Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/36/2013
Shaik Mahaboob Basha S/o. Shafiullah, - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Chairman and Managing Director, Tata Motors Private Limited, - Opp.Party(s)
K.Ajay Kumar
02 Dec 2015
ORDER
Filing Date:08.05.2013
Order Date: 02.12.2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
WEDNESDAY THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
C.C.No.36/2013
Between
Shaik Mahaboob Basha,
S/o. Shafiullah,
D.No.13-6-616/J-3/45, P.K.Layout,
Tirupati,
Chittoor District. … Complainant
And
1. The Chairman and Managing Director,
TATA Motors Private Limited,
Bombay House (Registered office),
24, Homi Mody Street, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
2. The Managing Director,
Varalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
D.No.13-122/2, Opp. to Vaartha,
Renigunta Road,
Tirupati,
Chittoor District.
3. The Branch Manager,
TATA Motors Finance Ltd.,
Tirupati Branch,
D.No.19-3-10, Badri Nagar,
Tirupati,
Chittoor District.
4. The General Manager,
M.G.Brothers Automobiles (P) Ltd.,
Plot No.254, Auto Nagar,
Near Vinayaka Temple,
Tirupati,
Chittoor District. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20.11.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.Ajeya Kumar, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.M Bhupal Reddy, counsel for the opposite party No.1, and opposite party No.2 remained exparte, and Sri.G.Rajesh Babu, counsel for the opposite party No.3, and Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, counsel for the opposite party No.4, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to settle the claim jointly and severally, to return Rs.1,23,800/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 12.01.2012, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, damages and for deficiency in service for causing physical and mental agony, 3) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to settle the finance dues of the vehicle with opposite party No.3, and 4) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are:- that the complainant purchased Tata Venture Ex-7 STR BSIII Luxury Tourist Cab-LMV for Rs.8,50,000/- from opposite party No.2 for eking his livelihood. Opposite party No.3 (TATA Motors Finance Limited, Tirupati) financed for the purchasing of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 03 TV 5489. It was insured on 12.01.2012.
3. The complainant has to repay the loan to opposite party No.3, by monthly installments at the rate of Rs.15,600/-. From the date of purchase, the vehicle is running with repairs, as the temperature in the engine was abnormally increasing. The complainant gave the vehicle to opposite party No.2 for service. On 17.05.2012 the vehicle was given to opposite party No.4 for second service, and again the complainant gave the vehicle to opposite party No.2 on 15.06.2012 for third service. Even after three services, the same problem was repeated.
4. On the complaint, the technical staff of opposite parties 1 and 2 took the vehicle and return the same by saying that problem was rectified. Again within a month same problem was developed and vehicle stopped abruptly. The company staff told that the engine is defective. Opposite party No.2 demanded the complainant to pay charges on the ground that the problems in the vehicle were rectified and the vehicle is in good condition, but the problems were continued. Due to the defect in wheel alignment, tyres of the vehicle were also damaged within 6 months from the date of purchase. Since 15.06.2012, the vehicle is with opposite party No.2. The complainant lost his earnings at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. On 18.08.2012 opposite party No.3, got issued notice to complainant demanding payment of installment. On 16.10.2012, the complainant got issued notice to opposite parties demanding payment of damages for deficiency in service and to settle finance dues of the vehicle loan. Opposite party No.2 gave reply on 06.11.2012 denying the contents of notice. On 24.12.2012 opposite party No.3 issued loan recall notice and on 31.12.2012 and on 18.01.2013 complainant received arbitration notice from opposite party No.3. The complainant having purchased the vehicle to eke-out his livelihood by spending huge amounts, deprived of enjoyment due to the defect in the vehicle. Thus the opposite parties caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
5. Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 filed their respective written versions, whereas opposite party No.2 remained exparte even without offering any written version or evidence on its behalf.
