Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/18/2018

G.Sudheer, S/o G.Surendra Reddy, rep. by his GPA holder G.Surendra Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A.Sudarsana Babu

02 May 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 16.02.2018

Order Date:02.05.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

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

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.18/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

G.Sudheer,

S/o. G.Surendra Reddy,

D.No.69, Bairagipatteda,

Tirupati.

rep. by his GPA holder G.Surendra Reddy,

S/o. G.Venkatadri Reddy,

D.No.69, Bairagipatteda,

Tirupati Town,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         M/s. Vijaya Bharathi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its authorized signatory,  

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

            Thanapalle road,

            Near Mango Market,

            Tirupati – 517 503.

 

2.         M/s. TATA Motors Service Centre,

            Rep. by its authorized signatory,

            D.No.40-1-56, Benz Circle, M.G.Road,

            Vijayawada – 520 010.

 

3.         M/s. Concorde Motors (I) Ltd., (Tata Dealers),

            Rep. by its authorized signatory,

            Plot No.42, Velachery Main Road,

            Gundy,

            Chennai – 600 032.

 

4.         M/s. Tata Motors Marketing & Customer Support,

            Rep. by its authorized signatory,

            One Forbes,

            5^th Floor, Dr.V.B. Gandhi Marg,

            Fort,

            Mumbai – 400 023.                                                                   …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 18.04.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.G.Guruprasad, counsel for opposite party No.1, and Sri.G.Rajesh Babu, counsel for opposite party No.4, and opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte, 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, praying for a direction to the opposite parties, to issue corrected tax invoice in his name or in the name of his father G.Surendra Reddy, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant, and to pay costs of the complaint.

            2. The complaint averments are as follows -  The complainant is the absolute owner of Tata Indigo MANZA bearing registration No.AP26-AF-1323, and he is a software engineer at Bangalore. He used to visit Tirupati frequently to see his father, who is residing in Tirupati. In one of his routine trips to Tirupati, his car gave trouble due to pickup problem, low mileage and some other minor problems, and hence the complainant handed over the car to opposite party No.1 to effect repairs. Accordingly, opposite party No.1 has given a job slip dt:27.04.2016, but repairs could not be effected immediately. Whenever complainant made enquiry, they used to give evasive replies. The complainant thus faced problem to visit Tirupati, as the car was kept with opposite party No.1. When he contacted opposite party No.2, he asked the complainant to approach Assistant General Manager by name Goutham Sai, who inturn asked the complainant to contact Mr.Sanjith Pillai, Customer Support Manager, Tata Motors, Tirupati. But, when the complainant contacted Mr.Sanjith Pillai over phone, there was no positive response. Thus, either opposite party No.2 or opposite party No.1 did not respond positively. The complainant had undergone mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, as he could not get his car back, and further he had to engage private vehicle to come to Tirupati from Bangalore by spending huge money. He caused legal notice dt:03.08.2016 to opposite parties      1 and 2, and they did not give any reply though received the same. On the advice of Goutham Sai, complainant contacted opposite party No.3 over phone, and in response opposite party No.3 sent mail dt:02.09.2016 with a copy marking to opposite parties  1 and 2, stating that the estimation of repair work and approval from the complainant to go-ahead with repair work. The father of the complainant sent Rs.10,000/-  by RTGS from his ICICI bank, Tirupati, account bearing No.630901525973 on 03.09.2016. Further, opposite party No.3 sent a message to pay the balance amount of Rs.32,219/- to effect the repairs and accordingly the said amount of Rs.32,219/- was also paid by way of NEFT transfer on 21.09.2016 through the bank account of complainant’s father. Opposite party No.3 raised tax invoice dt:22.09.2016 in the name of V.Venkateswarlu, Dargamitta, Nellore, by showing the vehicle number as AP26-AF-1323 instead of raising invoice either in the name of the complainant or in the name of his father G.Surendra Reddy. The person in whose name invoice was raised is not the complainant, but some other 3^rd party. Noticing the said defect, father of the complainant caused a letter dt:25.10.2016 to opposite parties 3 and 4 to rectify the defect and raise the correct invoice in the name of G.Surendra Reddy instead of V.Venkateswarlu, as he made NEFT payment and the same is to be shown in his income tax returns. Having received the letter, opposite parties 3 and 4 did not give any reply. Thus, opposite parties 3 and 4 acted negligently and committed deficiency in service by raising defective invoice and later not rectifying the defect. Opposite parties 1 and 2 kept the vehicle right from 27.04.2016, till September 2016, without doing any repair work. The legal notice dt:11.11.2016 issued by complainant to opposite parties 1 to 4, did not evoke any response from the opposite parties. They failed to comply the demand made by the complainant in the notice. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the complaint by passing necessary directions as stated above.

