Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/68/2015

S.Rajakumara S/o. Shivalingappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory, M/s. Namakkal Auto Diesel Works - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.Kallam Manjunatha Reddy

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:03.08.2015

DISPOSED      ON:24.12.2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 68/2015

 

DATED:  24^th DECEMBER 2016

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,                   

……COMPLAINANT	S. Rajakumara, S/o Shivalingappa, Major, Transport Business, No.2, Hirgutanur Gollarahatty, Chitradurga Taluk & District.   (Rep by Sri.K. Manjunatha Reddy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Authorized Signatory, M/s Namakkal Auto Diesel Works, Ashok Leyland Authorized Service Centre, NH-4, Chitradurga-577 501.   2. The Authorized Signatory, M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd, Sy.No.100, Near S.R. Mill Compound, NH-4, Chitradurga.   3. The General Manager, M/s T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd, No.20, Balaji Avenue, 5th Main Road, Puttanna Chetty Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560 018.   4. The Regional Manager, M/s Ashok Leyland Pvt. Ltd., Sales & Service, Regional Office, No.100-1-1 Suraj Manar, II Floor, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalre-560 019.   5. The Branch Manager, Indus IND Bank Ltd., Basaveshwara Talkies Road, Horapete, Chitradurga.   6. The Authorized Signatory, Indus IND Bank Ltd., Consumer Finance Division, No.34, G.B. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017.   (Rep by Sri. D.I. Syed Swaleha, Advocate for OP No.1, Sri. B.R. Vishwanatha Reddy, Advocate for OP 2 & 3 and Smt.T.K.Champa, Advocate for OP No.4 to 6)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.1 to repay the amount of the vehicle with accrued interest or to replace the vehicle with defective free, direct the OP No.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with  interest at 18% p.a towards loss of business, repairs, replacement of spare parts etc, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, cost and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 06.09.2012 complainant purchased Ashoka LL U 2518T 1250 WB Tipper Heavy Goods Transport Vehicle bearing Regn No.KA-16 B-6283 bearing Chassis No.MB1HTLWCXCPXE3973 and Engine No.XCP139142 by availing a loan of Rs.19,10,000/- from Indus IND Bank, Chitradurga i.e, OP No.5, manufactured by OP No.3 with warranty of two years.  At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, OP No.1 assured the complainant that, the vehicle will give very good mileage and fuel efficiency and the same is very useful for transporting jelly, which carries warranty for a period of two years.  It is further submitted that, the complainant used the said vehicle for transporting mines, jelly and soil transportation in Karnataka State and he has made down payment of     Rs.4,57,000/-.  The complainant has taken delivery of the said vehicle and the same has been registered before the RTO, Chitradurga.  Complainant was using the said vehicle transportation of Mines, jelly and soil in Karnataka State and further, the complainant was servicing the vehicle regularly.  After purchasing the said vehicle and put it for use, complainant found so-many defects like engine problem, air leak, poor brake, low pickup, gearbox noise, center joint sound etc.  Complainant requested OP No.3 for rectification of the same but, OP No.3 failed to rectify the same.  It is further submitted that, OP No.1 and 2 have frequently giving lame excuses that some of the spare parts are not received from Chennai and the Engineer coming from Chennai and attend the repair work.  OP has attended the repair works many times, but, the same problems were seen in the said vehicle.  It is further submitted that, it stated by the OP that, some parts will have to be replaced and same are receiving from Chennai.  The complainant was unhappy with the said problem.  Further complainant stated that, there is a deficiency in service and dereliction of duties on the part of OP No.1 to 4.  The complainant spend more than Rs.10,00,000/- for repairs, service charges etc.  These repairs are undertaken within the warranty period of two years.  The OP No.1 and 2 have stated that, some parts are not available with them and the same has purchased by the complainant from outside by paying huge amount.  OP No.1 to 4 have cheated the complainant by selling a defective vehicle.  Complainant informed the OP No.1 to 4 about the problem with the vehicle but, they have not rectified the same.  Complainant left his vehicle for repairs with the OP No.1 to 4 for rectification of the problem in the said vehicle but, the OP No.1 to 4 have not rectified the same and delivered the same to the complainant.  OP No.1 to 4 were stated and promised to exchange the said vehicle with new one but, OP No.1 to 4 not done the same.  Again during December 2013 the complainant left the vehicle for repairs with OP No.1 show room but, OP No.1 has not delivered the vehicle till today.  Complainant has lost his earning capacity and the complainant and his family members are depending upon the income delivered from the said vehicle.  The cause of action arisen to file this complaint is at Chitradurga within the jurisdiction of this Forum and on 08.10.2014 when the Legal Notice was issued to the OP No.1 to 4.  The act of OPs amounts to deficiency of service on their part, therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint. 