6. Opposite party No.1 in its written version contended that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.2 admittedly. The vehicle is required mandatory service and replacement of specified components viz. air filter, fuel filter etc. at recommended intervals as mentioned in the operator’s service book given to the complainant. The complainant has failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operator’s service book. The opposite party relies on the relevant terms and conditions of warranty of the vehicle, limitations, operator’s service book. The complainant was supposed to bring the vehicle at the recommended intervals as mentioned in the operator’s service book to carry out mandatory free service. The complainant failed to carry out schedule services of the vehicle as per recommended intervals. Clause.5 of warranty shall not apply, if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with standard repair procedure, or by any person other than our sales or service establishments, authorized dealers of opposite party No.1 or their sub-dealers or service centers. Before delivering the vehicle to the complainant, all the utility vehicles manufactured in the plant of opposite party are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and test drives by the Quality Assurance Department, was done in this case also and found that the vehicle’s condition is good in all respects, the moment the vehicle was delivered.
7. Opposite party No.1 further contended that the complainant has purchased the utility vehicle on 31.12.2011 from the opposite party dealer (opposite party No.2). Till 31.07.2012 the vehicle runs 25327 km., it manifests that the utility vehicle in question within a span of 7 months, it covered 3619 km. per month. The said act proves that the subject vehicle is in absolute roadworthy condition and that the jobs carried out on the vehicle in question are minor and running repairs, which were required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive and faulty usage of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.1 further contended that the vehicle delivered to the complainant was approved by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune. Therefore, ARAI is necessary party to the proceedings. That, this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. The complainant failed to make-out a case. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question through the financier in a financial agreement exclusively between the complainant and financier opposite party No.3. Therefore, this opposite party No.1, is no way concern with the said agreement. The vehicle was reported for first time on 31.01.2012, by that time the meter reading is 19533 km. For the 2nd free service with a complaint of excessive smoke, when the vehicle was attended to the satisfaction of complainant by replacing egr valve under the warranty. The said vehicle was again reported on 19.05.2012 while the meter reading was 21308 km, with a complaint of engine over heating, clutch hard, engine coolant leakage and for scheduled service when the injection pump timing checked and adjusted, clutch cable replaced free of cost, water pump renewed under warranty and front wheel alignment checked and adjusted and standard checks done on paid service basis. Again the vehicle of the complainant reported on 31.07.2012 at 25327 km. under warranty with the complaint of overheating when the temperature sensor and oil filter renewed under the warranty. After repair, opposite party dealer informed the complainant number of times to take delivery of the vehicle. However, the complainant did not come to take delivery of the vehicle and has filed the complaint with ill motive. The remaining paragraphs of written version of opposite party No.1 denied parawise allegations in the complaint.
8. Opposite party No.3 in its written version dt:29.04.2014 denied parawise allegations in the complaint and reproduced almost the written version of opposite party No.1. It is further contended that as per receipt information maintained by the office of opposite party No.3, the complainant has paid Rs.2,33,933/- as on 25.06.2013. The defaults by the complainant have increased the overdue charges / late payment charges. That on 25.06.2013 overdue installment is Rs.17,271/- and accrued overdue charges is Rs.39,552.49/-, which amounts to a total of Rs.56,823.49/-. As per Clause.17 of the agreement, opposite party No.3 has every right to take possession of the vehicle, seize the vehicle, recover the dues, appoint a receiver / manager, remove the asset by public auction or by private contract at the best available price according to the prevailing market condition including as regards repossessed vehicle / assets, realize its claims in respect of the loan, in case the complainant / borrower became defaulter. The complainant failed to regularize the loan account despite various reminders. Under the circumstances, the complainant was constrained to terminate the said loan agreement as per the terms of the loan agreement in respect of the said loan executed and understood by the complainant. The loan recall notice dt:24.12.2012 was issued to the complainant demanding him to pay the outstanding amount as on that date in respect of the said loan to the opposite party. The complainant though received the said notice, failed to pay the installments due. As per Clause.23 of the loan agreement Arbitration proceedings should be taken-up. Accordingly it was taken-up and notice was also given to the complainant, but the complainant failed to appear before the Arbitrator. Finally the Arbitrator, on merits passed interim award under Section-17 of the Arbitration Act 1996, directing the complainant to handover possession of said