D.O.F. 21.05.2011

                                            D.O.O. 13.12.2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2013.

C.C.No.161/2011

Hareendran,

S/o. Kannan Nambiar,                                         :         Complainant

Rajani Nivas,

P.O. Uruvachal, Mattannur

Kannur – 670 595

(Rep. by Adv. K.K. Balaram)

1.Tata Motors Ltd,

   Regional Office, LBS Marg,

   Wagle Estate, Thane – 400 604

   State of Maharashtra                                       

2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

    Tata Motors Building, 2^nd Floor,

    Operations department, Teen Hath Naka,

    Gyan Sadhana College Service Road,               :         Opposite Parties

    Thane – 400 604

3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

    Kannur Branch, Ward No.789, Wib 15,

    1^st Floor, South Bazar, Kannur.

    (OP 1,2 & 3 rep. by Adv. P. Fazil)

4.  Sakthi Automobiles,

    Thana P.O., Kannur

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the loss of  `7,13,000 inclusive of the amount `1,13,000 ready cash paid to 1^st opposite party at the time of purchase, `4,50,000 paid out of the vehicle loan amount to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and `1,50,000 as recurring repair expenditure and loss of earning from the vehicle, with 18% interest from the date of the complaint and also an amount of `1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and strain suffered by the complainant together with a cost of this proceedings. 

The case of the complainant in nutshell is as follows :  Complainant purchased a TATA LPK 407127 Built Tipper 2775 mm from 4^th opposite party on 23.01.2007 by paying an amount of `7,13,000.  1<sup>st</sup> opposite party is the manufacturer.  The vehicle registered on 30.01.2007 as KL/6111.  The vehicle showed serious troubles and manufacturing defect on the same month.  The vehicle happened to be stopped suddenly on its running on the way as the first instances of its kind and the same was cured temporarily.  The same was repeated 4 times within the first service.  At the time of 1<sup>st</sup> service the Service Engineer of 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party assured that the defects would be cured permanently.  But the mechanical trouble of the vehicle continued to be repeated. The running condition of the vehicle was very poor.  The vehicle stopped its function for more than hundred occasion during running time between the date of purchase on 23.01.2007 and December 2008.  He has sustained a loss of `1,50,000 as recurring repair charges and loss of earnings from the vehicle.  Complainant informed the facts to 4^th opposite party several times and on all occasions 4^th opposite party informed that the matter would be intimated to manufacturer, 1^st opposite party.  But in practice there was no response from any one of the opposite parties.  The repeated malfunctioning of the vehicle made serious mental, physical and financial strain to the complainant and it caused to drain his hard earned money.  The vehicle was taken to the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party and other service centers on numerous occasions and the vehicle has been kept idle in the compound of the complainant’s house.  Evenafter repeated requests, the service centre of 4^th opposite party expressed their helplessness to repair the vehicle.  The complainant could not run the vehicle since the vehicle, showed serious mechanical problems and he sustained loss of income for his livelihood, which lead to make defaults for remitting the loan instalments of the vehicle.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite party the sister concerns of manufacturer repeatedly demanded to remit the loan installment dues and also threatened to seize the vehicle. Thereafter to sent lawyer notice to all opposite parties to take back the vehicle and to return the amount paid by the complainant.  In the month of August 2009 muscle men of opposite parties came and took the vehicle by force from his possession.  Thereafter opposite party promised to return the value of the vehicle soon after its sale to a third party.  But opposite party did not returned the value eventhough contacted the opposite parties several times.  Later complainant received notice of claim petition filed by the opposite party before arbitrator claiming compensation in connection with the loan arrears.  In the claim petition it is seen written that the vehicle in question was sold for `1,55,000 and complainant is liable to pay the arrears of loan instalments to 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite parties.   It is false to say that the vehicle was sold for `1,55,000 as the opposite party themselves claim that the vehicle is new and defect free one.  The opposite party cheated the complainant by giving a vehicle having manufacturing defects.  Hence this complaint to return the amount paid by the complainant with damages and to stop the action to realize the loan instalments.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party appeared and filed version.  1^st opposite party filed their version denying the main allegation contended as follows :  The complainant made baseless allegation of manufacturing defect without any expert report.  The complainant is not a consumer since the vehicle in question has been used for commercial purpose.  Complainant has not conducted mandatory recommended servicing at specific intervals and replacement of specified components.  There were instances of maintenance faults and operational faults.  Complainant violated Clause 5 & 7 of the terms and conditions of warranty.  Complainant purchased vehicle on or around 23.01.2007.  The vehicle in question covered `36,118 Kms till 26.11.2008, which means approximately it had covered `1,641 Kms per month.  It shows vehicle was in absolute road worthy condition.  This complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party.  Complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of Star plus Motors at Keezhur.  But they were not made as  party to the proceedings.  Complainant did not produce any expert report to prove manufacturing defect.  There is no merit in the complaint. Hence to dismiss the complaint. 

