KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.NO.03/2009
JUDGMENT DATED :26.05.2014
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
P.M.Salim,
S/o.Mohammed Mani,
Residing at Puthuveetil,
Marathu Kunnu, Enkakaddu.P.O
Wadakkanchery, Trissur
Pin – 680 589 COMPLAINANT
(By Adv.P.Rajmohan &
A.N.Satheesh Kumar, TVPM)
Vs.
1. Telco Construction Equipment
Company Ltd,
(A Tata Hitachi Joint Venture),
Block No.2,
KIADB Belur Industrial Estate,
Garag Road, Mummigatti,
Dharwad – 580 007
OPPOSITE PARTIES
2. Telco Construction Equipment
Company Ltd,
Having its registered office at
Jubilee Building – 45,
Museum Road, Bangalore – 560 025
3.P.S.N.Construction Equipment
Private Limited,
537/126 A, NH-47, Edapally Bye-pass,
Edapally .P.O Cochin- 682024
4. P.S.N.Construction Equipment
Private Limited,
537/A, Near L.B.S. Centre,
Opp. To Holy Family Church, Chiyaram,
Trissur District
Pin – 680 026
5. Service Manager,
Stanes, Trissur OPPOSITE PARTIES
6. City Corporation Fin.India Limited,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Business Communication Centre,
Ground Floor, Chiramel Chamber,
Kurisupally Road, Ravipuram,
Cochin – 682 015
(By Adv.S.Reghukumar for Ops 1 & 2)
(By Adv.V.Krishna Menon for Ops 3 & 4)
(By Adv.R.Suja & Adv.Lal.KJoseph, Kochi
for OP6)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is a complaint filed Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is alleged in the complaint that for the purpose of securing the livelihood of the complainant, he wanted to purchase an earth moving equipment. Accordingly he contacted the fifth opposite party, the dealer of the first opposite party having registered office at Bangalore. Opposite parties 3 & 4 are the authorized dealers and the fifth opposite party is the service agent of opposite parties 1 & 2. Opposite parties 3 & 4 advised the complainant to buy Tata John Deere 315 V Side Shift Back Hoe Loader (Earth Excavator / Remover). He was assured that the excavator manufactured by opposite parties 1 & 2 were free from defects in material and workman ship and the said excavator was the best available and was in good demand. Believing their words, the complainant decided to purchase the said back hoe loader manufactured by the first opposite party for Rs.19,58,600/-.The purchase was on 26.08.2006 and the excavator was hypothecated to the sixth opposite party. At the time of sale opposite parties provided warranty certificate with operation manual. The warranty provided was for one year from the date the excavator was commissioned or for 2000 working hours which ever is earlier. The warranty provided 16 conditions. Apart from operation manual, a tool list emergency spares, parts manual free service coupon, battery guarantee card engine parts manual etc were given to the complainant. The vehicle was registered as KL-48-1431. The total loan taken from the 6th opposite party is Rs.17,40,977.78/- and the complainant was directed to pay Rs.52,900/- as monthly instalments. The earth remover was having a replacement guarantee. The complainant could use the earth remover only for 20 months that too subject to frequent repairs. The complainant did not experience defect free usage of the earth remover as promised by the opposite parties. The complainant found if difficult to pay the heavy instalments to the sixth opposite party and he had no other means of livelihood. Hence opposite parties 1 to 5 advised him to replace the vehicle with a brand new one. Accordingly, on 30.05.2007 he got a new earth remover by paying an additional amount of Rs.59,100/-. The additional amount was paid to the authorized dealer. It was assured by opposite parties 1 to 5 and that the said earth remover was of top quality and was free from defects. The said vehicle was insured with the oriental insurance company and was hypothecated to the sixth opposite party. The new vehicle also had warranty on conditions similar to the warranty for the earlier vehicle. The vehicle was registered with the Sub Regional Transport Office, Wadakkanchery with Reg.No.KL-48A-1064.