vehicle to the representative of opposite party No.3. A copy of interim order dt:31.12.2012 under Section-17 of Arbitration Act is filed herewith. Inspite of repeated demands, notices and Arbitration proceedings, the complainant failed to make payments due. Opposite party No.3, therefore, seized the vehicle and pre-sale notice dt:31.03.2013 was issued to the complainant requesting him to pay the outstanding dues, but there was no response from the complainant. Hence, the vehicle was sold on 27.05.2013. Opposite party No.3, has taken possession of the vehicle on 29.03.2013 with due process of law, as per the terms of the loan agreement. Opposite party No.3, thus acted under the terms of the said loan agreement. The complainant has filed this captioned complaint with false averments with an intention to exert undue pressure upon the opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 never received any notice from the complainant. Opposite party No.3 being the financier, no way involved with such transactions, as such it is not liable for any defects in the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3, that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(i)(d) of C.P.Act and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
9. Opposite party No.4 filed its written version stating that it is not aware that the complainant purchased the vehicle and financed with opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.4 has no knowledge of the above vehicle till it was given to him on 17.05.2012 for service due to break down, due to engine over heat. Opposite party No.4, has noticed that the water pump failed. As such it was replaced under warranty condition without collecting any charges. After satisfying the service of opposite party No.4, the vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant on 19.05.2012. As far as service by opposite party No.4 on 17.05.2012, there is no deficiency on his part, that opposite party No.4 is not aware of the subsequent events and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against him with costs.
10. The complainant has filed his chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A19, whereas opposite parties filed chief affidavits as R.Ws.1, 2, 3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.
11. Now the points for consideration are:-
(i). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
1 and 2?
(ii). Whether opposite party No.3 has actually sold away the vehicle bearing
No.AP 03 TV 5489 as contemplated under law?
(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
(iv) To what relief?
12. Point No.(i):- to answer this point, we have to state that opposite parties 1 and 3 were specifically admitted in their written versions that the complainant has produced the vehicle before opposite party No.2 for services, but not in accordance with the user’s manual. That the complainant is bound to bring the vehicle for free services as stipulated in the user’s manual / borrower manual. If that was done, any minor repairs during such free services periods arose, they ought to have been rectified by the service personal of opposite party No.2. Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased on 31.12.2011. Lastly, it was produced before opposite party No.2 on 15.06.2012 for service with a complaint that over heat in engine was observed, as a result of which the vehicle was stopped abruptly. Right from the date of purchase, the vehicle was running with repairs and defects. When the vehicle was produced before opposite party No.2 (who remained exparte), for service with a specific complaint that over heat in the engine was observed and the same problem was repeated inspite of three services, opposite party No.2 is expected to rectify the said mistake, defect / repairs and deliver back the vehicle to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is Chairman and Managing Director, Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd., opposite party No.2 is the Managing Director, Varalakshmi Automobiles Private Ltd., opposite party No.3 is the Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited. All the three opposite parties are interlinked and sister concerns with the same brand name of Tata Motors. Opposite party No.1 contending that the vehicle on producing before opposite party No.2 for service on 15.06.2012, the service personal of opposite party No.2 attended on the required repairs, made the vehicle ready and informed the complainant several times that the vehicle is repaired and fit to be on road and requested him to take back the vehicle and further stated that inspite of such requests and reminders and notices, complainant failed to take back the vehicle from opposite party No.2. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that proper party is opposite party No.2 to specify, when the vehicle was repaired and when such notices were given to complainant or when reminders were issued to complainant and through what process those communications were given to the complainant, but opposite party No.2 wisely remained exparte, as such it can be held safely that opposite party No.2 has no case to contest, opposite party No.1 having taken such pleas failed to file any scrap of paper in support of their contention that opposite party No.2 has informed the complainant subsequent to 15.06.2012 that the repairs and service on the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TV 5489 carried out and vehicle was made fit to be on road and requested the complainant to take back the vehicle. So for as this pleading is concerned, no evidence either oral or documentary from opposite party No.2, who is relevant and competent person to speak about. Opposite party No.1 also failed to file any such proof.