          2^nd and 3^rd opposite party filed version separately contending as follows : The complainant is not a consumer.  He has not produced any record to show that the vehicle in question was being used for his livelihood.  The vehicle has been exclusively used for commercial purpose.  So complainant is excluded from the purview of the CPA.  Complainant is a chronic defaulter. The complainant by way of late, part or defaulted payments has grossly violated the terms of the agreement and hence there cannot be any complaint of deficiency in service against these opposite parties. The cheques issued by the complainant have been regularly dishonoured due to insufficient funds, which shows his conduct.  A total of 9 cheques have been dishonoured.  Dishonour have contributed to the bank charges of `400 per dishonor which comes to a total of `3600 on 06.06.2011 this opposite party has incurred an amount of `2,76,517 towards expenses such as document charges, stamp recovery, bank charges, retainer charges, legal expenses etc.  Complainant violated the terms and conditions of the agreement.  Complainant malafidely evaded in paying the loan instalments and in turn the opposite party repossessed the said vehicle after giving repossession notices.  There is no legal impediment on the financier to repossess the vehicle in terms of the Hire Purchase agreement on failure of the Hirer to pay the due instalments.  Disposal of vehicle after repossession also cannot be a ground for deficiency in service.  The complainant is liable to repay the loan instalments as stipulated in the agreement.  This opposite party issued a pre possession notice dated 14.07.2009 to the complainant requesting to make a balance payment of `1,39,181 as aggregate sum as on 14.07.2009 along with accrued overdue charge and expenses.  It is also informed to return the vehicle in the case of failure of payment .  It was also stated in the notice that the re-possessed vehicle may even sell by public auction or private treaty.  But the complainant did not heed to the notice and continued to be defaulted.  Then the vehicle was repossessed peacefully on 31.08.2009.  This opposite party has repossessed the vehicle in after following due process of law.  Complainant was given ample opportunity to pay outstanding payments and get his vehicle released.  But complainant did not make outstanding amount.  Since the value of the vehicle was decreasing it was decided to sell the vehicle .  It was then sold the vehicle for `1,55,000 on 25.09.2009 to retrieve the due amount.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