3.      On service of notice to the OPs, OPs appeared through                    their counsels and filed their respective versions. 

OP No.1 appeared through Sri.D.I. Syed Swaleha, Advocate and filed version admitting about purchasing of the said vehicle i.e, from the manufacturer but, further it is stated that, OP No.3 is not the manufacturer of the said vehicle and denied the remaining portion of the first para of the complaint.  Further it admits that, the company has given two years warranty to the said vehicle.  Further the OP No.1 denied the para No.3 of the complaint and stated that, the complainant has used the vehicle for dumping mines at Sandoor and somany other places. The complainant has transported the mines, minerals by abnormal loading rather than the capacity of the lorry.  Hence, there is every possibility of becoming wear and tear of the major parts of the lorry and the complainant is only responsible for the same and further stated that, para No.4 of the complaint are denied as false.  As per the statement stated by the complainant in his complaint like engine problem, low pickup etc., are not found in the vehicle and further the OP No.1 denied the averments made by the complainant in his complaint at para No.5 to 10 are all false.  But, the OP No.1 stated in para No.12 of its version that, it is true that, the complainant parked the lorry in the premises of the OP No.2 in the month of December 2013 but, in the same para it is stated that, the complainant never turned up to take back the vehicle after service in spite of instructions given by OP No.1 and the OP No.1 stated that, the complainant committed default in repayment of the installments then, the Finance company has seized the lorry of complainant and took away to their custody. 

It is further submitted that, the OP No.1 is an authorized service center for Ashok Leyland Lorries at Chitradurga and further it will not assure any type of guaranty to any customer.  Even during the warranty period, if the vehicles requires some parts, for which the owner is required to pay for such parts.  Further it went out of order due to hazardous handling, over load transportation and using the vehicle for lifting heavy materials, by that time, it will do the repair works or replace new parts during warranty period, for which the complainant has to pay the same.  Complainant purchased the said vehicle with an intention to transport mines within the Karnataka State and he has earned good amount by transporting the same.  After stopping the mines as per the order of Government of Karnataka, the earning of complainant was put to paradox.  When the income of the complainant went against his choice, the complainant parked the vehicle in the premises of the OP No.2.  OP No.1 has honestly provided spare parts and done effected service to the lorry in question and this OP No.1 has not committed any act of deficiency at any time.  The complainant is solely responsible for his own errors and omission in repayment of the loan installments to the Finance Company, to avoid all these things, the complainant has filed this false complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

OP No.2 and 3 filed version through Sri.B.R. Vishwanatha Reddy, Advocate admitting about purchasing of Ashok Leyland Tipper HGV vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-6283 by the complainant manufactured by OP No.3 with warranty period of two years and further it has denied that, at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, OP No.1 has assured that, the said vehicle gives very good mileage and fuel efficiency better than other reputed company vehicles and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  Further it is stated by the OP No.2 and 3 that, the averments made in para No.3 to 11 in the complaint are denied as false.  It is submitted that, OP No.2 is running an Authorized Service Center and the complainant left the vehicle for repairs/service during December 2013 to rectify the technical problems in the lorry and after rectification by OP No.1 to 3 the complainant has not taken the serviced vehicle by paying repair charges.  The complainant has availed loan from OP No.5 and 6 but, complainant was a defaulter in repayment of loan installments.  Hence, OP No.5 and 6 seized the vehicle which was parked in the premises of OP No.2 as per the Orders of Hon’ble High Court of Madras and there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