13. Here, in this regard, we have to state that right from the date of purchase, the vehicle is running with troubles as contended by the complainant can be accepted because the vehicle was purchased on 31.12.2011, later the vehicle was produced for service for the first time on 31.01.2012 (within 1 month) by that time the meter reading was 19533 km. It was mentioned that on 31.01.2012 the vehicle was produced for 2nd free service, later the said vehicle was reported on 19.05.2012 when the vehicle was running the meter at 21308 km. In the written version of opposite party No.1, it was again mentioned in para.3 that the complainant reported the vehicle on 31.07.2012 by that time the meter reading was recorded as 25327 km. It shows that as if the vehicle was produced for service only on 31.01.2012, 19.05.2012 and 31.07.2012. But it was not denied anywhere that the vehicle was not produced before opposite party No.2 on 15.06.2012. The complainant specifically contending that the vehicle was with opposite party No.2 ever since 15.06.2012. Later, opposite party No.3, the financier has issued notice recalling the loan facility and also sent two more notices with regard to Arbitration proceedings. Opposite party No.1, Chairman and Managing Director, Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. is staying at Mumbai. Opposite party No.2, Managing Director, Varalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is staying at Renigunta Road, Tirupati. Opposite party No.3, the Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. is also staying at Tirupati. So, opposite party No.1 may not fully aware with what was transpired between complainant and opposite party No.2 at Tirupati. The complainant when produced the vehicle before opposite party No.2 on 15.06.2012, whether opposite party No.2 has carried out the repairs and delivered the vehicle to complainant or not, is to be said by opposite party No.2 only, but opposite party No.2 did not make any contest in this case.
14. So far, no document is placed before the Forum to show that opposite party No.2 has communicated the complainant at any date subsequent to 15.06.2012, that the vehicle was repaired and made fit to run and ask the complainant to take back the vehicle. Therefore, it can be presumed that the vehicle was with opposite party No.2 from 15.06.2012, till today. When the complainant produced the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TV 5489 before opposite party No.2, it is for opposite party No.2 to get the required repair done either by free of service or by payment service and deliver back the vehicle to the complainant without retaining the vehicle with him. But in this case, in every aspect the latches and deficiency in service was found on the part of opposite party No.2 and those defects and latches were being supported by opposite party No.1, it seems. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Accordingly, this point is answered.
15. Point No.(ii):- to answer this point, it is pertinent to state that opposite party No.3, being the financier may be at liberty to take possession of the vehicle, if the borrower commits default in payment of installments, as per Clause.17 of hypothecation agreement or loan agreement. In para.16 of written version filed by opposite party No.3, opposite party No.3 himself stated that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,33,933/- as on 25.06.2013 and further contended that because of the default on the part of complainant, overdue charges, late payment charges were increased to a total sum of Rs.56,823.49/-. Even assuming for a moment that the complainant became defaulter in payment of installments, how much he is expected to pay by the date of 25.06.2013. From 31.12.2011 to 25.06.2013 i.e. for about 16 months, the complainant has to pay the total amount of installment is Rs.16,800 x 16, which comes to Rs.2,68,800 - Rs.2,33,933 = Rs.34,867/-, that means two installments are due, for committing default of two monthly installments that too when the complainant is unable to run the vehicle, is not fair on the part of financier to take possession of the vehicle and put it on sale. Opposite party No.3 ought to have given some time to the complainant, so as to enable him to take back the vehicle and put it on service and get the benefits or earnings for the purpose for which the vehicle was purchased, so that he would have paid the installments due, but no such opportunity was given to the complainant. It appears that there is collusion between opposite parties 1 to 3.