            3.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte.

            4.  Opposite parties 1 and 4 contested the matter by filing written versions.

            5. Opposite party No.1 contended as follows – At the outset complaint averments are denied. The complainant is called upon to prove that he is the absolute owner of TATA Indigo MANAZA, and that he is an employee at Bangalore and used to visit Tirupati frequently to see his father, who is residing at Tirupati. It is admitted that the car has pick-up problem and it was handed over to opposite party No.1 for repairs and that opposite party No.1 gave job slip on 27.04.2016, but it is denied that opposite party No.1 did not effect the repairs and used to postpone the work on one pretext or the other. It is false to say that the complainant having disgusted with the attitude of opposite party No.1, had approached Assistant General Manager of opposite party No.2 by name Gowtham Sai, and he gave response on 15.07.2016 asking the complainant to contact Sanjith Pillai, Customer Support Manager, TATA Motors, Tirupati, and that when he contacted the said Sanjith Pillai over phone, there was no positive response from him and that the car was in the custody of opposite party No.1 without effecting repairs, which caused mental agony to the complainant. It is admitted that complainant issued legal notice dt:03.08.2016 to opposite party No.1, and opposite party No.3 sent a mail dt:02.09.2016 by marking copies to opposite parties 1 and 2 informing about estimation of repair and for approval from complainant to go ahead with work. The allegations in para.8 of the complaint are denied. As per RC records, the owner of the vehicle is one V.Chandra Sekhar, and as per service records / repair records, the name was mentioned as V.Venkateswarlu. The complainant entrusted the car to opposite party No.1 on 27.04.2016 complaining beading replacement and poor pickup, and it was repaired by opposite party No.1 and delivered to him. The complainant again came to opposite party No.1 with the car for repairs on 07.05.2016 on service request pickup – checkup and opposite party No.1 handed over the car to complainant on 30.06.2016 after resolving the problem, and as per tax invoice, they did not charge any amount for repairs. Again the complainant came with the car for service on 04.07.2016, and the opposite party delivered the car after effecting repairs on 13.08.2016 to the complainant without charging any amount. Opposite party No.1 was newly established and as they do not have petrol Manza Car parts, they got the parts from the company and replaced some of the parts of the car. Opposite party No.1 requested the complainant to give approval to send the vehicle to Chennai Concorde Service Centre, which is also authorized service centre at Chennai, but the complainant did not give approval immediately. On 27.07.2016 a mail was sent to get approval for sending the car to Concorde Service Centre, Chennai, but the complainant did not give any reply. Again, opposite party No.3 sent a mail on 03.09.2016 for approval of the complainant, to send the car to Concorde Service Centre, Chennai. The complainant accepted the same, and after that opposite party No.1 at their own cost sent the car by towing to the Concorde Service Centre, Chennai, for repairs. Opposite party No.1 spent Rs.10,000/- for towing, which includes labour charges, and not charged that amount form complainant. Ultimately, the car was handed over to complainant at Tirupati, by opposite party No.1. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the present complaint against opposite party No.1. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.     