2. Immediately after commissioning the new excavator there were serious defects to the oscillation of the real left wheel. On 31.05.2008 itself the vehicle was produced before the service agents and it was found that there was a misalignment of the wheel disc. Though opposite parties would say that the defects were cured it is apparent that they were trying their level best to hide the other serious defects in the equipment. The service done by the fifth opposite party is not all up to the desired standard. On 26.06.2008 the earth remover again broke down and was put to repairs because of high diesel consumption and bending of the wheel drum. This time the complainant was totally convinced that he had been cheated again and opposite parties 1 to 5 had falsely convinced him that a brand new excavator had been supplied. Selling of an apparently defective excavator has put the complainant to total financial miseries and he could not earn his livelihood or repay the heavy monthly instalments to the sixth opposite party. The excavator was again put to repairs on 27.06.2008. Opposite parties advised the complainant that the excavator could not at that stage be put to regular use and it has to be subjected to detailed repair. The excavator was having serious defects such as diesel mixing with engine oil, self swinging, valve block leakage lift pump crack loader bucket complaint neutral switch complaint and loader lever not working. The above complainants are of very serious nature making the excavator unusable and useless. It is the duty of the opposite parties to repair and replace the defective parts free of cost as the same has occurred within the warranty period. As the excavator remained idle and unusable the complainant was forced to issue notice to the opposite parties on 24.11.2008 through his advocate. In response they gave an evasive reply on 03.12.2008. There is total deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Because of the total break down of the excavator the complainant sustained monetary loss of Rs.5,00,000/- in the form of work offers that could not be executed. The excavator is suffering from major manufacturing defects making it unusable. As a result of failure to pay instalments to the sixth opposite party they are now taking steps to attach the excavator and recover the dues. The excavator is lying idle at the residence of the complainant from 26.06.2008 onwards. Opposite parties 1 to 5 did not care to meet the legitimate demands of the complainant. By supplying defective and old engine they committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly the complainant seeks to realize Rs.20,17,700/- as cost of the excavator from the opposite parties with interest and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and monetary loss caused to him. Further Rs.50,000/- is sought to be recovered towards deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- towards cost.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 fled joint version. Opposite parties 3 & 4 filed separate joint version and the sixth opposite party filed separate version. Opposite parties 1 & 2 have contended that the complaint discloses no cause of action. There is no consumer dispute involved. The complainant has suppressed material facts. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased one Tata JD 315 V machine manufactured by opposite parties 1 & 2 through opposite parties 3 & 4, their authorized dealers. Opposite parties 3 & 4 commissioned the vehicle successfully to the satisfaction of the complainant on 31.05.2008 at hour meter reading on 10.6 hours. The machine carries standard warranty policy for a period of one year or 2000 hours of operation o f the machine which ever is earlier. The warranty attached to the machine of the complainant has expired and he is estopped from claiming anything covered by the warranty. The opposite parties are not liable for defects if any which may have arisen after the expiry of the warranty period. During the warranty period opposite parties have provided all necessary services to the machine to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has purchased the machine for commercial purpose and not merely to earn his livelihood.
4. There was no misrepresentation or luring offers made to the complainant by the opposite parties or their agents as alleged. The first opposite party had launched an advanced model of the machine in the year 2008. The complainant voluntarily approached opposite parties 3 & 4 and expressed his willingness to exchange the old machine for the new model. Accordingly, he entered into an agreement with opposite parties 3 & 4 on 20.05.2008 for the exchange of the old machine with the new one. As per the agreement the new machine was sold to the complainant. He had also remitted Rs.59,600/- to the fourth opposite party for availing extended warranty for the machine. The warranty attached to the machine of the complainant does not cover natural wear and tear or any damage caused by the natural elements or negligent or improper operation, storage or transport during the period of its warranty. The opposite parties had provided all free services covered under the warranty at HMR reading of 50,250,500,1000 & 1500. The allegation that Tata JD 315 V Model Machine suffered from various defects is false. There was no manufacturing defect to the machine as alleged. The problems reported by the complainant were due to natural wear and tear and the service engineers of opposite parties 3 & 4 had rectified those complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant. Before purchasing the vehicle the complainant had inspected the machine and was convinced of its performance. There is no merit in the allegation to the contrary. Attracted by the new model, the complainant approached the opposite parties and he was informed of the by back scheme. It was mutually agreed that out of Rs/.12,00,000/- fixed for the old machine