Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

269/2010

M/s. Akshaya Buisness Solution Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. EPI Source India Pvt,Ltd.,Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

S.Aravamuthan

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

                                                                                                                Date of Filing  : 15.06.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.04.2018

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                       :  PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                    :  MEMBER-I

                                     

CC. NO.269 /2010

TUESDAY THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

M/s. AKSHAYA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,

Represented by its Director

Revathi S. Raghunathan,

No.25, Baroda Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

 

M/s. EPI SOURCE INDIA (PVT) LTD.,

Represented by its Managing Director

V. Vasudevan,

Regd. Office:

No.18, Satyanarayana Avenue,

Boat Club Road,

R.A. Puram,

Chennai – 600 028.                                             ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant                :  M/s. Gupta & Ravi

Counsel for opposite party            :  M/s. V. Srikanth & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to pay a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- for investment amount, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant after consultation with her partner had agreed to do the jobs offered regarding Data Processing with the opposite party.  EIPL a fully owned subsidiary of EPI Source LLC, U.S.A. is in the Business of B.P.O., K.P.O. and Software Development.  The said company has been fulfilling their entire requirements of EPI Source – U.S.A. on the area of Data Entry Services to be done for and on behalf of their Principal EPI Source U.S.A. and the above fact is within the understanding of EPI Source India and EPI Source U.S.A.  Consequently, the opposite party had ordered the complainant to have Electronic system of running job matters totally controlled by the opposite party; Supra. 

2.     As EPI Source U.S.A. being known not only doing business but holding company of EPI Source India, has requested their clients to forward their business requirements B.P.O., K.P.O. to EPI Source India Ltd. through Electronically scanning and forwarding works at “Server”.  The opposite party would give Code Numbers to the complainant through electronically: then the complainant, using the secret Code number given by the opposite party, would get material for doing the work of opposite party.  No one could approach “Server” unless the secret code four numbers known.  The EPI Source India would give the secret code four numbers kept by him for each operator after scanning, would forward such secret code numbers, so that the complainant, as agreed up on had completed the processing of Invoices and forward to EPI Source India through Electronically.  Thus the complainant had finished job for EPI Source India.  The complainant has no legal or moral obligation towards EPI Source, U.S.A. as rightly stated in ‘Letter of Intent’ dated:01.02.2008.  EIPL, through their Vendor Development Programme has requirement on the area of Data Entry Service to be done for and on behalf of their Principals EPI Source LLC, U.S.A.

3.     The complainant submits that the ‘Letter of Intent’ would be the only document, that would speak itself, signed by the complainant and the opposite party on 01.02.2008. To qualify for obtaining work from the opposite party, the complainant’s invoice Processing, the complainant must invest huge amount around Rs.10,00,000/- for buying and installing computers. AC, UPS at the work place, if failed, penal provisions invoked.  Despite such un-compromisable conditions, the complainant had fulfilled their part of fulfilling the said processing – each day had processed Invoices for the opposite party’s requirements and had sent to the opposite party through computer; never failed to do their part of service as per the “ Letter of Intent” and that too done without blemishes. 

4.     It is submitted by the complainant that he is not a Vendor as stipulated in L.O.I. but processed invoices which are not materials.  Invoice processed is not material capable of sale of goods; sale of goods Act do not apply.  The complainant had processed the Invoices and sent back to EI Ltd. Not to EPL (U.S.A.) by computer as described on 2nd para of this complaint.  The important aspect is the availment of the service of A.B.S. (P) Ltd. For Processing Invoices forwarded by the E.I.P.L. one of the signatory of  ‘Letter of Intent’ under the veil of Development of Vendor Agreement; strictly speaking there is no Vendor or Purchaser; processing Invoices and sending back processed Invoices received by EIPL to that extent the complainant is a consumer availing the service of the opposite party for Processing Invoices (B.P.O.) for EIPL, Chennai and forwarded after completion of work through electronically – as per ‘ Letter of Intent’ – service provider.  Further, the entire Invoice Processed will be audited by the Q.A. Department of EPI Source India Ltd., Chennai.  The ABSPL is qualified to do the job of Processed Invoice as per audit on Complainant facility available.  If there is deficiency in service as per the terms and conditions enumerated in L.O.I., the dispute raised by ABSPL will be Consumer Dispute as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.     The complainant submits that he had an agreement with the opposite party ‘Letter of Intent’ dated:01.02.2008.  The complainant had availed the services of the opposite party – Job requirement – Project IPRO – Initial requirement 2000 to 2500 Invoices to be processed every day ; (2) SLA Validity for one year from 01.02.2008 but did not extend further but continuing and acted upon as if extension granted to that extent the complainant is a consumer availing service from the opposite party who is a “Service Provider” as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  EPI Source India Ltd., Chennai is a Service Provider whose burden is to comply Letter of Intent. 