OP No.4 to 6 filed version through their Advocate Smt. T.K. Champa stating that, the present complaint is not maintainable, barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant is not a consumer and the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is further submitted that, in the present case, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has passed an order on 20.06.2015 appointing Advocate Commissioner for repossession of the vehicle, the said order was due to the default in repayment of the loan installments by the complainant. It is admitted that, complainant had purchased Ashok Leyland U2518T 1259 WB Tipper Heavy Goods Transport vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-6283 with chassis No.MB1HTLWCXCPXE3973 and Engine No.XCP139142 by availing loan from OP Nos. 5 and 6 and rest of the averments made in para 2 of the complaint are denied as false.  The averments made in para 3 to 11 of the complaint are denied as false.  OP No.5 and 6 have admitted about obtaining of loan by the complainant from them and also further admitted that, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.4,57,000/- towards down payment and after depositing the down payment, OP No.5 and 6 sanctioned a loan of Rs.19,10,000/- for purchase of the said lorry.  OP No.5 and 6 have also paid the insurance premium up to date.  As per the agreement, complainant has to pay Rs.54,140/- towards monthly installment.  Complainant has paid installments up to 31.08.2013 and thereafter, he failed to pay any amount towards installment.  Further OP No.5 and 6 have issued a notice to the complainant for repayment of the loan installments due but, it went in vain.  After that, the OP No.5 and 6 have filed Arbitration Case No.SRR/ACP/535/2015, the complainant neither appeared before the Arbitrator nor filed objections and therefore, complainant placed ex-parte.  The Arbitrator passed an award for Rs.23,39,065/- along with interest and cost.  The Arbitrator further ordered that, in case of default of payment by the complainant, it is ordered to sell seized vehicle and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the award amount.  After award, the complainant has not paid the award amount.  After that, the OP No.5 and 6 filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras praying to pass an order to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to seize the lorry.  It is further submitted that, as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Advocate/Commissioner intimated the complainant and seized the above said lorry and sold the same and adjusted the same to the loan account of the complainant.  And further stated that, the complainant has issued 7 postdated cheques towards installments but, those cheques were dis-honoured and further stated that, there is no allegations made against OP No.5 and 6 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-12 were got marked. On behalf of OP No.1, one Sri. N. Prabhakara,  S/o Narayana Poojari, working as Service Manager has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence, on behalf of OP Nos.2 and 3 one Sri. K.S. Shankarappa S/o Shivanandappa, Manager has examined as DW-2 by filing affidavit evidence.  On behalf of OP No.5 and 6 Ex.B-1 to B-4 documents have been got marked.   

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.  POINT NO.1:-         It is not in dispute that, on 06.09.2012 complainant purchased Ashoka LL U 2518T 1250 WB Tipper Heavy Goods Transport Vehicle bearing Regn No.KA-16 B-6283 by availing a loan of Rs.19,10,000/- from Indus IND Bank, Chitradurga i.e, OP No.5, manufactured by OP No.3.  The said vehicle carries warranty for two years.  OP No.1 assured the complainant that, the vehicle will give very good mileage and fuel efficiency.  The complainant has made down payment of     Rs.4,57,000/-.  After taking delivery of the said vehicle, the same has been registered before the RTO, Chitradurga.  Complainant was using the said vehicle for transportation of Mines, jelly and soil in Karnataka State and further, the complainant was servicing the vehicle regularly.  After purchasing the said vehicle, within a span of few months, complainant found so-many defects like engine problem, air leak, poor brake, low pickup, gearbox noise, center joint sound etc.  Complainant requested OP No.3 for rectification of the same but, OP No.3 failed to rectify the same and OP No.1 and 2 have frequently giving lame excuses stating that, some of the spare parts are not received from Chennai and the Engineer coming from Chennai and attend the repair work.  OPs have attended the repair works many times, but, the same problems were seen in the said vehicle.  It is stated by the OPs that, some parts will have to be replaced and same are receiving from Chennai for which, the complainant was unhappy, which is a deficiency in service and dereliction of duties on the part of OP No.1 to 4.  The complainant spend more than Rs.10,00,000/- for repairs, service charges etc.,  though the repairs are undertaken within the warranty period of two years.  Some parts were not available with OP No.1 and 2, the same were purchased by the complainant from outside by paying huge amount i.e., Rs.10,00,000/-.  OP No.1 to 4 have cheated the complainant by selling a defective vehicle.  Complainant informed the OP No.1 to 4 about the problem with the vehicle but, they have not rectified the same.  Complainant left his vehicle for repairs with the OP No.1 to 4 for rectification of the problem in the said vehicle but, the OP No.1 to 4 have not rectified the same and delivered the same to the complainant.  Even though the OP No.1 to 4 were promised to exchange the said vehicle with new one but, OP No.1 to 4 failed to do the same.  Again during December 2013 the complainant left the vehicle for repairs with OP No.1 but, OP No.1 has not delivered the vehicle till today.  Therefore, the complainant has lost his earning capacity and his family members are depending upon the income delivered from the said vehicle.  The act of OP No.1 to 4 in selling the defective vehicle to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service.