16. According to the written version and evidence of opposite party No.3, the vehicle was seized on 29.03.2013 i.e. about 3 months prior to 25.06.2013. If this period is taken into consideration, there is no default on the part of complainant. As per sale notice under Ex.B5 and Ex.B7 dt:31.03.2013, it was informed to the complainant that unless he settle the amounts along with additional interest and other charges within 48 hours from the date of receipt of the notice, the vehicle will be sold. While calculating the payment of installments, they have collected installments up to 25.06.2013, whereas the vehicle was admittedly taken into possession by opposite party No.3 on 29.03.2013, there is ambiguity in this version, that is only to deprive the rights of the complainant. Opposite party No.3 further contending that the vehicle was sold on 27.05.2013, but no details were furnished so far as issuance of sale notice, place of sale, time of sale, bidders participated in the auction and bid amount knocked down and who is the highest bidder in the auction and in favour of whom the vehicle was delivered after the auction etc. Therefore, it can be safely held that opposite party No.3 has not conducted any such sale proceedings in accordance with law and procedure contemplated for conducting auction. That apart Ex.A1 notice dt:17.01.2015 issued to the complainant by Traffic Police, Tirupati, Urban Police District Tirupati, under Section-133 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, informing that the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TV 5489 stands registered in the name of complainant in the records of Transport Department, it has been reported that the driver of the vehicle has committed the following compoundable offence under CMVR 1989 / M.V.Act 1988 on 17.01.2015, at about 17.32 hours near Railway Station east side, as such a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed on the complainant for the said offence, which clearly shows that till 17.01.2015 the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TV 5489 was in the name of complainant, which further proves that the vehicle was not auctioned and it was not delivered to the alleged un-named auction purchaser and ownership is not transferred and the ownership is still in the name of complainant. In I.A.No.47/2014, filed by complainant, this Forum, while allowing the I.A., passed orders on 27.03.2015, directing opposite parties 1 to 4 to produce the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TV 5489 before the expert ARAI at Pune, for inspection, examination with the expenses of opposite parties and for filing report of the expert, by granting two months time for the purpose. But the opposite parties failed to comply with the orders till today. Therefore, it appears that opposite parties 1 to 3 has colluded and with active connivance, they have deprived the complainant from using the vehicle. The opposite parties neither complied with the orders in I.A.No.47/2014 dt:27.03.2015, nor produced the vehicle before this Forum, nor delivered the same to complainant with or without effecting repairs, nor filed any document relating to alleged auction proceedings said to have conducted by opposite party No.3 in the case in support of their contest. The complainant had used the vehicle hardly 6 months after purchase, thereafter the vehicle was being used by the opposite parties till now. Opposite party No.2 ought not to have permitted opposite party No.3 to take away the vehicle, when it was in the custody of opposite party No.2 duly produced by the complainant for effecting repairs. Opposite party No.2 without informing the complainant that the vehicle was repaired, handover the same to opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 simply mentioning that it was auctioned, making use of the vehicle for their own purpose / for themselves / for their self use, which is nothing but unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. Therefore, the deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice as contemplated under Sections-2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(r) of C.P.Act 1986, can be attributed to the opposite parties 1 to 3. Though they have referred some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission in their respective written versions of opposite parties 1 to 3, they have not submitted any such decisions / authorities to this Forum, so as to enable the Forum to go through the citations and apply the principles therein to that of the facts of the case on hand. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that unfair trade practice can be attributed to opposite party No.3 and the complainant need not pay any installments to opposite party No.3, since the vehicle is being used by opposite party No.3 from 29.03.2013 i.e. more than 31/2 years, whereas the complainant being the lawful purchaser, lawful owner, was allowed to use the vehicle only for 6 months. Thereafter, he was deprived of his legitimate right to use the vehicle. Accordingly this point is answered.
17. Point No.(iii):- in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that since there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and also there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3, since the complainant is not allowed to use the vehicle and opposite party No.3 is using the vehicle of the complainant by playing mischief and by misleading the facts for the last 31/2 years, having deprived the complainant from using the vehicle under the guise of alleged default in payment of installments. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.