            6.  Opposite party No.4 contended as follows – At the outset, complaint averments are denied. Opposite party is ably supported by excellent dealers / service centres like opposite parties 1 and 3, having excellent workshops for such sales. Customers of all passenger cars manufactured by opposite party No.4 are provided services through a large network of around 119 authorized dealers, 245 Tata Authorised Service Centres (TASC), 219 Tata Authorised Service Points (TASP) and 222 Tata Authorised Service Outlets (TASO). Opposite party No.4 has 800 workshops across the country. These workshops provide scheduled services, running repairs, major repairs, spare-parts support and even carry out accident repairs to the passenger cars and utility vehicles, and provide all India 24 x 7 toll free helpline service to the customers. It is alleged that complainant has abused process of law by suppressing material facts. Complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute under C.P.Act. The said car was delivered to the complainant after carrying out Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) by the dealer. All the passenger cars and commercial vehicles manufactured by opposite party No.4 are marketed only after the prototype of the car being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (in short, ARAI). All the cars manufactured are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and test drives by the Quality Assurance Department before being cleared for dispatch to the market. Every car manufactured at the plant of this opposite party No.4 undergoes various quality control tests till the assembly line and thereafter it is made ready for dispatch. Further, the opposite party is “ISO TS / 16949” certified, which is international standard for quality systems for all the automotive companies. After dispatching the vehicles to the authorized dealers of opposite party, the said dealers carry out Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) of new cars before selling to customers, as per the standard check-list. If any car reports to a workshop for scheduled services or for any repairs, the complaints / grievances of the customer are recorded in the job card, which do not imply admission of any defects in the car, but a mere representation of the customer’s grievances on the said car. Thereafter standard checks are carried out at the workshop and observation is recorded by the Service Advisor on the backside of the job card. It helps the concerned workshop to provide necessary consultancy / advise regarding the condition of the car to the customer. The car is checked at the workshop by the Quality Inspector (Q.I) and by Diagnostic Expert cum Trainer (DET) during pre and post repairs to ensure quality workmanship. The service advisor of the workshop, who interfaces with the customer, is adequately trained to provide proper job explanation of the works carried out and even provides test drive to the customer at the time of delivery of the car after every service / repairs to the entire satisfaction of the customer. Hence, there cannot be any complaint of deficiency in service against the opposite party No.4 by the complainant. The relationship extends between the opposite parties is on ‘principal to principal’ basis. Opposite party No.4 cannot be held liable for any independent act committed by other opposite party, as laid down in a decision reported in (1994) 1, SCC 397 between Indian Oil Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Another., and also in a decision reported in II (2009) CPJ 295 (NC) between Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Nagendra Prasad Sinha and Anr. When the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract, as laid down in a decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC 704 between Bharti Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier. Clause-9 of the warranty states that “the buyer shall have no other rights except those set out above and have particular, no right to repudiate the sale, or any agreement or to claim any reduction on the purchase price of the car or to demand any damages or compensation for losses, incidental or indirect, or inconvenience or consequential damages, loss of car, or loss of time, or otherwise, incurred or accrued”. The complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section-26 of the C.P.Act. The Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The subject vehicle is an old model manufactured by opposite party No.4. The spare parts and required technical expertise to rectify the problem is not available, since the manufacturing of the said model has been stopped. The complainant paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- initially and later paid Rs.32,219/- towards repairs of the car. Initially invoice was raised in the name of V.Venkateswarlu, later proper invoice was sent to the complainant through mail and a hard copy was given to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service, as alleged by the complainant. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            7. Complainant filed the chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Mr.S.Venkataraman, filed chief affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Mr.G.S.Arjun Kumar, filed chief affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.4 and no documents were marked.

            8.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?    

            9.  Point:-   In the written arguments, complainant argued that the car bearing No.AP26-AF-1323, purchased by him, started giving trouble, and when he approached opposite party No.1 to effect repairs, opposite party No.1 gave job slip dt:27.04.2016, but the problem was not solved, and the vehicle was not delivered to him inspite of making several requests, and having disgusted with the attitude of opposite party No.1, he contacted opposite party No.2, and Assistant General Manager by name Goutham Sai of opposite party No.2 informed the complainant to contact one Sanjith Pillai, Customer Support Manager, Tata Motors, Tirupati, and when he contacted the said Sanjith Pillai over phone, even he did not give positive response, and as such the car was in the custody of opposite party No.1 without effecting repairs. It is the argument of complainant that he had suffered a lot, as he used to come from Bangalore to Tirupati, to see his ailing father frequently in the car, and due to non-availability of the car, as it is kept with opposite party No.1, he faced inconvenience and therefore undergone mental agony. A legal notice was issued on 03.08.2016 by him to opposite parties 1 and 2, and having received the same, opposite party No.1 kept quiet, but opposite party No.2 managed to return the same, and surprisingly opposite party No.3 sent a mail dt:02.09.2016 marking copy to opposite parties 1 and 2 giving estimation of repair work and for approval from the complainant to go ahead with the works. Initially, the father of the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by RTGS from his ICICI bank account on 03.09.2016, and thereafter  paid Rs.32,219/- for effecting repairs of the car, when opposite party No.3 sent another message to him to pay the said amount. Then opposite party No.3 raised tax invoice dt:22.09.2016 in the name of V.Venkateswarlu, Nellore, by showing the vehicle number as AP26-AF-1323 instead of raising invoice in the name of complainant or in the name of his father G.Surendra Reddy, who transferred the amount through NEFT. As seen from the complaint, the main relief sought by the complainant is for issuing corrected tax invoice, and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant. Ex.A1 is customer copy of job slip given by opposite party No.1 dt:27.04.2016. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dt:03.08.2016. Ex.A3 is acknowledgement card from opposite party No.1. Ex.A4 is returned registered postal cover with acknowledgement due dt:19.08.2016 by opposite party No.2. Ex.A5 is photocopy of e-mail from opposite party No.3 dt:02.09.2016 relating to estimation of repair work of the said car. Ex.A6 is photocopy of email from opposite party to the effect “Details required on company / firm letter head for payment thro NEFT / RTGS dt:03.09.2016”. Ex.A7 is email between complainant and opposite party No.3 dt:19.10.2016 showing transfer of Rs.32,219/- towards cost of repair. Ex.A8 is true copy of ICICI bank summary of account bearing account holder Mr.G.Surendar Reddy, as on 05.10.2016. Ex.A9 is true copy of tax invoice dt:22.09.2016 issued by authorized signatory, Concorde Motors (India) Limited. Ex.A10 is letter addressed by G.Surendra Reddy, father of the complainant, to opposite party No.4 stating that he sent Rs.10,000/- RTGS and Rs.32,216/- from his ICICI bank account, Tirupati, for car repair, but till today invoice was not sent to him and therefore requested to issue invoice, as it is to be submitted to auditor for income tax purpose. It is stated that the amount was received by opposite party No.3 Concorde Motors Pvt. Ltd. (total amount is Rs.42,216/-. Ex.A11 is photocopy of Indian Postal Track Consignment bearing No.RN558607708IN, as proof of delivery. Ex.A12 is office copy of legal notice dt:11.11.2016, for which reply was given under Ex.A13 dt:18.11.2016.

