Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/332/2014

B.Sambamoorthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Gurudev Motors Private Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

P.Shankaranarayanan

30 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 18.07.2014

Date of Reservation      : 13.06.2022

Date of Order               : 30.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 332/2014

THURSDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr.B. Sambamoorthy,

F-1, Priyadarshini Apartment,

# 162, Fifth Street,

Muruga Nagar,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                                                                                                              ... Complainant                               

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Skoda Auto India,

   Represented by its Managing Director,

   Plot No.A-1/1, Shendra,

   Five Star Industrial Area,

   MIDC Taluk & District,

   Aurangabad 431201.

   MAHARASHTRA, INDIA.

 

2.M/s. Gurudev Motors Private Limited,

   Represented by its Managing Director,

   Authorized Dealers of Skoda Auto India,

   # 559, Anna Salai,

   Teynampet,

   Chennai – 600 018.                                                                                                                                      ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant             : M/s. P. Sankaranarayanan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties        : M/s. BFS Legal

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru.T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.7,06,503/- towards the cost incurred for the purchase of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and trauma caused o the Complainant for their deficient services and to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards damages for indulging in unfair trade practices and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards travelling expenses incurred by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towardscosts of litigation and pay interest for the total claimed amount of Rs.11,41,503/- @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase to till date of realization.

2.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7  were marked.    The Opposite Parties filed their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments, no documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties.