4^th opposite party in their separate version contended as follows :  Complainant purchased vehicle in January 2007.   Till the year 2011 he had absolutely no complaints.  It is after the expiry of the warranty and of receiving the notice in March 2011 he came forward claiming manufacturing defects.  The vehicle in question brought to him for its periodical services and other minor repairs.  On all occasions the vehicle had been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and all the works were carried out free of cost, under the warranty issued by the manufacturer.  The vehicle does not have any manufacturing defects.  Out of total 11 visits, 7 visits were for periodical services under the warranty and four were for minor complaints, that come across in all vehicles.  This was over a period of nearly two years between 30.01.2007 and 05.11.2008.  No major complaints were ever reported during this time.  There is no reason to wait to report a defect till 2011 if complainant happened to notice any major defect in January 2007.  He has come before the Forum only after receiving notice from the financier claiming loan arrear.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleading the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?  If so which party is liable for the same?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence adduced by PW1 and Ext.A1 to A 17 on the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 on the side of the opposite party.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly complainant purchased a TATA LPK 407/27 Built Tipper 2775 mm from 4^th opposite party on 23.01.2007 by paying `7,13,000 and the same was registered as KL 58/6111.   Complainant’s case is that from the same month of purchase the vehicle showed serious troubles and manufacturing defect.  The vehicle happened to be stopped suddenly while running.  Though it was cured temporarily the same was repeated 4 times within the first service. The Service Engineer of opposite party assured that the defects of the vehicle would be cured permanently. But the mechanical trouble continued to repeat again and the vehicle stopped its function hundred times during running time between the date of purchase 23.01.2007 and December 2008. The vehicle had been taken to the authorized Service Centre of 1^st opposite party and other service centres innumerable times and atlast the vehicle had been kept idle in the compound of complainant’s house.  He lost his income for livelihood, as a result which he could not remit loan instalments regularly.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, the sister concerns of 1^st opposite party/manufacturer repeatedly demanded to clear instalments dues and also threatened to seize the vehicle.  Complainant then sent lawyer notice asking to take back the vehicle and to return the value of the vehicle opposite party took the vehicle by force on August 2009.  Opposite party then promised to return the value of the vehicle soon after it’s sale.  But opposite party did not returned the value.  Later complainant received notice of claim petition filed by opposite party before the Arbitrator.

          On the contrary 1^st opposite party contended that the vehicle was in absolute road working condition.  It is also contended that complainant has not produced any expert report regarding manufacturing defect.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite party contended that complainant violated the terms and conditions by defaulting the payments of loan instalments.  They have taken the stand that the financier is entitled to repossess the vehicle on failure of the hirer to pay the due instalments and to sell the same to recover the amount.  The main contention of 4^th opposite party is that the vehicle in question was brought to him for its periodical services and other minor repairs.  The vehicle does not have any manufactural defect.  No major complaints were ever reported during the period between 30.01.2007 and 05.11.2008.

          The evidence adduced by PW1 by means of affidavit evidence goes to show as follows :  The vehicle in question was purchased by him from 4^th opposite party on 23.01.2007.  He obtained `6,00,000 from 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite party, which is the branch of 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party.  The vehicle was purchased for earning his livelihood. His son is the driver.  He noticed serious defects of the vehicle from the very beginning of the purchase.  Sudden set off of the vehicle while running was the main defect.  When it was brought to the notice of the opposite party the vehicle was temporarily repaired.  But the vehicle continued to be stopped even after that.  There were 4 occasions of this type of incident in between date of purchase to first service.  Whenever it was informed to the service centre of 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party the technicians from there came and attended the complaint.  But it was not entered into service book nor issued receipt for the service charge.  On the first service itself all the defects were explained in detail to the Service Engineer of 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party and he offered that all the defects would be rectified permanently in the first service itself.  He promised that since it is a new model vehicle there is chance for some mistake but that would be totally rectified immediately.  But repeated engine break down could not be solved.  On comparing to other vehicle of the same opposite party the performance of this vehicle has been very poor.  From the date of purchase 23.01.2007 to 08.12.2008 the engine of the vehicle happened to be stopped hundred times automatically on several occasions by which he had sustained loss as the repair cost and loss of earning.  Though all these facts were informed to 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party and he promised to inform the same to 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party, there had been no response from 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  It was 2205 Kms shown in the speedometer at the time of purchasing the vehicle.  When it was started for using the vehicle on four occasion before first service the vehicle stopped its function while running and the same was repaired by the service mechanic of 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party.  They promised a thorough repair during first service to rectifying the total defects permanently.  At the time of service the pulling power vehicle was poor and the sound of the vehicle was also very high together with other defects of gear and leakage of oil tank etc.  Before second service on two occasions the vehicle happened to be stopped on running and repaired by 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party.  After the second service vehicle again shown various defects and the same was brought to service centre and repaired the same.  The complaints repeated.  On 17.09.2007 when the vehicle was brought for third service the vehicle shown various new defects like gear shifting, left pump complaint, poor pick up, back break light complaint, gear liver complaint etc apart from the old existing complaints.  Even after repair on several days the vehicle shown complaint and mechanics from 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party was called and repaired the vehicle.  Since the condition was very bad the vehicle was brought to service centre on 09.11.2007 and repaired.  Thereafter, within a period of two months the vehicle stopped its function while running on five occasions and compelled to repair calling local technicians. On showing the same complaint the vehicle was brought to the service centre of 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party on 05.01.2008 and 11.01.2008.  Since the condition worsened the vehicle was again brought to 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party on 11.02.2008 and 25.03.2008.  Thereafter at about 20 times within the five months period the vehicle happened to be stopped function whereby complainant failed to complete the promised works and compelled to keep the vehicle in work shop many days.  Then again vehicle was taken to 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party on 05.11.2008.  Though taken back after repairing the vehicle the same was again taken to 4<sup>th</sup> opposite party on 26.11.2008 since the same defect continued.  Repaired and taken back again but repeating the same complaint the vehicle happened to be stopped again on the way on December 2008 and as a result of continuous failure on repair the vehicle was taken to his house and kept therein idle.  Thereafter opposite party took away the vehicle by force in August 2009.  Thereafter opposite party promised to return the value of the vehicle after the sale to third party.  But it was not given in the month of March, 2011.  The complainant received claim notice from the Arbitrator that the vehicle in question sold to a third party and complainant is liable to pay instalments to the opposite parties No.2 and 3.  It is utter lie that the vehicle which is only two years old sold for only `1,55,000.  According to opposite party the vehicle is defect free.