10.  On the other hand, opposite party No.1 marked 3 documents in support of their case. Ex.B1 is photocopy of email issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant dt:27.07.2016. Ex.B2 is photocopy of tax invoice issued by authorized signatory, Vijayabharathi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., invoice dt:30.06.2016. Ex.B3 is photocopy of tax invoice issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, invoice dt:13.08.2016. Opposite party No.1 argued that complainant for the first time brought the car to their service centre on 27.04.2016 with complaint of poor pickup and it was repaired by them and handed over to the complainant. Again the complainant came to opposite party No.1 with car for repair on 07.05.2016 with the same problem of poor pickup, and opposite party No.1 handed over the car to complainant on 30.06.2016 by rectifying the defect without charging anything, and on 04.07.2016 also complainant again came to them with car, with service request and car was delivered to him after repairing on 13.08.2016 as per the tax invoice. It is the submission of opposite party No.1 that it was newly established in 2014 and they did not have petrol Manza car parts and so requested the complainant to give approval to send the vehicle to Chennai Concorde Service Centre, which is also authorized service centre at Chennai, but complainant did not give approval immediately, to send the car to Concorde Service Centre. On 27.07.2016 opposite party No.1 sent mail to complainant to get approval for sending the car to Concorde Service Centre, Chennai. Again opposite party No.3 sent mail on 03.09.2016 for approval of the complainant, to send the car to Concorde Service Centre, Chennai, and the same was accepted by the complainant. After that opposite party No.1 at their own cost towed the car to Concorde Service Centre, Chennai, for repair and further opposite party No.1 has spent Rs.10,000/- for towing, which was not charged from complainant, and finally the car was handed over to complainant at Tirupati on 23.09.2016. The complainant did not dispute the facts mentioned in the written arguments filed by opposite party No.1. So, it has to be taken that vehicle delivered to complainant after repair and the delay occurred due to the fact that approval was not given by the complainant immediately. So, the delay in delivering the car to P.W.1 is not on account of any negligence on the part of opposite party No.1.

11.  Opposite party No.4 argued that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, as there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is an admitted fact that complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by RTGS from his ICICI bank account at Tirupati on 03.09.2016, and further paid Rs.32,219/- to effect repairs of the car, after opposite party No.3 sent message to complainant to pay the said amount of Rs.32,219/-. The said transaction was done on 21.09.2016 through bank account of complainant’s father by name G.Surendra Reddy. This fact is not in dispute. So, it is clear from the material on record that the complainant has not paid any amount towards repair charges till 21.09.2016. Opposite party No.4 further argued that they are not liable to pay any amount, as the relationship exists between the opposite parties is on principal to principal basis, and not principal to agent basis, and they are not held liable for any independent act and / or omission, committed by the other opposite party.  