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Invoice dated 06.09.2012 for having purchased the vehicle marked as Ex.A-1, RC with respect to the vehicle No.KA-16 B 6283 marked as Ex.A-2, Form KV-45 with Permit No.469/2012-13 dated 07.09.2012 marked as Ex.A-3, Insurance Policy marked as Ex.A-4, Loan agreement dated 04.09.2012 marked as Ex.A-5, Ex.A-6 is the Account Details, Vat Invoice dated 23.09.2012 marked as Ex.A-7, Invoice dated 05.09.2013 of Namakkal Auto Diesel Works, the Authorized Service Center for Ashok Leyland marked as Ex.A-8, letters dated 21.07.2015 and 08.05.2015 of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., marked as Ex.A-9, Office copy of the legal notice dated 08.10.2014 marked as Ex.A-10, Reply notice dated 25.05.2015 marked as Ex.A-11, Notice to Reply notice dated 09.07.2015 marked as Ex.A-12.

 10.   OP No.1 appeared though Advocate and filed version admitting about purchasing of the said vehicle i.e, from the manufacturer which carries two years warranty.  The complainant has used the vehicle for dumping mines at Sandoor and at so many other places, minerals by abnormal loading rather than the capacity of the lorry, which caused every possibility of becoming wear and tear to the major parts of the lorry and the complainant is only responsible for the same. The complaints like engine problem, low pickup etc., are not found in the vehicle. Further it has taken a contention that, the complainant parked the lorry in the premises of the OP No.2 in the month of December 2013 but, he never turned up to take back the vehicle after service in spite of instructions given by OP No.1 and he is a defaulter in repayment of the loan installments and the Finance company has seized the lorry of complainant and took away to their custody. 

11.    OP No.1 is only an authorized service center for Ashok Leyland Lorries at Chitradurga.  Even during the warranty period, if the vehicles requires some parts, for which the owner is required to pay for such parts.  If the vehicle went out of order due to hazardous handling, over load transportation and using the vehicle for lifting heavy materials, by that time, it will do the repair works or replace new parts during warranty period, for which the customer/complainant has to pay the same.  Complainant purchased the said vehicle with an intention to transport mines within the Karnataka State and he has earned good amount by transporting the same.  After stopping the mines as per the order of Government of Karnataka, and when the income of the complainant went against his choice, the complainant parked the vehicle in the premises of the OP No.2.   OP No.1 has honestly provided spare parts and done effected service to the lorry in question and this OP No.1 has not committed any act of deficiency at any time.  The complainant is solely responsible for his own errors and omission in repayment of the loan installments to the Finance Company.

12.    OP No.2 and 3 vehemently argued and admitting about purchasing of Ashok Leyland Tipper HGV vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-6283 by the complainant manufactured by OP No.3 which carries warranty period of two years. OP No.1 has not assured that, the said vehicle gives very good mileage and fuel efficiency better than other reputed company vehicles. OP No.2 is an Authorized Service Center and the complainant left the vehicle for repairs/service during December 2013 to rectify the technical problems in the lorry and after rectification, the complainant has not taken the serviced vehicle by paying repair charges.  The complainant has availed loan from OP No.5 and 6 but, complainant was a defaulter in repayment of loan installments hence, OP No.5 and 6 seized the vehicle which was parked in the premises of OP No. 1 and 2 as per the Orders of Hon’ble High Court of Madras and there is no deficiency of service on their part.

13.    OP No.4 to 6 argued that, the present complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. The complainant is not a consumer and further argued that, this Fourm has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant is a defaulter in repayment of loan installments as such, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has passed an order on 20.06.2015 appointing Advocate Commissioner for repossession of the vehicle.  Complainant had purchased Ashok Leyland U2518T 1259 WB Tipper Heavy Goods Transport vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 B-6283 by availing loan from OP Nos. 5 and 6.  OP No.5 and 6 have admitted about obtaining of loan by the complainant and after down payment of a sum of Rs.4,57,000/-, OP No.5 and 6 sanctioned a loan of Rs.19,10,000/- and the complainant has agreed to pay  sum of Rs.54,140/- towards monthly installment.  Complainant has paid installments up to 31.08.2013 and thereafter, he failed to pay any amount towards installment.  Further OP No.5 and 6 have issued a notice to the complainant for repayment of the loan installments due but, it went in vain.  After that, the OP No.5 and 6 have filed Arbitration Case before the Arbitrator for recovery of money in No.SRR/ACP/535/2015, the complainant neither appeared before the Arbitrator nor filed objections and therefore, complainant placed ex-parte.  The Arbitrator passed an award for Rs.23,39,065/- along with interest and cost and further ordered that, in case of default of payment by the complainant, ordered to sell the seized vehicle and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the award amount.  After award, the complainant has not paid the award amount.  Thereafter, the OP No.5 and 6 filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras praying to pass an order to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to seize the lorry.  As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Advocate/Commissioner seized and sold the said vehicle and adjusted the same to the loan account of the complainant. 

