FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member:
The case of the complainant is that he bought a TATA SUMO GOLD CX CR4 SILVER being vehicle Registration No. WB 16AA-6735 being chasis No.MAT446040C9C13049 of the OP No.1 company from OP No.3 through OP No.2. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle on 03.07.2012 from the office of the OP No.2. The complainant paid full consideration money Rs.6, 60,000/- only of the vehicle on 15.07.2012 out of which Rs.400, 000/- only was paid through loan from Sundaram Finance and rest amount was paid as down payment including other charges. But the original invoice in the name of the complainant was not handed over till date despite several requests to the OP No.2. Since after taking possession of the vehicle the clutch pad damaged within 4 months so he spent Rs.7680/- only for rectification of that damage on 23.11.2012. During the 2nd servicing the clutch pad again damaged but the OP provided service according to warranty. That during the 3rd service on 19.12.2013 the complainant paid Rs.1214/-, and he also paid Rs.7878/- out of total Rs.10078/- on account of AMC. Prior to next servicing the complainant visited the garage of the OP No.3 a couple of times for spare parts and on 26.12.2013 the complainant had to pay Rs.1578/- on account of spare parts. The said clutch pad became damaged on 15.05.2014 within a period of 6 months from its last servicing. This time the clutch pad was replaced by the OP No.3 with full servicing charge although the AMC/ warranty was in vogue and he compelled to pay Rs.10000/- on account of servicing. He came to know from the receipt of the OP No.3 that the vehicle is in the name of one Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw, not in the name of the complainant and the vehicle was insured with Bajaj Alliance Company instead of National Insurance. From the very instance it appears to the complainant that the vehicle is not new one but a second hand vehicle. The colour of the external wall of the vehicle was gradually losing its original gloss and accordingly rusty caused damage to its body. Being deprived unsatisfied and misguided by the OP No.2&3 the complainant wrote a letter dated 16.04.2014 to OP No.1 Company complaining every details seeking cooperation and/or replacement of the instant vehicle. The complainant due to willy-nilly tactics of the OP suffered untold mental agony, anxiety and harassment for maintaining a second hand vehicle in spite of paying price of new vehicle. Due to deficiency of service of ops the complainant filed the instant complainant praying a direction upon the OPs to replace the vehicle by a new one or to refund the full consideration value in question to the complainant of Rs.6,60,000/- with interest @18% p.a. with effect from 16.04.2014 till full payment, to supply valid cash memo along with relevant documents, a direction of compensation of Rs.75,000/- for unlawful acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and a litigation cost amounting to Rs.50,000/- and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper.
O.P. No. 1 by filing written version stated that he is the renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars and his regional office is at Kolkata, West Bengal. The cars and the vehicles manufactured by the O.P. No. 1 passed through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts and the cars and vehicles are marked only after being approved by the automotive research association of India. He is supported by the excellent dealer shifts/authorized Service Centers having excellent workshop set ups for after sales servicing on the cars/utility vehicles which are manned by the qualified and experience personal only and he used to provide services through a large network of authorized dealers, namely, Tata Authorized Service Centers, Tata Authorized Service Points, Tata Authorized Service Outlets etc. The manufactures of the cars/utility vehicles and the cars/utility vehicles owners are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty policy applicable for cars and vehicles. He denied the allegations except those which are specifically admitted in the written statement. This Complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute under the consumer protection act as there is any manufacturing defect proved in the vehicle, in question, nor any deficiency in service being established against this O.P. So the allegations are baseless, frivolous, misconceived and liable to be rejected. The vehicle in question has been used for commercial activities in order to generate profit and has covered more than 35,570 km within a mere span of approximate 27 months which speaks about the expensive usage of the Tata Sumo Gold Vehicle, in question. So he is not a consumer. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industries Institute 1995 II CPJ 1 (SC) held that if any person has obtained goods for commercial purpose with a view to using the said goods for carrying on activity of profit other than exclusively for self-employment such person is excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This answering O.P. relies on the terms and conditions of warranty of the Tata Sumo Gold Vehicle in question, owner’s manual and service book and craves leave to refer the relevant extracts of the terms and conditions limitation owner service book and user manual at the time of hearing. The Complainant failed to carry out scheduled services of the Tata Sumo Gold Vehicle as per the recommended service schedule. The service history as depicted from the documents of O.P. shows that Complainant failed to maintain the recommended schedule. The O.P. relies on the Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the warranty which states as “the warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure or by any person other than our sales or services establishments our authorized dealer or service centers or service points in any way so as in our judgment which shall be final and binding to affect its reliability nor shall it apply if in our opinion which shall be final and binding”. The vehicle is subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance of accident or loading in excess of such carrying capacity as certified by such services prescribed in owner’s manual and service book. The Complainant is only interested in harassing this Opposite Parties with ulterior motive and the present Complainant is gross misuse of process of law and an attempt to derive unlawful gains. Therefore, the present Complainant deserves outright dismissal at the threshold. The Complainant purchased the vehicle is of the highest quality and had taken delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and its performance. The said vehicle was delivered after carrying out pre delivery inspection by the Dealer. It is also pertinent to mention that all passenger cars/utility vehicles and commercial vehicles manufactured by the O.P. are marked only after the prototype of the car/utility vehicle being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. The vehicle as attended by the O.P. dealers/service points fully complied with the warranties, assurances and specification provided for it by the manufacturer regarding quality and performance of the car/utility vehicle. The vehicle in question is in absolute roadworthy condition and the jobs carried out on the vehicle are minor and running repairs. Therefore, the prayer for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the said vehicle, are untenable and unsustainable. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra and another the Hon’ble Apex Court held that manufacturer can be ordered to replace the car or refund its price merely because some defects appear which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced under warranty. In Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and another (1994), Hon’ble Apex Court observed that reliance has to be placed on the circumstances, document and conduct of parties to prove that the relationship of the parties is of principal and agent or one of the principal to principal basis. In another case, Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Nagendra Prasad Sinha and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 21(b)- Motor Vehicles- delivery delayed interest @ 18% per annum on deposited money along with the compensation awarded manufacturer and dealer both held liable- hence revision- contention, relationship between the petitioner and the OP No. 2 was of principal to principal basis- dealer not agent, had not authority to bind company by contract- Order holding petitioner liable to pay interest set aside- Complainant is at liberty to realize awarded amount from authorized dealer. Hon’ble Forum while considering the prayer of this complainant ought to keep in mind the well-established principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharati Knitting Co. -vs- DHL World Wide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704. It was held that when the Complainant signs the contract documents he is bound by the terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and circumstances in which he has signed the contract. The buyers shall have no other rights except those set out above and have particular no right to repudiate the sale or any agreement ought to claim any reduction on the purchase price on the car or to demand any damages of compensation for losses incidental or indirect or inconvenience or consequential damages, loss of car, or loss of time or otherwise, incurred or accrued.
The OP No.2 by filing written version denied the allegations as leveled against him and averred that he has nothing to do with the complainant because he is an introducer to the authorized dealer of the concerned company who actually manufactures the vehicle and the complainant approached the OP No.2 for purchasing vehicle manufactured by the OP No.1 and he approached the OP No.3 being authorized dealer of the OP No.1 Company and ultimately the OP No.3 duly sold the vehicle in question and supplied each and every challan including the books relating thereto. If there are any latches then OP No.3 and OP no.1 are responsible and he has nothing to do. There is no contract in between the complainant and the OP No.2 and he issued no receipt.