12.  Opposite party No.4 referred some decisions as mentioned above and those decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, for the reasons that admittedly the delay occurred for effecting repairs of the vehicle and handing over the same to the complainant is due to the fact that vehicle had to be towed to Concorde Service Centre, Chennai, for effecting repairs by opposite party No.1. It took nearly    5 months for the complainant to give approval for shifting the vehicle from Vijayawada to Chennai. It is not the case of the complainant that the vehicle was delivered in the same condition without effecting repairs. From the evidence on record and material placed before the Forum, it appears that the complainant’s main grievance is with regard to raising invoice with wrong name. It is an admitted fact that the invoice was raised in the name of one V.Venkateswarlu, but opposite party No.4 contended that later proper invoice was sent to the complainant through mail and hard copy was also sent to the complainant. It is the argument of opposite party No.4 that they deal with its authorized dealers on principal to principal basis, and thus they may not be held liable for the acts and omissions of authorized dealer (O.Ps). But, opposite party No.4 did not file any evidence to show that proper invoice was sent to complainant. Opposite party No.4 further argued that opposite party No.3 is responsible for raising invoice in the wrong name and they should be held responsible for the same.

13.  As already stated by us, opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte. Though Exs.B1 to B3 are filed, Exs.B2 and B3 stands in the name of V.Venkateswarlu, which are dt:30.06.2016 and 13.08.2016, whereas Ex.B1 dt:27.07.2016 is the mail addressed to complainant. From the evidence on record, it is quite clear that opposite party No.4 did not file any documentary proof to show that the defect crept in the invoice raised in the name of the wrong person (V.Venkateswarlu) was rectified. Raising invoice in the name of wrong person certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4, as opposite party No.3 is the dealer of opposite party No.4. Hence, we hold that opposite parties 3 and 4 jointly and severally liable to rectify the defect crept in the tax invoice and issue fresh tax invoice in the name of complainant or in the name of GPA holder, who is the father of the complainant, who transferred the required amount i.e. Rs.10,000 + Rs.32,219 = Rs.42,219/- to the authorized dealer for effecting repairs. Further, opposite parties 3 and 4 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant due to deficiency in service on their part and costs of the complaint.

14.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties       3 and 4, to issue corrected tax invoice in the name of complainant or in the name of complainant’s father G.Surendra Reddy, and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation, and also to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant. Time for compliance of the order is six (6) weeks, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall attract interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.

The complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 is dismissed.                   

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 2^nd day of May, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                             

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  G. Surendra Reddy (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

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

RW-2:  G. S. Arjun Kumar (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Customer copy of JOB SLIP given by Vijayabharathi Automobiles Private Limited, 9-27, Krishna Reddy Nagar, Thanapalli Road, Near Mango Mart, Tirupati. . Dt: 27.04.2016.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 03.08.2016.
	Acknowledgement Card from Opposite Party No.1.
	Returned Registered Postal Cover with Acknowledgement Due. Dt: 19.08.2016.
	Photo copy of E-mail from Opposite Party No.3. Dt: 02.09.2016.
	Photo copy of E-mail from Opposite Party regarding “DETAILS REQUIRED ON COMPANY/FIRM LETTER HEAD FOR PAYMENT THRO’NEFT/RTGS”. Dt: 03.09.2016.
	Photo copy of E-mail between Complainant and Opposite party No.3. Dt: 19.10.2016.
	True copy of ICICI Bank Summary of Account bearing account holder Mr. G. Surendar Reddy as on 05.10.2016.
	True copy of Tax Invoice issued by Authorized Signatory, CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LIMITED.  Invoice Date: 22.09.2016.
	Office copy of Letter regarding ‘repairs effected TATA MANZA car No. AP 26AF 1323.           G. Surendra Reddy through Vijaya Bharathi Motors- Repairs effected by Concored Motors –Invoice- Not received’. Dt: 22.10.2016
	Photo copy of Indian Postal Track Consignment bearing No. RN558607708IN as Proof of Delivery.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 11.11.2016.
	True copy of Reply. Dt: 18.11.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of E-mail issued by the O.P.No.1 to the Complainant. Dt: 27.07.2016.
	Photo copy of Tax Invoice issued by Authorized Signatory, VIJAYA BHARATHI AUTO MOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED. Invoice Date: 30.06.2016.
	Photo copy of Tax invoice issued by O.P.No.1 to the Complainant. Invoice Dt: 13.08.2016.

 

  

                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

 

                                     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

  

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.