Rs.8,88,000/- could be utilized for settling the loan account of the old machine with the sixth opposite party and the balance amount of Rs.3,16,000/- could be utilized as down payment sale of the new machine. The balance amount towards the cost of the machine was agreed to be met by the sixth opposite party. Opposite parties 3 & 4 had received Rs.17,80,000/- from the sixth opposite party towards the price of the new machine. Rs.59,100/- was not paid as additional amount to purchase the vehicle . The said amount was paid to the insurance company for availing extended warranty for the machine. Complaint regarding oscillation of the rear left wheel had been attended to and rectified by the service engineers of ops 3 & 4 to the satisfaction of the complainant. The service engineers of opposite parties 3 & 4 had recommended certain measures for proper maintenance of the machine. However the complainant has not complied with the recommendations. He also failed to offer the machine for regular maintenance. The allegations that fuel consumption of the machine is high, that the lift pump, wheel drum and gear box of the machine are damaged etc are contrary to facts . There is no complaint with the gear box or its internal parts .The only complaint detected was a minor electrical complaint which had been rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. So also valve leak was detected and rectified. The same was not due to any manufacturing defect .But due to improper use of the machine by the complainant. As on 21.03.2009 the machine had worked for about 1413 hours. This shows that in fact the machine had worked much more than the working of machine of such category. The allegation that due to defects in the machine the complainant lost work hours and could not repay the loan because of that is without any basis. There was neither deficiency in service nor any manufacturing defect to the vehicle. To the notice issued by the complainant through his advocate reply was sent. There was no break down of the machine as alleged. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are not liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. The question of delivering faulty machine to a customer does not arise. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Opposite parties 3 & 4 also contended that the complainant had purchased the back hoe loader for commercial purpose and hence he cannot be treated as a consumer. They further contend that the complainant and one M.K.Rajan had started a partnership firm titled Malabar Earth Movers and it was for the purpose of this partnership firm that the back hoe loader was purchased in the name of the complainant. The complainant purchased the back how loader on his own volition. When a new model was launched in 2008 the complainant approached opposite parties 3 & 4 and expressed his desire to purchase the same provided he was able to get a buyer for the old vehicle. Then opposite parties 3 & 4 informed the complainant that he could exchange the old vehicle for the new model back hoe loader. It was accordingly agreement was entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties. He had not settled the loan availed from the financier for purchasing the old vehicle. Hence the value of the old vehicle was utilized partly for settling the old loan and partly for purchasing the new vehicle. Fresh loan was availed and opposite parties were paid Rs.17, 80,000/- by the financier. Additional amount of Rs.59,100/- was paid for extended warranty for the back hoe loader. The complaint to the oscillation of the real left wheel had been attended to and rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The allegation s that the back loader consumes excess quantity of diesel and had its lift pump wheel drum gear box etc damaged and there was valve oil leak and complaints to silencer push pin etc are incorrect. There is no complaint with the gear box or its internal parts .The only complaint that was detected was a minor electrical complaint which was also rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. When complaint regarding the wheel drum and silencer had been noticed the complainant was informed that the necessary parts were available at Thrissur Branch, but for reasons known to the complainant he did not have the same, replaced. By March 2009, the complainants back hoe loader had run 1413 hours at the rate of approximately 150 hours per month. This shows that the machine had run much more than the normal working of such a kind of machine. So it is incorrect to say that due to the defects in the back hoe loader many work orders were lost and he could repay his loan. After reply was sent to the notice of the complainant M.K.Rajan, the partner of the complainant had given a letter on 23.01.2009 in which he had stated that he had received the necessary spare parts from the Thrissur branch and that the next 250 hours periodical service would be carried out by him without fail and that till that date he was satisfied with the service provided by the opposite parties . There has been no total break down of the back hoe loader as alleged. There was no deficiency in service on the part of ops 3 & 4.
6. The sixth opposite party contended that the vehicle was purchased by obtaining credit facility to the tune of Rs.17,40,977.78/- from them. The said amount was repayable in instalments of Rs.52,900/- each. The complainant under took to pay the monthly instalemnts without default. But he is paying the instalments belatedly. The sixth opposite party has nothing to do with the condition of the vehicle. They provided credit facility to enable the complainant to purchase a vehicle of his choice. The vehicle was his own selection. The sixth opposite party has no liability towards any defect in the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence they are unnecessary party to the proceedings.
The following points arise for decision in this petition.