The OP No.3 filed written version and denied the allegations as leveled against him and averred that he has no knowledge regarding the damage of clutch pad within a period of four months from the date of taking the possession and occurred due to negligence of the complainant in driving the car. The copy of money receipt annexed by the complainant shows that the complainant on 23.11.2012 paid Rs.5400/- and Rs.2280/- to M/S- Manjeet Auto, Baronilpur more, Burdwan on account of clutch plate and pressure plate. The complainant neither came to the Op No.3 nor visited any of the authorized workshops of TATA Motors with that clutch problem though there was a warranty period and without availing that warranty period service the complainant may choose to go to third party instead of going to workshop of Tata Motors. The service record of the car of the complainant shows that after purchasing car the complainant visited the authorized workshop of TATA Motors namely ’Zenith Motors’ on 25.07.2012 for standard / Routine checkup and at that time the complainant did not lodge any complaint to “Zenith Motors” regarding any kind of defect/ problem in the car. Even at the first free service of the car done on 15.11.2012 no complaint / report was lodged before the opposite no.3 by the complainant regarding any kind of defect and/or clutch problem in the car. The first servicing took place on 15.11.2013 at the work shop of the OP no.3 and he rendered free service to the complainant. The complainant at that time did not disclose the fact that he caused repairing of his car by replacing the car clutch plate and pressure plate by third party which tantamount to violation of car service rules. The complainant reported Engine oil leakage, improper Image in Mirror, Door noise and turn signal not working problems / defects to the OP no.3 solved/repaired all the defects few of which were done free of cost under free servicing and rest were done under paid service. The warranty period of the car was 3 years or 1,00,000/- km whichever is earlier. The complainant came to the workshop of the OP No.3 with clutch problem for the first time along with few others and the OP No.3 solved/cured all defects. OP No.3 replaced car clutch pad, clutch cover etc free of cost under warranty and charged certain amount for the services which were not covered under warranty. The complainant came to the workshop of Op no.3 for 3rd schedule service and opted Annual Maintenance Contract for getting further free service accordingly AMC was made on 19.12.2013 for Rs.10,078/- and the complainant paid Rs.7878/- and promised to pay balance amount of Rs.2200/-. Then the complainant came to the OP no.3 for rusting problem with his car and the answering OP solved the problem. That on 15.05.2014 the complainant again came to the workshop with clutch problem etc to the OP No.3 and as the clutch hauling was not under free service the OP No.3 charged Rs.10,445/- from the complainant and as per free service norms under warranty the OP no.3 did not do any wrong in charging amount from the complainant for the paid service. The complainant very well knew the fact as to why the service register of the car prepared by the TATA Motors used to bear the name of the Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw instead of the name of the complainant. Previously Mr. Shaw booked the car in question by making payment of certain booking amount and chooses Bajaj Alliance as car financier and his particulars was recorded in the service register of TATA Motors against the chasis No. of the car but few days after he cancelled the car. This complainant thereafter chooses that very car and made payment of Rs.6000/- as booking amount on 23.06.2012 after knowing fully well about the fact. The OP No.3 on several occasions requested TATA Motors to record the name and particulars of the complainant in place of said Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw as it is only the TATA Motors who has the access to the service register of each and every car of TATA Company. The TATA Motors intimated the OP No.3 that whenever they used to call the complainant to verify the name of the purchaser and also to get proper particulars so that they may be able to record the name of the complainant in their service register the complainant used to avoid answering and replied that he has already given the particulars to the OP No.3 and for that reason the name of the complainant has not been recorded in the service register in place of said Karan Kr. Shaw. But finally the OP No.3 on its own accord requested the TATA Motors to record the name of the complainant in place of said Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw on the basis of signed Job slip of the complainant prepared during servicing his car in question and the TATA Motors did necessary correction to that effect and a fresh invoice was handed over to the complainant before filing of this instant complaint case.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
The OP filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written version.
Both sides filed written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the Complainant Sk. Sajahan Mondal ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Sk. Sajahan Mondal is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party? From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The complainant herein being the purchaser of a vehicle manufactured by the OP No.1 Company and OP No.2 is an introducer to the authorized dealer of the concerned company who actually manufactures the vehicle and he approached the OP No.3 being authorized dealer. So being a consumer he is entitled to get service from the OP.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainant prayed for a direction upon the OPs to replace the vehicle by a new one or to refund the full consideration value in question to the complainant of Rs.6,60,000/- with interest @18% p.a. with effect from 16.04.2014 till full payment, to supply valid cash memo along with relevant documents, a direction of compensation of Rs.75,000/- for unlawful acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and a litigation cost amounting to Rs.50,000/- and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The case of the complainant is that he being a purchaser of a TATA SUMO GOLD CX CR4 SILVER being vehicle Registration No. WB 16AA-6735 being chasis No.MAT446040C9C13049 of the OP No.1 company from OP No.3 through OP No.2.The complainant paid full consideration money Rs.6,60,000 but the original invoice was not handed over till date despite several requests to the OP No.2. Since after taking possession of the vehicle the clutch pad damaged within 4 months so he spent Rs.7680/- only for rectification of that damage. During the 2nd servicing the clutch pad again damaged but the OP provided service according to warranty. That during the 3rd service on 19.12.2013 the complainant paid Rs.1214/-, and he also paid Rs.7878/- out of total Rs.10078/- on account of AMC. Prior to next servicing the complainant visited the garage of the OP No.3 a couple of times for spare parts and on 26.12.2013 the complainant had to pay Rs.1578/- on account of spare parts. The said clutch pad became damaged on 15.05.2014 within a period of 6 months from its last servicing. This time the clutch pad was replaced by the OP No.3 with full servicing charge although the AMC/ war
anty was in force and he compelled to pay Rs.10000/- on account of servicing. He came to know from the receipt of the OP No.3 that the vehicle is in the name of one Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw, not in the name of the complainant and the vehicle was insured with Bajaj Alliance Company instead of National Insurance. From the very instance it appears to the complainant that the vehicle is not new one but a second hand vehicle. The colour of the external wall of the vehicle was gradually losing its original gloss and accordingly rusty caused damage to its body. The OP suffered untold mental agony, anxiety and harassment for maintaining a second hand vehicle in spite of paying price of new vehicle. Due to deficiency of service of ops the complainant filed the instant complainant praying for a direction upon the OPs as stated in the complaint petition.
