Accordingly, the service centre estimated the cost of repair at Rs.5,62,988/- and the same was sent to insurance company for approval and inturn insurance company sent surveyor to examine the car on 21.06.2017, and the authorized surveyor inspected the car and thereafter on 07.07.2017 insurance company gave work approval to opposite party and then opposite party asked the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- as advance for placing order for spare parts of the damaged vehicle, and upon that request, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 14.07.2017. The opposite party received the spare parts on 30.07.2017 from the company and completed the work on 02.10.2017 and thereafter authorized surveyor was informed about the repair work for final inspection. Thereafter the insurance company approved the claim for Rs.2,86,500/-. Though the tax invoice was prepared by opposite party on 18.10.2017 for Rs.3,29,600/-, thereafter the complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.33,100/- (Tax Invoice Rs.3,29,000 minus claim approved by the insurance company Rs.2,86,500/- = Rs.43,100 minus Rs.10,000 advance amount = Rs.33,100/-). The opposite party informed the complainant over phone to take delivery of the vehicle on 02.11.2017, but the complainant did not respond, again on 04.11.2017 and 11.11.2017, opposite party sent reminders to complainant by way of letters to take delivery of the vehicle by paying balance amount of Rs.33,100/-. At the request of the complainant, opposite party further agreed to deduct Rs.10,500/- from Rs.33,100/- as concession and complainant was asked to pay Rs.23,100/- and the same was paid, and the complainant had taken delivery of the car without any objection as per Ex.B4. The documents filed by both sides shows that AC compressor was repaired by the opposite party, when the vehicle was brought again by the complainant by charging Rs.899/- as per invoice dt:06.03.2018. Further, the complainant again approached the opposite party for the same problem on 14.03.2018 and again the opposite party repaired the AC by charging Rs.9,204/- as goodwill gesture, though the repair cost is even more, and intimated the complainant on 24.03.2018 to take delivery of the vehicle. No evidence is placed by the complainant with regard to approaching  Nellore service centre for getting Car AC repaired. The contention of complainant that though the accident car ran for 15,859 k.m. only, the opposite party service centre wrongly fed in the system that the car ran 80,709 k.m. and that the same was informed by Nellore service centre dealer, who expressed their inability to attend repairs since the kilometers crossed the limit, is not supported by any evidence either orally or documentary except self serving statement of the complainant. Further Nellore service centre was not made party in this complaint.  On perusal of the documentary evidence and submissions made in the written arguments filed by both parties, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, as they effected repairs of the accident car whenever it is brought to the service centre by the complainant.  

            10.  The opposite party counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in            I (2006) CPJ 286 between Col. Nirmal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company & Anr. rendered by Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it is held that complainant cannot allege that despite recording satisfaction, there was leakage from power steering assembly of the car, as damage caused to power steering assembly due to accident was not proved with regard to accident vehicle. Hence, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties proved. The opposite party counsel by pressing into service the above cited decision argued that in this case also, complainant has issued Ex.B4 dt:19.12.2017 expressing full satisfaction over the repair works and took delivery of the vehicle and thereafter also the opposite party effected repairs of AC of the car when the complainant brought the vehicle subsequently to the service centre by charging minimum amount, and it shows that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant on 28.11.2017 left the car in opposite party service centre for AC repair without any instructions and thereafter issued legal notice to opposite party. There is no evidence to show that complainant had taken delivery of the car on 27.11.2017 and immediately complained the opposite party with regard to running defects and non-functioning of AC.  

            11.  As already stated by us, the documentary evidence shows that opposite party service centre attended repairs including AC, and for the best reasons known to the complainant, he did not take delivery of the vehicle even after it is informed by opposite party that the vehicle is ready for delivery. Hence, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

            12.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                                         

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 9^th day of January, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                      

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  G. Nanda Kishore (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  S. Venkataramana (Chief affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Self attested photo copy of Registration Certificate. Dt: 24.05.2017.
	Self attested photo copy of Policy Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance. Period of Cover: 13.04.2017 to 12.04.2018.
	Job Slip (Customer Copy). Dt: 21.06.2017.
	Original copy of Receipt bearing No. 382. Dt: 14.07.2017.
	Photo copy of Tax Invoice. Dt: 18.10.2017.
	Self attested photo copy of Mail from Insurance Company. Dt: 23.11.2017.
	Photo copy of Mail (Regarding Discount Approval). Dt: 23.11.2017.
	Self attested photo copy of Payment Receipt for Rs.23,100/-. Dt: 23.11.2017.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 28.11.2017.
	Reply. Dt: 15.12.2017.
	Receipt in original. Dt: 18.12.2017.
	True copy of Tax Invoice. Dt: 30.01.2018.
	Self attested photo copy of Tax Invoice. Dt: 06.03.2018.
	Self attested photo copy of Job Slip. Dt: 13.03.2018.
	Self attested photo copy of Job Slip. Dt: 14.03.2018.
	Photo copy of (System generated) Contract Details as on date 07.03.2018.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Full Estimate Report prepared for the Registration No.AP03TV6480 by the opposite party.  Created on 21.06.2017.
	Photo copy of Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant through courier service. Dt: 04.11.2017.
	Photo copy of Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant filed. Dt: 11.11.2017 along with photo copy of courier receipt Dated: 13.11.2017.
	Photo copy of Satisfaction Note issued by the complainant infavour of the opposite party. Dt: 19.12.2017.
	Photo copy of Tax Invoice of R.M. CAR A/C SPARES, Renigunta Road, Tirupati. Dt: 23.03.2018.

 

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-       

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

    

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.