- Whether the complainant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose as contended?
2. Whether manufacturing defect or any serious unrectifiable defect warranting refund of the purchase price is established in evidence.
3. Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties ?
4. Reliefs and costs.
7. The complainant gave oral evidence as PW1. An expert commissioner was deputed to report upon the condition of the vehicle. He is examined as PW2. The driver of the vehicle is examined as PW3. Exts.A1 to A35 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.C1 was marked through PW2. On the side of opposite parties one witness is examined as DW1.
Arguments were heard.
Point No.1 :-
8. The contention of opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and as such he is not a consumer for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. The specific allegation in the complaint is that he purchased the vehicle for the purpose of securing his livelihood. Opposite parties 3 & 4 have gone to the extent of contending that the vehicle was purchased for a partnership firm in the name of the complainant The records reveal that the vehicle was purchased in the name of the complainant and the major portion of the consideration was paid by raising loan from the sixth opposite party. It is not the use of the vehicle that is important. As a matter of fact there is nothing to brush aside, the claim of the complainant that the source of his livelihood was the income from operating the machine. So the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer can not be upheld.
Point Nos.2 & 3.
9. The main allegations in the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties are the following. It was based on the advice and assurance of opposite parties 3 & 4 that the vehicle would be free from defects and was best available in the market, that he purchased the vehicle and later got it replaced by the new model. But the assurances turned out to be false and he could use the vehicle only subject to frequent repairs. On 31.05.2008 the date of commissioning of the vehicle itself serious defects to the vehicle in the form of oscillation of the rear left wheel was noticed. The service agents found that there was misalignment of the wheel disc. Though the service agents claimed that the defects were cured the attempt was to hide the serious defects to the back hoe loader. The complainant alleges that the defects to the vehicle are of very serious nature making the excavator unusable and useless. As a result, according to the complainant the excavator is lying idle at the residence of the complainant from 27.06.2008 onwards. So the main question that arises for consideration is whether there is evidence to substantiate any of these allegations. The main and independent evidence available in this regard is in the form of Ext.C1 report submitted by PW2 appointed by this commission to inspect the vehicle and file report.
10. PW2 was the head of mechanical engineering section in government polytechnic, Kannur. He inspected the earth remover bearing Reg.No.KL 48A 1064 in the presence of the complainant on 25.05.2011. He has reported that at the time of inspection the vehicle had covered nearly 1000 hours of working. However, it is reported that hour meter was not seen. The further reports are that the overall appearance of the earth remover was not satisfactory. It was not maintained properly. There were painting damages in several portions. External parts were loose and body had started rusting. On the right rear wheel drum crack was not seen but welding mark was seen. The working of the hydraulic pump was not satisfactory. But the working of the diesel pump was satisfactory. PW2 could not identify diesel consumption and mixing of diesel into the engine oil. Self swinging of back hoe, leakage of hydraulic fluid through pump valve and hydraulic system was noticed. Functioning of gear box, loader, lever and neutral lever was not satisfactory. Movement of the earth remover on road was very slow and the gear box was not functioning properly. Electrical wiring and working of solenoid were not satisfactory. At the request of opposite parties 3 & 4 he verified servicing details and it was found that routine service as per operator manual was not carried out timely. On enquiry and verifying parts of the equipment it was found that the maintenance works were carried out at local workshop using locally available spare parts and service men. On studying the nature of the defects, PW2 found that the equipment might have been used improperly even after the complaints were noticed. On inspecting the vehicle PW2 noticed that the back hoe bucket was reinforced by using leaf springs of heavy vehicle (lorry, bus etc) welded to the outer surface of the bucket. That increased the weight of the back hoe bucket by approximately 25 to 30 kgms. Further locally available spare parts and fasteners were used in the repair works. Most of the external parts were loosely mounted. Hour meter was not found and it was removed. Speedo meter was not functioning. Over all appearance of the equipment was very poor. The conclusion of PW2 is that the main cause of all the defects is the alteration work of the back hoe bucket ( reinforcement of back hoe bucket with leaf springs ) The increase in weight of the bucket leads to failure of hydraulic pump, hydraulic valve and all the components related or connected to the back hoe loader. The failure of hydraulic system in turn increases the diesel consumption. In addition, use of local spare parts, use of improper tools lack of timely and proper servicing and faulty operations supplemented the damages.