6.     It is submitted that the opposite party had violated the terms and conditions enumerated in ‘Letter of Intent’ SLA – Validity

  1. Termination Clause Business Expansion Scope

The complainant submits that it is now well settled that the title or caption, the nomenclature of the instrument/ document is not determinative of the nature and character of the instrument / document though the name may usually give some indication of the nature of document.The name and true nature of the document would be determined with reference to the contents and terms of the document.Letter of Intent is nothing but innocent people; vendor is not in picture.They gave service – typing electronically conveying to the opposite party service done by the complainant is received but consideration is for Processing Invoice, all of a sudden without prior notice unilaterally terminated the contract that too against the terms of L.O.I.It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party had terminated the complainant effective 19.02.2010 without prior notice or as contemplated in Letter in Intent:“Any termination will have a clear 90 days notice period from both the sides”.The extension of contract will be intimated in 3 months in advance; though the contract period ended 01.02.2009, extension of contract or renewal of existing contract done by the opposite party had violated the terms and conditions contained in ‘Letter of Intent’, terminated contract without notice, a clear 90 days notice period was not followed, thereby and thereon had committed “Deficiency in service”.The complainant submits that he sent a legal Notice dated:21.04.2010 and again sent a letter dated:22.02.2010 and received a reply legal notice dated”:03.05.2010 from the opposite party.Hence the complaint is filed before this Forum.

7. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite party has not admitted any of the averments contained therein and put the complainant to the strict proof of the same except those that are expressly and specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party submits that the above complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini on the sole ground that the complainant is not a Consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite party submits that the outsourcing contract by the opposite parties with the complainant does not by itself create any privities between the complainant and the opposite party.  The opposite party on 03.05.2010 would amply disclose that the transaction was purely commercial in nature and therefore, by stretch of imagination cannot be construed a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

8.     The opposite party submits that for being eligible to get an outsourcing contract from the opposite party, the applicants viz. the complainant should satisfy certain basic requirement which are conducive to the assignment environment.  Only on satisfying that the applicant possesses such requirement, the ‘vendor development “programme is outsourced on the terms specified in the form of an agreement in this regard.  The further averments that the complainant’s alleged investments in the infrastructure of ADAMPL being exclusively made for the opposite party’s business is denied.  There is no guarantee made in the agreement that there shall be constant outsourcing of work to the complainant, as there is no assurance as to the volume and period of outsourcing.

9.     The opposite party has all the records of correspondence exchanged with the complainant from the inception of the contract work, which only demonstrates that the complainant’s inability to carry out their obligations which they undertook to discharge through the outsourcing agreements.   The complainant has been asked to start the work by 7.00 am and complete the day’s job by 4.30 pm so as to enable the clients of the opposite party to audit the same and upload to the principal of the opposite party within the day of operation.  The complainant on his own volition and without notice to the opposite party stopped production and did not  use the User Log from 12.02.2010 despite the fact that the same was kept open till 30.03.2010 by the opposite party.  The complainant has miserably failed and neglected in all fonts including that of disbursal of salary to their staff which again delayed the execution of the outsourced job.  All these failures of the complainant, had adverse impact on the opposite party, resulting in additional over heads and business losses which the complainant is legally bound to compensate the opposite party.

10.    The opposite party submits that the complainant had adequate notice about the discontinuance of the contract.  According to the terms of the contract, extension of the contract (if any) shall be intimated 3 months in advance before the expiry of the existing contract.  The non-intimation of the extension by itself is a notice that the contract shall not be extended beyond the period of the existing contract.  The complainant stopped working on the User Log from 12.02.2010 though the same was kept open by the opposite party till 30.03.2010.

11.    The opposite party would summarize factual and legal implications of the breach committed by the complainant as follows:

  1. The capital investment of the complainant could not be subject matter of any claim arising out of the outsourcing agreements;
  2. The dis-continuance of the contract work had been duly intimated as required under the agreement;
  3. Compensation of 3 lakhs; and compensation for alleged harassment and mental agony are false, far-fetched and is beyond the scope of the agreement;
  4. The opposite party has spent substantially on the training of the complainant’s team members to make them job specific and ensure performance as per service level agreement, and the turnout on the agreement with the complainant had worked out losses to the opposite party;
  5. The complainant has abruptly discontinued production without prior notice and ignored several notices sent in this regard.
  6. The complainant’s poor performance has caused severe financial losses to the opposite party;
  7. The complainant has deliberately failed to keep the levels of standards both on time and quantum and deliberately ignored to give feed back by not attending the weekly Monday meets for review;
  8. The complainant’s staff viz. Mrs. Revathi & Raghunathan have made scathing remarks and verbal abuses over phone and through e-mails which are recorded by the opposite party and shall demonstrate the falsity of the complainant’s mindless allegations;
  9. The complainant did not bother to attend to the business and the opposite party’s staff were compelled to over work and coordinate with the complainant’s staff in order to meet the deadlines arising out of the agreement.  In the process, the opposite party’s staff had to over work resulting in additional overheads to the opposite party’s accounts;
  10. Despite receiving the bills within 3 to 4 days from the complainant, the complainant has failed to pay their staff salary in time, consequently delayed output and turnover resulting in business losses to the opposite party and
  11. More importantly, as evidenced from the records the complainant has unanimously stopped working on the User Log from 12.02.2010 though the same was kept open by the opposite party till 30.03.2010.

The complainant has committed breach of contract and failed to perform time-bound commitments and resulted to business loss to the opposite party.The complainant has no cause of action and hence the complaint is unsustainable in law.Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

12.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B51  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

13.    The point for consideration before this Forum is:

  1. Whether the complainant  entitled to get a sum of Rs.12.50 lakhs  invested towards  the execution of the jobs offered by the opposite party as prayed for?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony  with cost as prayed for?

 

14.    On point:

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that EPI source of India is fully owned subsidiary of EPI source LLC, USA registered under Companies Act doing the business of BPO, KPO and soft ware development.  The parent company’s requirements are done through the opposite party by vendor development programme of Data Entry Service.  Hence Sec 2 (o) of Consumer Protection Act namely definition of  service  will squarely be applicable.   Further the contention of the complainant is that under the said vendor development programme the opposite party’s duty is to provide service by means of development of complainant service and EPI source; as per the Letter of Intent  Ex.A3 only to check up the quality of the complainant’s programme, namely process invoice required by the opposite party.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A3 letter of intent it is very clear that EPI source of India alone fully owned subsidiary of EPI source LLC USA.  The complainant is not a subsidiary of EPI source LLC USA. While issuing intent to the complainant M/s Akshaya Business solutions pvt ltd., several criteria were mentioned particularly IPRO project, technical requirements, job requirements were clearly given.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has hired services from the complainant with consideration Rs.2.60 per processed invoice which is called as contractual service or contract for service. As per Ex.A3 turnaround time for delivery is restricted  to maximum 12 hours, unless  and until specified any extension equally pricing and payment terms will be based on each invoice processed shall be built at Rs.2.60, for the first 2 months the rate will be revised to Rs.2.90 per invoice based on the satisfactory performance. 

15.    On a careful perusal of the records, several remarks were made by the opposite party.   As per Ex.B1, it is seen that “There were lot of errors made on the invoice field.  Please inform your team to pay VERY close attention while processing”. In Ex.B23 “Please understand if you make slow progress to complete the invoices, apparently this will put huge pressure on my team and they have to wait long hours to complete these invoices”. In Ex.B26 “Our instructions from the beginning were very plain and understandable.  Where is the confusion? We set up standards in the process and if people follow it they would be appreciated. I need an explanation on this issue and please understand we are VERY unhappy for what your team did today”. As per Ex.B27 the opposite party issued warning such as “Please don’t repeat this kind of mistakes again. We are not interested to look into such kind of request”  for which, the complainant  made unconditional apology.  In  Ex.B28 “In October month 6 days production issuer 10 did 47 errors out of 165 errors has not disputed”.  Further the contention of the complainant is that EPI source India has become the service provider of the complainant, but it is apparently clear from Ex.A3 and other documents EPI source India is providing some work to the complainant.  In real, the complainant should do the work allotted by the opposite party. 

16.    Further the contention of the complainant is that as per the letter of intent dated 01.02.2008 the opposite party without giving 90 days notice and without assigning any reason suddenly terminated the contract, the extension of the contract will be intimated  3 months in advance before    28-02-2009, the opposite party has not adhered the conditions stipulated in Ex.A3 letter of intent.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A3 it is very clear that “the SLA is valid for the period of 1 year and will be renewed thereafter”.  In this case no document of any kind produced to show such renewal.   Hence the letter of intent is terminated by efflux of time.   Similarly the termination clause “Vendors will be subject to termination without any notice period during the first three months of operation if deliverables and quality is not met as per the schedule.  Further any termination will have a clear 90 days notice period from both the sides. Extension of contract will be intimated three months in advance” requires 90 days notice.  But  there is no renewal of this letter of intent made on record.   Since there was no renewal in writing and the letter of intent terminated by efflux of time no, notice of termination arises.  