14.    In support of their contentions, OPs have relied on affidavit evidence of Sri. N. Prabhakara, S/o Narayana Poojari, working as Service Manager of OP No.1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Sri. K.S. Shankarappa S/o Shivanandappa, Manager of OP Nos.2 and 3 by filing affidavit evidence in which they have reiterated the contents of version.  OPs have also riled on documents like certified copy of Loan Agreement of Indus IND Bank dated 04.09.2012 marked as Ex.B-1, On Demand letter dated 04.09.2012 marked as Ex.B-2, Loan Application marked as      Ex.B-3 and certified copy of the Statement of Account dated 25.10.2016 marked as Ex.B-4.

 

15.    On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has purchased Ashoka LL U 2518T 1250 WB Tipper Heavy Goods Transport vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16 B-6283 by availing loan by the Indus IND Bank.  The said vehicle is having warranty period of two years.  But, the said vehicle starts giving problem within a span of few months.  Complainant approached OPs/Authorized Service Centers to get it repair.  But after repairs, the problems with the said vehicle could not be set right, which clearly goes to show that, the vehicle sold by the OP No.3 is having manufacturing defects and OPs have played unfair trade practice by selling the defective vehicle. In the meanwhile, OP No.5 and 6 have filed a case before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for seizing the vehicle.  The Hon’ble High Court of Madras has passed an order to appoint Advocate/Commissioner to seize the vehicle and sold the same and adjust the sale amount to the loan account of the complainant. But, the Advocate/Commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has not followed the procedure as contemplated under law i.e., before seizing of the vehicle, the Advocate/Commissioner has not issued pre-seizing and pre-sale notice to the complainant.  Here is the OP No.1 to 4 have colluded with OP No.5 and 6 in seizing and selling of the vehicle, which is against the Principles of Law.  Hence, the OP No.1 to 6 have committed deficiency of service.  The OP No.1 to 4 also have not intimated to the complainant before handed over the vehicle to the seizer.  So, in our considered view, the OPs have committed deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

           

            16.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to return Ashoka LL U 2518T 1250 WB Tipper Heavy Goods Transport vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16-B-6283 to the complainant.  If fails to return the same, OP No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.   

It is further ordered that, the OP No.5 and 6 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation towards loss of earning to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay a sum Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 60 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 24/12/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. N. Prabhakara, Service Manager of OP No.1 has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri. K.S. Shankarappa Manager of OP No.2 and 3 has examined as DW-2 by filing affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Invoice dated 06.09.2012 for having purchased the vehicle
02	Ex-A-2:-	RC with respect to the vehicle No.KA-16 B 6283
03	Ex-A-3:-	Form KV-45 with Permit No.469/2012-13 dated 07.09.2012
04	Ex-A-4:-	Insurance Policy
05	Ex-A-5:-	Loan agreement dated 04.09.2012
06	Ex-A-6:-	Account Details
07	Ex-A-7:-	Vat Invoice dated 23.09.2012
08	Ex.A-8:-	Invoice dated 05.09.2013 of Namakkal Auto Diesel Works.
09	Ex.A-9:-	Letters dated 21.07.2015 and 08.05.2015 of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.,
10	Ex.A-10:-	Office copy of the legal notice dated 08.10.2014
11	Ex.A-11:-	Reply notice dated 25.05.2015
12	Ex.A-12:-	Reply notice dated 09.07.2015

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Loan Agreement of Indus IND Bank dated 04.09.2012
02	Ex-A-2:-	On Demand letter dated 04.09.2012
03	Ex-A-3:-	Loan Application
04	Ex-A-4:-	Certified copy of the Statement of Account dated 25.10.2016

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**