11. When examined PW2 deposed that actually the vehicle did not totally break down and he reiterated Ext.C1 report. In short, the expert evidence shows that the disputed earth remover was in a very poor condition but it was mainly due to use of local spare parts use of improper tools lack of timely and proper servicing and faulty operations. Mainly the alteration work in the back hoe bucket by reinforcing it with leaf springs thereby increasing its weight was the main cause of the complaints.
12. What remains to be seen is whether the remaining evidence supports the conclusions of the commissioner or the allegations of the complainant. There is no dispute that the new model vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 48A 1064 was commissioned on 31.05.2008. Ext.A16 is the service report prepared on that occasion. In the remarks it is noted that oscillation of rear left wheel was noticed and it was suspected that misalignment of wheel disc might be the reason. Ext.A19 is the service report dated 26.06.2008 at that time it appears that the machine had run 223 hours and the complaint was high diesel consumption. Obviously, oscillation of the left rear wheel was corrected earlier. Ext.A20 shows that the vehicle was sent for repair to correct high diesel consumption. It is noted that the vehicle needed calibration of F.I.P. Ext.A21 is the service report dated 27.06.2008. Apparently the complaint was rectified and the complainant was advised to bring the vehicle for service at 250 hours. It is seen from Ext.A22 service report that the vehicle was brought for 250 hours service on 29.07.2008, after running 370 hours. This is admitted by the complainant when he was examined as PW1. He was advised to bring the vehicle for service at 500 hours. But it is seen from ext.A25 service report dated 03.12.2008 that the vehicle was actually brought for 500 hrs service after running the vehicle for 974 hours. Then he complaint was that there was mixing of diesel with engine oil and self swinging. There were other complaints as well. Ext.A28 service report is dated 23.02.2009. It is noted that at that time the vehicle had run 1107.1 hours. The complaint was boom dropping. Ext.A32 service report is dated 18.02.2009 and the complaint again is mixing of engine oil with diesel. It is noted that the vehicle had run 1147.1 hours. At this stage there is some discrepancy regarding the actual hours the vehicle had run. Ext.A34 service report is dated 03.03.2009 and the vehicle was brought for service with the same complaint after running 1238 hours.Ext.A27 service report is dated 05.03.2009. The vehicle had run 1254 hours. Then the complaint was mixing of diesel with engine oil. Ext.A33 is dated 30.03.2007. Again the complaint was the same and the vehicle had run 1530 hours.Ext.A35 is the service report dated 06.04.2009. The vehicle was brought with the complaint of high diesel consumption. When the vehicle was brought it had run 1573.7 hours. From Ext.A30 another service report dated 20.04.2009, it is seen that the vehicle was brought with the complaint that M/C was not working and white smoke was seen from the engine side. By that time the vehicle had worked for 1734.8 hrs.
13. So the documentary evidence available in the form of service reports shows that the allegation in the complaint that the excavator was lying idle at the residence of the complainant from 27.06.2008 onwards is absolutely false. By 27.06.2008 the vehicle had run only 223 hours where as Ext.A30shows that when the vehicle was brought last for service on 20.04.2009 it had run 1734 .8 hours. It is also pertinent to notice the report of the commissioner that the hour meter was seen removed. That must be a purposeful act on the part of the complainant to conceal the truth. The service report further shows that it is not correct to say that the vehicle had developed complaints of very serious nature making it unusable. Ext.C1 report does not show that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect to its main components. On the contrary, Ext.C1 shows that certain deliberate alterations and additions were made in the back hoe bucket increasing its weight which largely contributed to the complaints. It is further mentioned that use of local spare parts, use of improper tools, lack of timely and proper servicing and faulty operations supplemented damages. Though the complainant would say that he had promptly done servicing at 250 & 500 hours the service reports show otherwise and there is nothing to disbelieve the service reports. It is also pertinent to notice that PW1 the complainant did not know how to operate the earth remover. He had no license for the purpose. The complainant examined PW3 who claimed to be the driver of the earth remover. He admitted that he holds license only to drive light motor vehicles. He specifically admitted that he holds no license to drive excavator. So even if the claim of PW3 