17.    Further the contention of the complainant is that as per the letter of intent Ex.A3 clause non - complete and validity “This letter of Intent shall be used for any further validations in the SLA to an extent of processing upto 5000 invoices per month for a period of one year commencing from 1st of February 2008 till 28th February 2009.  Akshaya Business Solutions P Ltd shall not make any efforts to transact any business to the company;’s end users to prospective clients either directly or indirectly”. But the opposite party had kept not only silent but also not stopped the complainant in expanding the work.  Hence complainant is entitled to  have the services to opposite party till the date of termination, but it is very clear that the complainant’s work is not satisfactory which was admitted in Ex.B27 and  made apology. 

18.    The contention of  opposite party is that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine as per sec 2(1)(d)(i) of the consumer protection Act: Since there has been no consideration or no hiring of service for consideration in this case.  The alleged transaction on the basis of the Ex.A3, letter of Intent is only a commercial venture; there is no livelihood of any kind arise or pleaded by the complainant and proved.   The cause title of the complaint itself also proves that the transaction is for one commercial venture the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.  The outsourcing contract by the opposite party with the complainant does not create any privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party.  It is very clear from the title to EX.A3 “The Letter of Intent” or the agreement.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that without satisfying the conditions in Ex.A3   vendor development programme including technology compliance, job requirements training etc., the complainant not eligible to get such job work.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that  the allegation of investment in the infrastructure of ADAMPL exclusive made for the benefit of opposite party is baseless and is imaginary.   The opposite party has not given any direction or guarantee for such investment in the infrastructure.  

19.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that from the inception of the contract work the complainant’s inability to carry out the obligations which they undertook to discharge through the outsourcing agreement or duly intimated in such manner and the complainant applied for unconditional apology, since the complainant did not understand the importance of such time bound assignment necessitated, the termination of assigning job work.  The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant on his own volition and without notice to the opposite party stopped production and did not use the user log from 12-02-2010, despite the fact that some work was kept open till 30-3-2010 is proved from Ex.A9.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the staff of the opposite party are compelled to carryout additional burden of discharging the work source in co-ordination with the complainant’s staff caused great hardship. 

20.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of the harassment and indecent behavior launged only to overcome the complainant’s inability and failure to keep the contractual obligations.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that, the opposite party has every right to inspect as per Ex.A3 inorder to monitor the quality of performance, which is very clear that the performance is very poor.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that as per Ex.A3 extension of contract shall be intimated in advance before the expiry of existing contract.  The non intimation of the extension itself is a notice that the contract shall not be extended beyond the period stipulated.  The complainant committed the breach of work assigned, the capital investment of the complainant would not be the subject matter of any claim arising out of outstanding agreement.  The discontinuance of contract work have been duly intimated by the opposite party who has extended training to the complainant’s team , but the turnout has worked out loss to the opposite party.  The complainant abruptly discontinued production without  prior notice and evaded production. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10th day of April 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1

30.01.2008

Letter of the opposite party to the complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.A2

09.02.2008

Letter of the opposite party to the complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.A3

01.02.2008

Letter of Intent

Xerox copy

Ex.A4

22.02.2010

Letter of the complainant to the opposite party through speed post with postal receipt

Xerox copy

Ex.A5

12.03.2010

Letter of the opposite party to the complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.A6

20.02.2010

E-mail of the opposite party to the complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.A7

19.02.2010

E-mail of the Project Manager to the complainant regarding closure of operations.

Xerox copy

Ex.A8

21.04.2010

Legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party

Xerox copy

Ex.A9

03.05.2010

Reply notice issued by the opposite party’s Counsel to the Complainant’s Counsel

Xerox copy

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1

08.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B2

08.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B3

15.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B4

16.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B5

16.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B6

16.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B7

18.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B8

26.04.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B9

09.05.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B10

09.05.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B11

16.05.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B12

17.05.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B13

30.05.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B14

06.06.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B15

10.06.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B16

01.07.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B17

05.07.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B18

09.07.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B19

07.08.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B20

13.08.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B21

03.09.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B22

12.09.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B23

13.09.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B24

16.09.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B25

23.09.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B26

01.10.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B27

06.10.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B28

08.10.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B29

11.10.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B30

22.10.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B31

29.10.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B32

30.10.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B33

12.11.2008

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B34

07.01.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B35

09.01.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B36

01.12.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B37

15.01.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B38

22.01.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B39

27.01.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B40

03.02.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B41

05.02.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B42

06.02.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B43

04.03.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B44

09.03.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B45

10.03.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B46

13.03.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B47

03.07.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B48

15.07.2009

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B49

18.01.2010

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B50

08.02.2010

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

Ex.B51

19.02.2010

Complainant to Opposite party and Opposite party to complainant

Xerox copy

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.