O.P. No. 1 stated that he is the renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars. The cars and the vehicles manufactured by the O.P. No. 1 passed through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts and the cars and vehicles are marked only after being approved by the automotive research association of India. The vehicle in question has been used for commercial activities in order to generate profit and has covered more than 35,570 km within a mere span of approximate 27 months which speaks about the expensive usage of the Tata Sumo Gold Vehicle, in question. So he is not a consumer. The service history as depicted from the documents of O.P. shows that Complainant failed to maintain the recommended schedule. The O.P. relies on the Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the warranty which states as “the warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure or by any person other than our sales or services establishments our authorized dealer or service centers or service points in any way so as in our judgment which shall be final and binding to affect its reliability nor shall it apply if in our opinion which shall be final and binding”. The vehicle is subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance of accident or loading in excess of such carrying capacity as certified by such services prescribed in owner’s manual and service book. The vehicle in question is in absolute roadworthy condition and the jobs carried out on the vehicle are minor and running repairs. Therefore, the prayer for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the said vehicle, are untenable and unsustainable. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra and another the Hon’ble Apex Court held that manufacturer can be ordered to replace the car or refund its price merely because some defects appear which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced under warranty .Complainant is at liberty to realize awarded amount from authorized dealer. The well-established principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharati Knitting Co. -vs- DHL World Wide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704. It was held that when the Complainant signs the contract documents he is bound by the terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and circumstances in which he has signed the contract. The buyers shall have no other rights except those set out above and have particular no right to repudiate the sale or any agreement ought to claim any reduction on the purchase price on the car or to demand any damages of compensation for losses incidental or indirect or inconvenience or consequential damages, loss of car, or loss of time or otherwise, incurred or accrued.
The case of the OP No.2 is that the complainant approached the OP No.2 for purchasing vehicle manufactured by the OP No.1 and he approached the OP No.3 being authorized dealer of the OP No.1 Company and ultimately the OP No.3 duly sold the vehicle in question and supplied each and every challan including the books relating thereto. If there are any latches then OP No.3 and OP no.1 are responsible and he has nothing to do. There is no contract in between the complainant and the OP No.2 and he issued no receipt.