3.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 

                The Complainant had purchased a four wheeled vehicle of model SKODA FABIA FL Ambiente 1.2 TDI CR manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party- Company bearing ENGINE NO: CFW 152036 and CHASIS NO: TMBFKF 5J5BG 09582 on 28.06.2011 through the 2nd Opposite Party authorized dealer M/s Gurudev Motors Pvt., Ltd., Chennai 600 018 vide Invoice No.CHEN 02-2011-12/00219 dated 28.06.2011 for a value of Rs.7,06,503/-. Subsequent to the purchase, the vehicle was registered in registration number TN 07 BM 1918 with the respective Road Transport Office. He had previously been driving a vehicle manufactured by M/s. MARUTI SUZUKI LIMITED bearing Model ZEN and was looking for a replacement for the same when he came across the brochures issued by your company regarding the said vehicle which termed the vehicle "NOW THAT'S FAB",. Further the pep talk of deputed executive who asserted that the model was a world class car and that there was no rival to match it in all aspects followed by a test drive of a test vehicle. He was constrained to rely on the statements of the engineers and marketing executives of the 2^nd Opposite Party appointed to promote and sell the said model vehicle on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party-Company. So it is well elucidated that it is a vehicle which has to be tested for the Indian road conditions and other compelling factors of wear and tear. Thereafter, the Complainant took test drives provided by the executives of the opposite parties but the same was not sufficient enough to forecast the malfunctions now encountered in the purchased vehicle. It is deem fit to seek the opinion of the 2nd Opposite Party dealer since the Complainant was put to knowledge through newspapers, periodicals, review columns in websites etc that many rival vehicles available in the market manufactured by Companies other than the 1^st Opposite Party-Company could not able to perform even to the assured conditions enumerated by the Companies. So in order to make sure of this issue to be earnestly looked upon and dealt with before zeroing on the said vehicle, he sought  the opinion of the 2^nd  Opposite Party dealer as he would be the righteous person to unveil the performance of the model vehicle because of their technical expertise gained through In-house training imparted by the engineers of the 1^st Opposite Party before launching the vehicle. The engineers of the 2^nd Opposite Party-dealer assured that the said model vehicle will be as successful as the other models like OCTAVIA and LAURA. After the recommendation of the 2^nd  Opposite Party-dealer prompted the Complainant to go for the said model and finally purchased the same for a valuable consideration from the 2^nd   Opposite Party dealer M/s Gurudev Chennai. Motors Pvt., Ltd., Chennai the said vehicle carried a warranty two years from the original date of purchase irrespective of the kilometers run and he had also opted and subscribed for the extended warranty programme offered at an additional cost and which guaranteed an assurance of the commitment of the brand to its valued customer. Further as per the warranty program it guaranteed that the cars are specially checked for safety and reliability and delivered to the valued customers with trouble free and hassle free pleasurable driving for many more miles ahead. The purchased vehicle was put to use according to standard driving norms and conditions as specified in the user manual. However contrary to the Complainant's expectations, the car had several serious malfunctions and the said ramification were obvious whether the car was either driven in the city or on the high ways. Within a few months of his purchasing the vehicle developed a snag and passers by informed him that fuel was leaking from beneath the vehicle and he was shocked to find that diesel was leaking from under the bonnet and he had immediately towed the vehicle to the service centre where the problem was rectified. On another occasion when he was traveling to Kumbakonam in an emergency situation to see his ailing mother and when the car was nearing Pondicherry the vehicle had suddenly shut off automatically and the glow lamp (warning lamp) suddenly started to glow and he who was in a tensed situation call the above dealer and informed him about the same. The said dealer had warned him against trying to start the vehicle and advised him to tow the vehicle to the nearest service centre which was situated only at Chennai. In spite of his emergency situation had  made arrangement with local friends to tow the vehicle to the service centre at Chennai at an exorbitant costs. When he had contacted the service centre a few days later the service personnel had informed him that the car had suffered a glow plug failure and that they had rectified the same. On 28.03.2012 when he was traveling along with the family on a holiday to a local mall suddenly the car was filled with the odour of diesel and the Complainant and his family were shell shocked to find that the entire carpet of the above vehicle had become wet and was soaked in diesel the Complainant and his family feared for their safety and life and had immediately stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road and had run for safety. Thereafter on intimating the service centre the above vehicle was towed and he understands that the carpet had been air cleaned and the fuel system checked and the entire fuel system starting from the fuel filter, pressure pump, injection unit, return hose and fuel rail were replaced and the service centre personnel boasted that it had been replaced free of cost which he had protested saying that his life and the life of the family members had been staked in view of the fuel leakage. the above problem had again cropped up on 13.12.2013 when he was on a visit to Tiruvannamalai along with the Senior Executives of his management and was returning back to Chennai when the vehicle started to shut down often and he with great difficulty had managed to reach his residence, after seeing of his colleagues. He had attempted to start the vehicle the next day and in spite of several attempts to start the same had failed to do so and he had sensed that fuel was leaking from the car in view of the odour of diesel. The Complainant on getting down from the vehicle was shocked see that the entire area below the car was flooded with diesel and diesel was guzzling from beneath the car. He had immediately informed the service centre who had sent a road side assistance vehicle to his residence who had informed  that the return hose of the vehicle had burst and advised him to immediately make arrangements to tow the vehicle to the service centre. He was not satisfied with the earlier attempts by the service centre to rectify the defects in the above said vehicle and as such had refused to tow the vehicle to the service centre and had informed the customer care department of the first Opposite Party that since the problem with the vehicle had something do with safety related issues wherein the safety of the life of the Complainant as well as occupants of the above said vehicle was at stake. He had demanded that Senior Engineers of the first Opposite Party be deputed immediately to evaluate the vehicle for which initially the first Opposite Party have agreed, but till date there has been no response for the same. Inspite of the repeated services and repairs carried out by the service engineers, the car had continued to mal function and the failure on the part of both the opposite parties to rectify the reported malfunctions clearly reveals that an irretrievable defect has been in the vehicle right from the onset of its manufacture. Hence if it is pursued further use same would be detrimental to the safety, life and health of the Complainant or whoever drives the same and its occupants.  Of the disdain performance of the vehicle, had called upon the second Opposite Party and detailed the facts and events about the defects/malfunctions and the deficiency in service and requested them to probe, evaluate and fix the defects/malfunctions by experienced engineers of the company. However they have shun their responsibility and failed to oblige for the request. It is well elucidated that from all these service occasions and test drives the so called well trained engineers could not be able to rectify the reported abnormalities/defects/malfunction and the same is untenable for the first Opposite Party which has a proven track record of satisfying the customer's needs. He has reason to believe beyond doubt that a defective vehicle has been sold to him which amounts to an unfair trade practice and cuppled with the failure of the first opposite parties service engineers attached to the second Opposite Party dealer to rectify the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of both the parties. The tall promises given by the first Opposite Party for the assailed model and are all nothing but false promises which translate into an unfair trade practice. The Complainant has suffered tremendous physical and mental agony on using the above vehicle as a result of which he has not been able to concentrate on his career which has taken at toll on his performance appraisal. He is in a position where he fears for his life when he things of life using the above said vehicle and has from 31.12.2013 made arrangements with cab operators for his travel needs spending enormous sums for the same, he was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 03.01.2014. The issued notices were duly served to the opposite parties and he had waited for more than a month that a suitable reply would be served to the Complainant but the opposite parties had sent a vague and irresponsible reply that does not counter his complaints which clearly reveals that the opposite parties are not intent upon finding a solution to his claim. The above facts and events proves the case that the 1^st  Opposite Party has supplied a defective vehicle and the 2^nd Opposite Party without verifying the working condition of the vehicle sold the same to the Complainant, by concealing the real status of the vehicle, misrepresented and further the callous attitude showed by the 2^nd Opposite Party towards the Complainant clearly establishes a case of deficiency of service. The Complainant states that it is needles to submit that there were widespread reports in newspapers that the customers who bought the said model vehicle has encountered with one or other problems as enumerated in the present complaint and the 1^st Opposite Party in order to shore up the deficiencies has called up the sold vehicles and replaced some parts at free of cost to prove their genuineness. But to the dismay the 1^st Opposite Party has not even made a courtesy call to the Complainant to verify the running condition of the vehicle and its road worthiness. Therefore, it is tacit that both the opposite parties have been indulging in unfair trade practices, by luring gullible customers to purchase defective vehicles manufactured by 1^st Opposite Party and sold through 2^nd Opposite Party in the market. Hence the complaint.