is accepted, the vehicle was operated by an unqualified person. Not only that, he had not signed any of the service reports thereby indicating that it is doubtful whether he was actually the driver of the earth remover. In short, the available evidence does not show that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect to the engine or any other important part. The service reports show that when ever the vehicle was brought for service it was promptly attended to. At the same time faulty operations alteration in the back hoe bucket etc contributed to the malfunctioning of the vehicle. The specific report is that as a result of the alterations and increase in the weight of the back hoe bucket hydraulic valve and related components malfunctioned thereby increasing diesel consumption. The complainant has no case that reinforcement of back hoe bucket with leaf springs which increased its weight leading to malfunctioning of hydraulic system was made at the service centre of the fifth opposite party. So it appears that the case of the opposite parties that the vehicle was repaired at local service stations and not in the authorized service station always, appears to be true. This being the factual scenario, it is only to be held that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In East India construction company and another vs. Modern Consultancy services & othrs in II (2006) CPJ 289 (NC) relied on by the learned counsel for the complainant elbow of back hoe loader of the machine was broken and instead of replacing the part the same was welded. Several other defects were noticed. It was under that circumstance deficiency in service was held to be proved. In Mercury Electronics Vs A.L.manchanda 1 (2008) CPJ 386 (NC) when the machine was taken to the workshop for repairs, the machine was tampered with and original parts were changed. Hence it was held that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
14. In the present case, on the contrary it appears that the machine was tampered with by the complainant himself. On the evidence indicated above no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties can be attributed. The points are found accordingly.
Point No.4
It follows from the findings on point nos. 2 & 3 that the complaint is devoid of merit.
Accordingly the complaint is dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPENDIX
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW1 - P.M.Salim
PW2 - Kuriyakose.M.M
PW3 - Abraham.T.T
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - Satheesh.K.S
Exhibits for the complainant
A1 - Proforma invoice no.201 dated 26.08.2008 for Rs.19,58,600/-
A2 - Warranty certificate issued by first and second opp.parties
A3 - packing List of Tata JD 315 V
A4 - Certificate of Road Worthiness date 18.07.2006
A5 - Tax invoice no.M 060 dated 31.08.2006
A6 - Sale certificate issued by fourth opp.party
A7 - Temporary certificate of registration dated 01.09.2006
A8 - Insurance certificate issued by Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd
dated 01.09.2006
A9 - Certificate of registration of KL-48 1431
A10 - Tax License issued by Motor Vehicles Department for
KL-48 1431
A11 - Insurance certificate by Oriental Insurance Company for
KL-48 1431
A12 - Warranty replacement dated 06.09.2007
A13 - Receipt dated 30.05.2008 for Rs.59,100/- issued by 4th
opp.party as additional payment for the New Tata JD 315-V
A14 - Insurance Certificate from Oriental Insurance Certificate for
the new Excavator No.KL-48 A-1064 dated 30.05.2008
A15 - Tax License issued by M.V.Department for KL-48 A-1064
A16 - Service report dated31.05.2008
A17 - Special contingency policy issued by Oriental Insurance
Co.Ltd
A18 - Motor Insurance Certificate cum policy schedule issued by
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd for KL-48 A-1064
A19 - Service report dated 26.06.2008
A20 - Letter dated 27.06.2008 from fourth opp.party to 6th opp.party
A21 - Service report dated 27.06.2008
A22 - Service report dated :29.07.2008
A23 - Advocate notice dated : 24.11.2008
A24 - Reply advocate notice dated 03.12.2008
A25 - Service report dated : 03.12.2008
A26 - Service report dated : 04.12.2008
A27 - Service report dated :05.03.2009
A28 - Service report dated : 23.02.2009
A29 - Sale Order No.129 dated : 24.04.2009
A30 - Service report dated :18.04.2009
A31 - Service report dated : Service report dated :18.02.2009
A32 - Service report dated :23.01.2009
A33 - Service report dated : 29.03.2009
A34 - Service report dated : 03.03.2009
A35 - Service report dated : 06.04.2009
Court Exhibit
C1 - Commission report dated 27.05.2011 from M.M.kuriakose,
Head of section in Mechanical Engineering, Govt Polytechnic
College, Kannur - 7
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Be/
KERALA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHARLANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.NO.03/2009
JUDGMENT
DTD :26.05.2014
Be/