The OP No.3 stated that he has no knowledge regarding the damage of clutch pad within a period of four months from the date of taking the possession and occurred due to negligence of the complainant in driving the car. The copy of money receipt annexed by the complainant shows that the complainant on 23.11.2012 paid Rs.5400/- and Rs.2280/- to M/S- Manjeet Auto, Baronilpur more, Burdwan on account of clutch plate and pressure plate. The complainant neither came to the Op No.3 nor visited any of the authorized workshops of TATA Motors with that clutch problem. The service record of the car of the complainant shows that after purchasing car the complainant visited the authorized workshop of TATA Motors namely ’Zenith Motors’ on 25.07.2012 for standard / Routine checkup and at that time the complainant did not lodge any complaint to “Zenith Motors” regarding any kind of defect/ problem in the car. The first servicing took place on 15.11.2013 at the work shop of the OP no.3 and he rendered free service to the complainant. The complainant reported Engine oil leakage, improper Image in Mirror, Door noise and turn signal not working problems / defects to the OP no.3 solved/repaired all the defects few of which were done free of cost under free servicing and rest were done under paid service. The warranty period of the car was 3 years or 1,00,000/- km whichever is earlier. The complainant came to the workshop of the OP No.3 with clutch problem for the first time along with few others and the OP No.3 solved/cured all defects. OP No.3 replaced car clutch pad, clutch cover etc free of cost under warranty and charged certain amount for the services which were not covered under warranty. Then the complainant came to the OP no.3 for rusting problem with his car and the answering OP solved the problem. That on 15.05.2014 the complainant again came to the workshop with clutch problem etc to the OP No.3 and as the clutch hauling was not under free service the OP No.3 charged Rs.10,445/- from the complainant. The complainant very well knew the fact as to why the service register of the car prepared by the TATA Motors used to bear the name of the Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw instead of the name of the complainant. Previously Mr. Shaw booked the car in question by making payment of certain booking amount and chooses Bajaj Alliance as car financier and his particulars was recorded in the service register of TATA Motors against the chasis No. of the car but few days after he cancelled the car. This complainant thereafter chooses that very car and made payment of Rs.6000/- as booking amount on 23.06.2012 after knowing fully well about the fact. The OP No.3 on several occasions requested TATA Motors to record the name and particulars of the complainant in place of said Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw as it is only the TATA Motors who has the access to the service register of each and every car of TATA Company. The TATA Motors intimated the OP No.3 that whenever they used to call the complainant to verify the name of the purchaser and also to get proper particulars so that they may be able to record the name of the complainant in their service register the complainant used to avoid answering and replied that he has already given the particulars to the OP No.3 and for that reason the name of the complainant has not been recorded in the service register in place of said Karan Kr. Shaw. But finally the OP No.3 on its own accord requested the TATA Motors to record the name of the complainant in place of said Mr. Karan Kr. Shaw on the basis of signed Job slip of the complainant prepared during servicing his car in question and the TATA Motors did necessary correction to that effect and a fresh invoice was handed over to the complainant before filing of this instant complaint case.
From the face of the case record it appears that the OP No.3 admitted in his version that he could not change the name of the complainant in the place of Mr. Karan Kumar Shaw in the record of TATA Motors and in all particulars and he stated that OP No.1 is the person responsible to do the same. From the service history dated 21.10.2014 it appears that the impugned vehicle is in the name of Karan Kumar Shaw servicing date 02.06.2014, date of selling the vehicle is 31.03.2012 and run is 35570 kms. It is the dispute of the complainant that why the name of the complainant will not been registered in all records and documents of the vehicle. In his version the OP No.3 admitted that Mr. Shaw booked the car in question by making payment of certain booking amount and chooses Bajaj Alliance as car financier and his particulars was recorded in the service register of TATA Motors against the chasis No. of the car but few days after he cancelled the car. This complainant thereafter chooses that very car and made payment of Rs.6000/- as booking amount on 23.06.2012 after knowing fully well about the fact. So the OP failed to change the name in the record within 2 years from the date of booking which tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3. The OP No.3 by adopting unfair trade practice sold the vehicle to this complainant that was earlier booked by third party and the complainant was completely dark regarding the episode. For which the OP No.3 took about 2 years to insert the name of the complainant instead of the third party who earlier booked the same. Nowhere in the document it is seen that the complainant assented to take the vehicle which was earlier booked by other person. So the OP No.3 acted in his own whim and tried to shift the burden to the OP no.1. The complainant several times assailed that the clutch pad has not been functioning properly so he compelled to make complain before the authorized dealer i.e. OP no.3 but of no result. But from the case record it appears that the clutch pad has not been functioning properly during the course of running as a result the complainant compelled to make it operative when it became stand still before any servicing centre rather than the authorized servicing centres at his own expense although the vehicle was in the warranty period. He subsequently informed it before the servicing point and it was repaired or changed but again it became inoperative for which the complainant assailed before this Forum. So from the above discussion we hold that the complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of the OP No.3. So he cannot evade his responsibility in providing service to this complainant and he took unfair means to sale the impugned vehicle to this complainant.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complainant has proved his case by adducing cogent document/evidence and therefore, the complainant succeeds on contest.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant proved his case beyond any doubt so he is entitled to get compensation as this Forum deems fit and proper.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party No.3 with a litigation cost amounting to Rs.10,000/-.
The OP No.3 is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
He is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to this complainant for unfair trade practice.
All the payments are to be done by the opposite party no.3 within 45 days from the date of this order.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me. Samaresh Kr. Mitra, Member.