4.Written Version Filed by the Opposite Parties are in Brief as follows:-

That the second Opposite Party is the distributor of Skoda cars and the First Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Skoda cars distributed by the Second Opposite Party. The Second Opposite Party is filing the Written Version on its behalf and on the behalf of the First Opposite Party who is none other than the manufacturer of the vehicle. The Complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Forum as it is baseless as against the Opposite Party. The Complainant has not made out a case for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the Opposite parties and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant has fabricated and weaved a story to cause hardship and injury to Opposite Parties. The claims made dismissing them as nothing but a figment of imagination of the Complainant. Their company has been recognized in the market as leading manufacturers and distributors respectively of automobiles and therefore has a strong and a long standing reputation for customer satisfaction. The Complainant had purchased SKODA Fabia car, bearing Registration no. TN 07 BM 1918 from the Opposite Parties 27th June 2011, after being completely satisfied and impressed with the quality of the car and its outstanding features. Before making the payment, the Complainant had taken the car for a test drive and had also enquired about the technical details of the car and the necessary precautions steps to be adopted while using the same. All the queries raised by the Complainant

were answered to his satisfaction. Before purchasing the car, the Complainant was made aware of all the terms and conditions governing the warranty including the extended warranty program of the car. As a matter of fact, the Complainant has signed the warranty norms and the extended warranty program which is very clearly mentioned to the Complainant based on which the Complainant had enrolled himself in the said program. The car was, as realized by the Complainant, sold in a perfect, brand new condition and had no flaws or faults whatsoever. The Complainant has been using the car for almost three years and has covered more than 55000 kms till date. The Complainant's car was brought in for Running Repair/ Paid Service/Free service on the following occasions:

“Job card no. 6755 dt. 10^th Sep 2011 at 6288 kms, the Car was brought in an towing condition and fuel leak. On examination it was found that the 'O' ring in the Filter has been damaged. Job card no. 6943 dated 24^th Sep 2011 at 7528 kms, the car was brought in for free checkup and checking tail light. The Opposite Parties had carried out the free service and realigned the tail light which had been misplaced. Job card no. 36873 dated 12^th Nov 2011 at 11927 kms, the Opposite Parties had received the car seeking to provide center lock remote key and also to replace the rear fabia emblem.  Job Card No. 8407 dated 4^th Jan 2012 at 15597 kms; the Opposite Parties have received the car for first free service, to do wheel alignment and wheel balancing, to check horn sound not clear, to check engine abnormal noise, to check bad smell coming from AC and to check all door hard while open and close. Job card no. 8876 dt. 15^th Feb 2012 at 17836 kms. The Opposite Parties have received the vehicle to check engine jerking, low pickup, horn to check and to check oil leak complaints. After conducting all standard and necessary tests, it was found that injector units have been damaged and as the part was covered under warranty. Job card no. 9166 dated 9^th March 2012 at 18607 kms; the Opposite Parties have received the vehicle for checking engine electronic light and heater light glowing complaint. On examination, it was found that due to the rash and negligent usage of the car there was some damage to the fuel tank. So the Opposite Parties have replaced the entire fuel system under goodwill warranty only upon the specific request of the Complainant and for the sake of satisfying your client. The Car was delivered to the Complainant after a test drive and satisfaction of the service carried out. Job card no. 22208 dated  2^nd July 2012 at 24885 kms the Opposite Parties had received the car for accidental repairs and all the repairs and except for those covered under insurance the Complainant had paid for the remaining services and taken delivery of the car on 17.07. 2012, after complete satisfaction. Job card no. 11716 dt. 4^th Sep 2012 at 27900 kms the Opposite Parties received the car with the complaint of fuel leak and on examination, it was found the fuel tank return hose was damaged and it was replaced and returned the car to the Complainant on the same day.  Job card no. 13425 dated, 7^th Jan 2013 at 35161 kms the Opposite Parties have received the car with the complaint car was not starting. It was noted that the battery had to be replaced and the same done under warranty and returned to the Complainant on his complete satisfaction. It is pertinent to note that the problem in the battery had happened for the first time and so the same was replaced under warranty. Job card no. 16406 dt. 8^th July 2013 at 45022 kms  the Opposite Parties had received the car for periodical service, to check the engine noise and to check brake not effective complaint. The Opposite Parties have performed the periodical service. However, there was no abnormality in the engine noise and no problem in the engine. Further depending upon the use of the car the brake pad and disc would wear out and the same needs to be replaced if and when diagnosed. Further, as it is wear and tear part, it is not covered under warranty; the Opposite Parties had requested the Complainant to make payment for the replacement but the Complainant had refused to provide the prior approval for replacement. So the car was returned to the Complainant on 9^th July 2013 after carrying out the periodical service and checking engine noise. Job card no. 17130 dated 24^th August 2013 at 47470 kms; the Opposite Parties have received the car for checking brake noise, hand brake and to top up wiper water. The Opposite Parties submit that as the problem in the brake was not rectified due to lack of approval on the earlier service; the problem in the brake was still persisting. Even during this service, the Complainant was not inclined to pay for the replacement of the brake pads. So, as a goodwill gesture, the Opposite Parties had replaced the brake pad and disc and adjusted the hand brake free of cost and delivered the car on the same day.  Whenever, the car was brought in free service and the car was serviced and returned to your client, who expressed complete satisfaction over the car and the service done. Apart from the free service all the other services were carried out to the satisfaction of the Complainant and none of the complaints were ignored by the Opposite Parties and some repairs were not carried out as the Complainant refused to give approval. It is pertinent to note that most of the damages which required service was due to the rash and negligent use of the car. Despite the Complainant being clearly informed about the steps for proper maintenance of the car; most of such precautions were not followed properly causing damage to the car. The Opposite Parties submit that as the car has been in the Complainant's possession, they are not aware as to how the car was handled or if the Complainant had properly maintained the car or how the fuel was filled in etc.  On 14.12.2013 the Complainant informed the Opposite Parties that there was some defect in the car. So, the Opposite Parties had send their personnel to the spot and it was diagnosed that the fuel return hose was damaged and for rectifying the same, the car had to be brought in to the Opposite Parties' service centre and it was not feasible to carry out any repair work at your client's premises. However, the Complainant refused to permit the Complainant's personnel to take the car to the service station despite explaining to him that it is necessary to check on the damages in the service station and identify the exact level of damages caused to the car and the requisite services and replacements. The Opposite Parties further state the Complainant has not sent the vehicle to the service center to look into the defects in the said vehicle but to their utter shock and surprise they have received a legal notice of the Complainant making false and vexatious allegations against the Opposite Parties. It is pertinent to note that if at all there is any manufacturing defect in the car as alleged, the car would not have run for more than 30 months covering more than 48,000 kms, as noted during the last service. on receipt of the Legal Notice issued a Reply to the same through their advocates on 19.02.2014 denying all the allegations raised in the legal notice and setting out the correct position and facts and instructed the Complainant to refrain from initiating any false and vexatious litigation. Despite that to the shock and surprise of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had filed this Complaint raising baseless and vexatious allegations, and sought for replacement of the car along with damages, when the Complainant has not even permitted the opposite Parties to analyse what is the alleged problem in the car. Thus it is evident that the Complaint has been filed with the purpose to pressurise the Opposite Parties to succumb to the Complainant's illegal and wrongful demands. The Opposite Parties submits that the Complainant has filed this Complaint only to cause hardship to the Opposite Parties and obtain unlawful gains at the cost of the Opposite Parties.

5.     Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint?

3. To what other relief/s the Complainant is entitled for?

Point No.1:-

                The disputed fact is that the Complainant’s car in a few months after purchase had developed with defects of fuel leakage and thereafter an reglar intervals his car developed with same issued, on 28.03.2012, 13.12.2013 and the same was not rectified by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the car sold is of a defective nature, and the safety of his life and his family members were at stake by the Opposite Parties that amounts to an unfair trade practice and failure of the 1^st Opposite Party’s service engineers attached to the 2^nd Opposite Party dealer to rectify the issue amounts to deficiency in service on the part of both the Opposite Parties.

“Ex.C1 dated 14.09.2015 the report submitted by the Head of the Department, Automobile Engineering, Anna university, M.I.T Campus, Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044, wherein it is clearly mentioned in Point Nos.2 & 3 of the observations made as “2. Fuel leakage was observed when the was turned on”.  “3. It was found that the fuel return line hose damaged below the rear seat”.

        The 2^nd Opposite Party’s written Version has been adopted by the 1^st Opposite Party, where the Opposite Parties had alleged and admitted while mentioning the service carried out to the car of the Complainant, on various dates, vide their job cards No.6755 dated 10.09.2011, which was within a span of 5 months from the date of purchase of a new car by the Complainant i.e., on 28.06.2011 as found in Ex.A-2, attended the car which was brought to their service centre by towing the vehicle on fuel leakage and the problem of fuel leakage, oil leakage and engine issues found to be persisted on most of the job cards under which services were carried out by the 2^nd Opposite Party during warranty period, as reproduced the complaints  from their job cards in vide the written version, job cards Nos.8407, 8876, 9166, 1716, 16406, 17130, on 04.01.2012, 15.02.2012, 09.03.2012, 04.09.2012, 08.07.2013 and 24.08.2013 respectively. Though the Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant had not used and maintained the car is a proper manner, and only because of rash and negligent driving of the Complainant the repairs occurred and the same were attended many times at free of cost and on good will gesture, during the warranty period they had also replaced spares free of cost and the Complainant had not even permitted them to analyse the alleged problem in the car, instead the Complainant had sent a legal notice date 03.01.2014 as found in Ex.A-6 for which, a reply notice dated 19.02.2014 as found in Ex.A-7, was sent to the Complainant’s Advocate. It is clear from the Written Version, Proof affidavit, Written Arguments as well as the oral arguments of the Opposite Parties, that a new car purchased by the Complainant is a defective one, as within a span of 5 months from the date of purchase as per Ex.A-2, fuel leakage occurred and persisted till the last service done by the 2^nd Opposite Party, who had acted lethargically and negligently without  rectifying the issues in the car, without considering the life’s of the Complainant and his family members and the contentions raised by the Opposite Parties are not sustainable either in law or in facts of the case.

 “Ex.C1 dated 14.09.2015 the report submitted by the Head of the Department, Automobile Engineering, Anna university, M.I.T Campus, Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044, wherein it is clearly mentioned in Point Nos.2 & 3 of the observations made as “2. Fuel leakage was observed when the was turned on”.  “3. It was found that the fuel return line hose damaged below the rear seat”.

Hence this Commission holds that the 1^st Opposite Party being the manufacturer and the 2^nd Opposite Party who is an authorised dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party, had sold a defective car to the Complainant, as the issues in the car could not be rectified by the 2^nd Opposite Party right from 10.09.2011 to 24.08.2013, clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service to the Complainant.

Point No.2:-

                As discussed and decided above, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,06,503/- being the total value of the car and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards mental agony and trauma caused of the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the litigation. The Complainant had not produced any valid proof for the travelling expenses incurred by him and hence he is not entitled for the said relief claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally  directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,06,503/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Five Hundred and Three Only) being the Cost incurred for the purchase of the vehicle, and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) towards mental agony and  trauma caused of the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards cost of the litigation, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of the order.

The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally directed to pay the above amounts within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order  till the date of realization.

In the result the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  30^th of June 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                       T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                              B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                      MEMBER I                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1	31.05.2011	Purchase Order issued by the 2nd Opposite Party depicting the vehicle model and charges pertaining to cost of the vehicle, registration and insurance.
Ex.A2	28.06.2011	Customer Invoice issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for the purchase of the vehicle
Ex.A3	11.07.2012	Warranty Certificate
Ex.A4	25.07.2011	Extended Warranty Certificate
Ex.A5	11.07.2011	Vehicle Registration certificate issued by Regional Transport Authority, South Chennai
Ex.A6	03.01.2014	Legal notice issued to the Opposite Parties and their due acknowledgements
Ex.A7	19.02.2014	Reply issued to the Legal Notice by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                 T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                             B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                               MEMBER I                                                                 PRESIDENT