          Complainant also adduced evidence by way of documents Ext.A1 to A17.  The complainant PW1 was vehemently cross examined for the opposite parties.  It can be seen that the vehicle in question had been admittedly in the possession of opposite party on 31.08.2009.  It was purchased by the complainant pm 23.01.2007.  The vehicle repossessed by opposite party within a period of 2 ½ years.  It is a vehicle purchased by paying `   7,13,000.  Complainant’s specific case is that during the period from purchase (23.01.2007) to the date of repossession December 2009, the vehicle continued to show various defects.  Complainant adduced evidence that the first service was done on 09.03.2007 and four occasion from the date of purchase (23.01.2007) to first service 09.03.2009 the vehicle had been stopped on the road half way which repaired by service mechanics came from the service centre of 4^th opposite party.  Ext.A4 goes to show that the first service was done on 09.03.2007.  Complainant stated further that the four repairs done by 4^th opposite party before 1^st service was not entered in the service book nor issued any receipt for the charges paid.  PW1 also stated that the Service Engineer of 4^th opposite party told him that since the vehicle is a new model one there may be possibly some mistakes and the same will be totally rectified while doing the first service.  Complainant adduced evidence that by the 1^st service opposite party could not rectify the defect of repeated break down of the vehicle.  There is no rebutting evidence against the above stated facts, which makes clear that from the first three months of the purchase the vehicle suffered with defects of sudden stopping of the engine on running.  Complainant adduced evidence that before undergoing second service on 21.05.2007 the vehicle happened to be stopped working of engine on the half way on two occasions, which was repaired by service men coming from 4^th opposite party.  Complainant states that second service also failed to rectify the defects.  Evidence of complainant show that more defects developed when the vehicle was taken for third service.  Thereafter on 09.11.2007, 11.01.2008, 11.02.2008, 25.03.2008, 08.05.2008, 09.05.2008, 05.11.2008, 26.11.2008 the vehicle was directly taken to service centre apart from other repairs on the spot carried on several times.  Complainant gives evidence by way of affidavit evidence that he stopped using vehicle and kept in the compound of complainant’s house when the vehicle was stopped on the way while running due to engine defects.  Thereafter, the vehicle was taken possession of opposite party by force on December 2009.  Complainant filed on 21.05.2007 and the vehicle had been taken under custody by the opposite party long before that. 