18. Point No.(iv):- in view of our holding on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. Since the complainant is not claiming return of the vehicle with or without effecting repairs, and as he is claiming that opposite parties 1 and 2 have to clear-up the vehicle loan amount due to opposite party No.3, and it appears on the face of record that complainant, who purchased the vehicle on 31.12.2011 was allowed to use the vehicle only for 6 months and later opposite party No.3 has seized the vehicle on 29.03.2013 while the vehicle was in the custody of opposite party No.2 and using the vehicle by opposite party No.3 itself. Therefore, the complainant need not pay any dues. Opposite party No.3 has to retain the vehicle with them and pay back the amounts paid by the complainant to a tune of Rs.2,33,933/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty three thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) as admitted by opposite party No.3 in its evidence affidavit. As such, opposite party No.3 is directed to repay the amount of Rs.2,33,933/- admittedly paid by the complainant, to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony and mental torture caused to the complainant and also for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and for unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3 and opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of coy of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 2nd day of December, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.
PW-1: Shaik Mahaboob Basha (Evidence Affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.
RW-1: Ms. Thinlay Chukki (Evidence Affidavit filed).
RW-2: Gopi Prasad Gupta (Evidence Affidavit filed).
RW-3: T.K.Ravi (Chief Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
Notice issued for the Complaint U/s 133 of M.V. Act 1988. Dt: 22.01.2015. | |
Photo copy of Certificate of Registration issued by R.T.O. Tirupati. Dt: 13.02.2012. | |
Photo copy of Certificate of Insurance issued by General Insurance Co., Limited. Dt: 12.01.2012. | |
Service Vehicle Inventory along with job slip issued by O.P.No.4. Dt: 17.05.2012. | |
True copy of Tax Invoice issued by O.P.No.4. Dt: 19.05.2012. | |
Service Vehicle Inventory Copy (Original) of Vehicle service bearing No.560 issued by O.P.No. 2. Dt: 15.06.2012. | |
Quarterly Statement of payments letter issued by O.P.No.3. Dated for the period from 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012. | |
Letter issued by O.P.No.3. Dt: 06.07.2012. | |
Letter issued by O.P.No.3. Dt: 16.07.2012. | |
Notice issued by O.P.No.3. Dt: 18.08.2012. | |
Legal Notices with postal receipts issued to Opposite Parties. Dt: 16.10.2012. | |
Reply Notice issued by O.P.No.1. Dt: 08.11.2012. | |
Reply Notice issued by O.P.No.2. Dt: 06.11.2012. | |
Photo copy of Notice of Arbitration Proceedings issued by sole arbitrator on behalf of O.P.No.3. Dt: 31.12.2012. | |
Loan Recall Notice issued on behalf of O.P.No.3 Dt: 24.12.2012. | |
Photo copy of Notice of Intension to proceed ex-parte issued by Sole Arbitrator. Dt: 18.01.2013. | |
Bunch of Receipts (Original) issued by O.P.No.2 to 4. Dt: 05.12.2011, 29.11.2011, 31.12.2011. | |
|
|
Photo copy of Cash Bills for wheel Alignment -3 Nos. Dt: 28.04.2012, 25.05.2012, 04.06.2012. | |
True copy of Tax Invoice. Dt: 31.12.2011. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
1. | Photo copy of Loan agreement copy filed on behalf of the Opp. Party 3. Dt: 11.11.2011. |
2. | Photo copy of Contract Details filed on behalf of the Opposite Party 3. Dt: 25.06.2013. |
3. | Photo copy of Repayment Schedule filed on behalf of the Opposite Party 3. Dt: 25.06.2013. |
4. | Photo copy of Interim award dated: 31.12.2012 Under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Filed on behalf of the Opposite Party 3. |
5. | Photo copy of present-sale notice of the vehicle filed on behalf of the Opposite Party 3. Dt: 31.03.2013. |
6. | Photo copy of Arbitration order for hand over the possession of the vehicle filed on behalf of the Respondent 3. Dt: 31.12.2012. |
7. | Photo copy of Notice for Sale of vehicle issued to the petitioner, filed on behalf of the respondent. Dt: 31.03.2013. |
8. | Photo copy of Arbitration award copy filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3. Dt: 19.11.2013. |
Sd/-
President
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. The Complainant.
2. The opposite parties.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.