          There is no rebutting evidence on record from the side of opposite parties.  The available evidence makes it clear that the complainant purchased vehicle on 23.01.2007.  Complainant’s specific case that the vehicle suffered manufacturing defect and the vehicle happened to be stopped its function on the way four times in between 23.01.2007 and 09.03.2007.  That means it is alleged that before the first service on 09.03.2007 the vehicle shown the defects repeatedly.  Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit evidence that it is with the help of service persons of 4^th opposite party the above said defects were temporarily rectified.  1^st opposite party contended that complainant had never reported to any of the authorized service station of 1^st opposite party.  Prior to 09.03.2007 4^th opposite party on the other hand stated nothing regarding the repairs conducted as per the above allegations of complainant.  4^th opposite party stated in their version that out of a total of 11 visits, 7 visits were periodical services under the warranty and 4 were for minor complaints.  But none of the service men from the service centre of 4^th opposite party, the authorized service station of 1^st opposite party, had not been examined to bring forth the truth.  The actual case of the complainant is that the vehicle was taken to the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party and other service centers, a numerous occasions and the vehicle was kept idle in the compound of the complainant’s house.  Complainant pleaded that even after repeated requests, the service centre of 4^th opposite party expressed their helplessness to repair the vehicle properly.  Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit that the vehicle had been suffered continuous gear problem and pick up problems till they took the vehicle under their custody. Non-examination of Service men from the service centre of 4^th opposite party leads to assume that there is substance in the case of complainant.  Close analysis of available evidence makes it certain that from the very outset of purchase, the vehicle started showing defects and problems.  Opposite parties kept away from the witness box.  They did not adduce any evidence to bring forth the very condition of the vehicle.  They could not meet the allegations and evidence of complaint by adducing rebutting evidence.  Complainant was cross examined for all opposite parties but brought out nothing materially useful to shatter the case of the complainant.  In the cross examination for 4^th opposite party PW1 stated that “2007 മുതൽ 2009  വരെ 30 പ്രാവശ്യം ഞാൻ ഈ വണ്ടി repair ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.” He has also stated that it is not true to say that it was only four times that the paid service was carried out.

            Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the vehicle has a warranty of 36 months or upto `3,00,000 Kms run whichever is earlier.  So the average monthly Kilometer coverage of the vehicle can be upto 8366 Km and on a day 278 Kms.  But at the same time as against the standard 278 Km per day the complainant could run the vehicle only for an average distance of 51 to 52 Km daily because of the inherent defect in the vehicle.  On looking into the evidence it can be seen that there is substance in this argument.  It has come in evidence that the vehicle was purchased on 23.01.2003 with a running coverage of 2205 Kms. Complainant adduced evidence that after running of 22 months the vehicle had covered 2205 Kms.  The vehicle is in the hands of the opposite party long before filing the complaint.  Opposite party has no case otherwise.  It is true that after deducting 2205 Kms the actual running Kms covered by the vehicle comes on 33913.  That means complainant could run approximately 52 Kms only per day, which is ofcourse horribly reflects poor condition of the vehicle.  It can be seen that the vehicle show gear problem, pick up problem right from very outset.  As per the available evidence those defects persisted till the vehicle was taken away by the opposite parties.  So the natural presumption that can be drawn with the available evidence is that opposite party could not rectify the defects by their services.  They failed to rectify the defects since it was manufactural defects.  Opposite party has not taken any interest at least to prove what was the condition of the vehicle at the time when it was sold by them.  It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to prove the condition of the vehicle at the time of sale.  Opposite party could have been examined the person to whom it was sold in order to prove the condition of the vehicle.  Opposite party did not take steps to prove the condition of the vehicle for fear of coming out the truth of the real defect of the vehicle.  It has to be taken into account that after seizing possession of the vehicle no notice was issued to complainant regarding the sale of the vehicle. Under such circumstances it is the burden of opposite parties to prove the condition of the vehicle at the time of sale.

          The evidence available on record makes it clear that the complainant was not able to utilize the vehicle in its full capacity from the very beginning of the purchase till it was repossessed by opposite party.  The vehicle was purchased for an amount of `7,13,000.  As per the evidence the vehicle started showing the defects within three months of the purchase. The entire period taken average running of the vehicle per day on calculation shall only be 52 Kms only.  Opposite party could not adduce any evidence otherwise.  Opposite party did not even produced job cards or any record of entry of repair of vehicle in order to substantiate the contentions of opposite party or to disprove the allegations of complainant.  According to opposite parties the vehicle has no major complaints and it is in absolute road worthy condition. Then why the selling price is gone down to such a level of `1,55,000 within a short period.  Close reading of the version would reveal that it is lie.  Opposite party did not produce any record to show at what price the same was sold.  It was not informed to complainant also.  Opposite party has no case that it was informed to complainant, which is no doubt a clear deficiency in service.  Ext.A14 notice is sent to opposite parties.  But no reply was sent to complainant.  Non-reply of the notice is evidently a sign that the allegations of the complainant has substance.  The allegation of defects of the vehicle if not true the opposite party might have been sent the reply denying those allegations.  Sale of the vehicle without informing the complaint is an unfair trade practice.  A vehicle purchased for more than `7 lakh if sold for an amount of `1 ½ lakh shows the dealings of opposite party had not been free from unfairness.  Hence complainant is in anyway entitled for the money he has paid without looking into other aspects.  It is pertinent to note that the vehicle was sold to third party by the opposite party without the consent and knowledge of complainant.  So also details of sale, price etc had not been informed to complainant.  It is also important to be taken into account that opposite party had not made any attempt to place relevant records before the Forum inorder to prove the actual price for which the vehicle was sold and the mode of sale. These unfair dealings of opposite party is quite sufficient to come into conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The documents and evidences adduced by complainant also proves that complainant had been very much suffered by the defective vehicle from the very outset of the purchase.  Opposite party did not produce any evidence to show that they have made attempt to rectify the defects of the vehicle. They did not even produced the job cards and other relevant records kept by them in order to make it clear the actual state of affair as well as the genuine attempt on their part for solving the issue.

          In the light of the above discussion taking into account the circumstances and facts of the case we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party that amounts to unfair trade practice.  The opposite parties are liable to return the entire amount `1,13,000 paid by the complainant and to close the loan account withdrawing all the steps to realize the instalments due of the vehicle in question.  Opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation at the tune of `1,00,000 (One Lakh only) as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant due to repair cost to the vehicle as well as loss of income out of self employment.  Hence issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to return the entire amount `1,13,000 (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand only) paid by the complainant and to close the loan account withdrawing all the steps to realize the instalments due of the vehicle in question together with payment of a sum of `1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant due to repair cost to the vehicle as well as the loss of income expected to be derived from the use of vehicle.  The opposite parties shall execute the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order after expiry of one month as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.       

          Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2013.

                           Sd/-                        Sd/-             Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.   Copy of Registration certificate.

A2.   Carriage permit.

A3.   Tax Licence.

A4.   Tax invoice dated 09.03.2007.

A5.   Tax invoice dated 17.09.2007.

A6.   Invoice dated 09.05.07.

A7.   Final settlement bill dated 05.01.2008.

A8.   Receipt dated 10.11.2007.

A9.   Receipt dated 11.02.2008.

A10. Bill dated 11.01.2008.

A11. Contract detail dated 29.08.2009.

A12. Repossession letter by opposite party.

A13. Receipt dated 05.11.2008.

A14. Lawyer notice dated 07.09.2009.

A15. A.D. Receipts (4 in numbers)

A16. Reply Notice dated 30.09.2009.

A17. Reply notice dated 29.10.2009.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1. Receipt details.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT