IN  THE CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,    KOLLAM

               DATED THIS THE    16 ^thDAY OF  JULY 2020

Present: -Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

     Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

      Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member   

CC.No.237/2016

G.Soman,

Sivasylam, Perinadu,

Clappana P.O.,

Karunagappally, Kollam rep.by

Power of attorney holder

KiranSoman,

Sivasylam, Perinadu,

Clappana P.O.,

Karunagappally, Kollam                                                 :         Complainant

 (By Adv.Boris Paul)

V/s

1. The General Manager,

Mahindra Vehicle Manufacturers Ltd.,

A/1 phase, Chakan Industrial Area,

Chakan, Pune 410501.                                   

2. The Manager

TV SundaramIyengar& Sons Private Limted,

Door No.8/337, MusaliarComplex,                       :        Opposite parties

2^nd Mile Stone, Kilikollur P.O.,                            

Kollam 691 004.

(By Adv. Sabar Alexander)

3. The Manager,

ICICI Bank,

Kollam Branch.

ORDER

Sri. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LLM,PresidENT

          This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

          The complainant on 25.04.16 purchased one Mahindra TUV 300 T6+ car from the 2^nd opposite party for Rs.8,46,623/-. Out of the above sale consideration the complainant paid Rs.1,75,000/- as down payment and the balance amount was arranged as loan from the 3^rd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the said car.  The loan was arranged through 2^nd opposite party dealer.  The complainant has also paid Rs.69,500/- towards road tax and Rs.19,500/- towards insurance.  The registration formalities were not completed.  On the very same day of taking delivery of the vehicle and on the way to home from Kollam to Karunagappally  the vehicle had developed some complaint.  There was an unusual noise coming from the suspension side of the vehicle.  Immediately the complainant had reported the matter to the 2^nd opposite party and the mechanic deputed by the 2^nd opposite party came to the complainant’s home and attempted to rectify it.  The very next day ie.on 26.04.16 when the car was started, a loud noise heard from the suspension side of the car.  The complainant immediately stopped and parked the vehicle and contacted the 2^nd opposite party.  But the 2^nd opposite party did not respond to the calls made by the complainant and finally on 28.04.2016 the vehicle was taken for repairs and after repairs it was returned to the complainant on the night of that day.  Though it was returned after repairs, the sound heard from the engine side continued and the doors were unable to close properly.  On intimation the mechanic came on 30.04.2016 and again made all efforts to rectify the defects but in vain.  Again the mechanics deputed by the 2^nd opposite party came on 02.05.16 for taking the vehicle to their workshop and while starting the vehicle, huge smoke developed from the engine side of the vehicle.  Thereafter the vehicle was taken by the 2^nd opposite party by using a breakdown pick up van.  Since then the vehicle is with the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant was in compete darkness as regards the position of the vehicle thereafter.  Apparently the vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defects and the 2^nd opposite party failed to rectify the defects in spite of  several attempts and efforts as stated above.  The complainant could not use the vehicle for a single day.  The complainant repeatedly asked the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one but they did nothing in the matter.  In the meanwhile the 3^rd opposite party has threatened with recovery proceedings and finally started to recover the monthly instalments of the loan amount from the account of the Arun, the son of the complainant alleging that there is a lien on the account.  Suffice to say the complainant is regularly paying the loan amount in respect of vehicle which he had never used.  The complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite parties demanding to replace the vehicle with another new one and for the other reliefs.  The 1^st opposite party had issued a vague reply to the notice and assured to look in to the matter.  But did nothing in the matter and hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.  The opposite parties are liable to replace the vehicle with another defect free one.  The opposite parties are also liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant as tax and insurance amounting to Rs.87,000/- .  The complainant since then is paying an average amount of  Rs.25,000/- per month as taxi charges.  The opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the loss, inconveniences and hardship caused to the complainant.  The opposite parties are also liable to pay the cost of the proceedings.  The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties are illegal, unethical, and unfair and amounts to grave deficiency in service.  The complainant had sustained heavy loss, unexplainable difficulties, mental pain and hardships due to the acts as aforesaid.

          Though notice was served opposite party 1 and 3 remainedexparte.

          The 2^nd opposite party resisted the complainant by filing a detailed written version raising the following conditions. The complaint is not maintainable since it has been filed on an experimental basis.  However it is admitted that the complainant has purchased one Mahendra TUV 300 T6+car from the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.8,46,623/- and also would admit that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the car.  But it is contended that registration formalities of the vehicle has not be completed and at present that vehicle is having temporary registration since the complainant has not complied with formalities for permanent registration.  It is further admitted that on 25.04.2016 the day on which the vehicle was deliveredand it was on the way fromKarunagappallyto Kollam some complaint developed on the vehicle and the complainant has informed the matter to the 2^nd opposite party who deputed service personnel and got inspected the vehicle.  During the course of inspection the mechanics took test drive of the vehicle for long distances but no complaint whatsoever was detected.  It is also admit that as per request of the complainant the vehicle was taken to the 2^nd opposite party’s workshop and conducted a thorough inspection and during such inspection no noise as alleged in the complaint was found.  According to the 2^nd opposite party there is no merit in the allegation of the complainant regarding RH door noise which was attended by the 2^nd opposite party’s mechanic at the complainant’s residence.  The mechanic has also checked both the door aggregates and seat belt tightening torque and found all were completely intact.  During test drive the complainant has raised another allegation that the vehicle is having the defect of side pulling the same was also found incorrect on verification.  However on 30.04.2016 the complainant has visited the 2^nd opposite party’s workshop along with the vehicle and collected the copies of job cards and took back the vehicle without getting any work done on the vehicle.  As requested by the complainant tyre pressure was checked and as there was a difference of 2 psi,  hence tyre pressure was corrected.  As the complainant made allegation regarding smoke coming from the engine side due to the suspected clutch burn the vehicle was taken to the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre on 02.05.2016 and a thorough check up was made.  But there was no defect in the said allegation.  Again a test drive was conducted along with the complainant but no defect was detected.  Later on the complainant admitted that the concern of smoke was not seen by him but some auto driver standing by the side of the road noticed it and informed to him.  After thorough check up of the vehicle the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle in spite of repeated direction.  Finally as agreed over the phone the complainant agreed to have a face to face discussion with the officials of Mahindra and 2^nd opposite party to clear the apprehensions of the complainant.  But the complainant failed to participate in the discussion.  Instead he deputed his brother who informed the officials of the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant was backed out and will not be attending the meeting.  During the meeting the opposite party has convinced the brother of the complainant that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and he agreed to take delivery of the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre.  But during the night of 09.05.2016 the complainant informed the Mahindra officials over phone that he was not willing to take back the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre.  The opposite party admitted to have received legal notice issued by the complainant and also would contend that a  befitting reply was sent clarifying that the 2^nd opposite party is not liable or responsible either to replace the vehicle or  to pay any compensation to the complainant.  The allegation that reply notice was vague and 2^nd opposite party has given some assurance of a lenient view are false and baseless. The 2^nd opposite party is not liable either to replace the vehicle with a new one or to grant refund of tax and insurance already paid.  The 2^nd opposite party is also not liable to pay any amount towards the taxi charges alleged to have been incurred by the complainant.  It is also contended that none of the opposite parties are liable to replace the vehicle grant compensation or any other reliefs as claimed by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant was provided with good quality service at all times.  And there is no chance of causing any loss mental pain or hardship to the complainant due to any act of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party further prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.

          In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the disputed vehicle replaced by the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund Rs.87,000/- paid by him towards as road tax and insurance while purchasing the disputed vehicle?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation if so what would be quantum of compensation to be awarded?
5. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1and Ext.P1 to P11 documents.  Evidence on the side of the contesting 2^nd opposite partyconsists of the oral evidence of DW1 and Ext.D1 report. The complainant and contesting 2^nd opposite party has filed notes of arguments. 

Heard both sides in detail.

Point No.1 to 3

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together.  The following are the admitted facts in this case.  On 25.04.2016 the complainant has purchased Mahindra TUV 300 T6+ car from the 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer cum service centre of Mahindra vehicle. 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle.The 3^rd opposite party is the financier. The total price of the vehicle paid was Rs.8,46,623/-.Apart from the above price the complainant has also paid Rs.69,500/- by way of  road tax and Rs.19,500/- towards insurance.   However the registration formalities were not completed till date.  Hence at present the vehicle is having only temporaryregistration.

It is brought out in evidence that through the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.P9 documentthat on the very same date taking delivery of the vehicle and on the way to home,the vehicle had developed some complaint.  According to PW1 there was an unusual noise coming from the suspension side of the vehicle.  The complainant informed the defect to the 2^nd opposite party who deputed service personnel and got inspected the vehicle.  During inspection the mechanics conduct test drive of the vehicle for long distances and found that there was no complaint.  The complaint of right hand door noise was also attended by the 2^nd opposite party mechanic at the complainant’s residence and corrected the noise and seat belt tightening torque.  During test drive the complainant raised another allegation that the vehicle is having side pulling.  PW1 has further deposed that on 30.04.2016 the complainant has visited the 2^nd opposite party’s workshop along with the vehicle that tyre pressure of the vehicle was checked and as there was difference of 2psi and hence tyre pressure was corrected.  It is also brought out in evidence that on 02.05.2016 the vehicle was taken to the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre on the basis of the allegation of the complainant that smoke coming from engine side and suspected clutch burn and a thorough check up was done.  After the said check up of the vehicle the complainant did not  taken delivery of the vehicle from the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party in spite of repeated direction . It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant agreed to have a face to face discussion with the officials of Mahindra and 2^nd opposite party at Ernakulam to clear the apprehensions of the complainant.    But the complainant failed to participate in discussion but he deputed his brother.  However during the night of 09.05.2016 the complainant informed Mahindra officials over phone that he is not ready to take back the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre.  Later the complainant caused to send Ext.P lawyer notice alleging the vehicle is having manufacturing defects.  All opposite parties including the contesting 2^nd opposite party received the notice and the 2^nd opposite party has also sent a reply notice but no such reply notice has been produced and got marked in evidence.

The complainant would allege manufacturing defect on the vehicle and the 1^st opposite party who is the manufacturer of the vehicle is liable to replace the vehicle which is having manufacturing defects.  The 1^st opposite party liable to replace the defective vehicle with a brand new one.  According the 2^nd opposite party none of the complaint raised by the complainant would constitute manufacturing defect.  The 2^nd opposite party would further contend that the complainant has not got tested the vehicle by an expert mechanic nor filed any objection before the Forum to depute advocate commissioner to assess the present condition of the vehicle.  According to the 2^nd opposite party mere allegation of manufacturing defect by the complainant without any expert report is not sufficient to substantiate his case.

Now the Forum shall consider whether the complainant has succeededin proving the allegation of manufacturing defect of the disputed vehicle.  Admittedly the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle.  Though the complainant has filed a complaint alleging manufacturing defect of the vehicle and served a  copy of the same to the 1^st opposite party along with notice and even after receiving the same the 1^st opposite party remains absent without denying the allegation of manufacturing defect alleged in the complaint.  The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegation of manufacturing defect of the vehicle can be ascertained even without a test or analysis or inspection.  And that the allegation of manufacturing defect stated in the complainant and lawyer notice remains undisputed by the manufacturer it can be safely concluded that vehicle is having manufacturing defect.  Hence there is no need to subject the vehicle to any test or analysis or inspection by any  expert.  In view of the available materials on records we find force in the above argument. 

The term manufacturing defect is not defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  However we are of the view that manufacturing defect means any fault or imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity, purity or standard which is required to be maintained in any relation to a particular product.  In otherwise it is an inherent defect which has not occurred due to any wear tear on account of the use of the product.  Now we shall consider the evidence available on records to substantiate the allegation that vehicle is having any manufacturing defect.  PW1 is none other than the son as well as the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant.  He has sworn in para 4 of the proof affidavit that while taking delivery of the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party’s show room towards his residence at Karunagappally the vehicle had developed an unusual noise coming from the suspension side of the vehicle and on intimation the 2^nd opposite party’s mechanic came to the complainant’s residence and attempted to rectify the defect.  However on the next day ie on 26.04.2016 when the car started a loud noise heard from the suspension side of the car.  Immediately he stopped and parked the vehicle and contacted the 2^nd opposite party.  But the 2^nd opposite party has not responded to the calls made by the complainant and finally on 28.04.2016 the vehicle was taken to the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre and made some repair work and returned to the  complainant on the very same day during night.  But in spite of repairing the vehicle by the 2^nd opposite party the sound heard from the engine side continued and the doors were unable to be closed properly.  Again he intimated the defects of the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party and the mechanics deputed by the 2^nd opposite party came to the residence of the complainant on 30.04.2016 attempted to rectify the defects again. It is also brought out in evidence that on 02.05.2016 the mechanic deputed by the 2^nd opposite party came to the residence and taken the vehicle to their workshop and while starting the vehicle huge smoke developed from the engine side of the vehicle.  Hence the vehicle was remove to the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party by using a break down pick up van and thereafter the vehicle is kept in the custody of 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.P3 is the repair order dated 28.04.2016 under the column demanded repair.  It is stated as item No.2 that sound of running all doors tight.  Ext.P4 is the repair order dated 30.04.2016 wherein under the demanded repair.  It is stated that under item No.2 that door rattling sound.  Ext.P5 is the vehicle condition report/job record dated 02.05.2016.  Ext.P6 is the lawyer notice wherein the complainant is reiterated regarding the manufacturing defect noted in the complainant.  Ext.P7 series and P8 series are postal receipts and postal acknowledgment cards evidencing the sending and receipt of P6 lawyer notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.P9 is the description of defects noted in the handwriting of the mechanic of the 2^nd opposite party which conditions as much the following four defects out of defect no.2 to 4 would definitely come under the manufacturing defects.

1. Front right hand door not closed properly
2. Right hand side pulling on running
3. Under body sound on gutter road(tick tick)
4. Vehicle shivering related to suspension

Thought Ext.P9 is seen written on a ruled paper it would contain the full signature and office seal of the 2^nd opposite party TV SundaramAyyankar and Sons Ltd. Hence it is clear that the same has been issued by the mechanic while inspecting the vehicle at the residence of the complainant.  As it Ext.P9 would contain the signature of the mechanic and the seal of the 2^nd opposite party we find no merit in the contention of 2^nd opposite party’s counsel that it was not issued by 2^nd opposite party’s mechanic.

Ext.P10 is the reply notice send on 17.05.2016 in response to the P6 lawyer notice wherein it is stated that ‘we have to inform you that we are in the  process of collecting relevant details about allegations/ statements made in the legal notice from our concerned area office. This may take some time.  Upon receipt of relevant details from them we will be duly sending a full reply to you’.  The above averments in Ext.P10 reply notice would probabalise the case of the complainant.  Though PW1 has been subjected to severe cross examination nothing material has been brought out to disbelieve the averments in the proof affidavit and Ext.P1 to Ext.P10 documents.

The contesting opposite party has examined the Dy.Manager, Service TVS & Sons Pvt.Pltd., Thiruvananthapuram representing the 2^nd opposite party as DW1.  He would admit the various incidents of defect noticed and intimated by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party on the date of delivery on the next day 2^ndand 4^th days of delivery and finally on 02.05.2016.  But DW1 would claim that the allegations of the complaint regarding the defect of the vehicle are not correct.  It is further sworn that the vehicle was tested found roadworthy condition on 02.05.2016 and intimated the complainant several times to remove the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party’s premises and hence the vehicle has been remaining at the 2^nd opposite party premises.  The learned counsel for the opposite party has not marked email communication with regard to incidents taken place from 26.04.2016 to 02.05.2016 as Ext.D1 series.  However during cross examination DW1 would admit that Ext.D1 is the befitting reply to the advocate notice.  It has been communicated through email on 13.05.2016.  DW1 has further added that Ext.D1 is the reply to email sent by the complainant on 13.05.2016.  On going through the 1^st page of Ext.D1 series email communication.  It is stated as item No.2 that the 2^nd opposite party is taking the vehicle to the service centre and done a thorough check up at about 10 p.m on 25.04.2016 and lubricated the door latches and delivered back to the complainant.  It is further stated under point No.4 that  on 30^th evening the complainant went to the workshop along with vehicle and collected copies of order form, job card and requested the 2^nd opposite party to check the tyre pressure.  Accordingly the tyre pressure was checked and found that there was a difference of 2 psi.  The side pulling concerned was corrected and the same was informed to the complainant.  In view of the above admission in Ext.D1 series it is clear that the vehicle was having side pulling complainant and  the same was brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.D1 series would further make it clear that the vehicle was taken to the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre in a pick up van.  It is also clear that the opposite  parties decided to have a talk between the complainant and the technicians of the opposite parties on 09 May 2016 regarding the defects of the vehicle. All these would indicate that there is some merit in the allegation that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. 

It is further to be pointed out that the subject stated in Ext.D1series email itself would indicate that the replacement of the car TUV  300 T6+ car is not a new claim.  But complainant has raised the claim of replacement of the car due to the alleged manufacturing defects from the 1^st day of the purchase of the car.  The 3^rd page of Ext.D1 series is an email communication send by the original complaint from abroad wherein it is stated that the complainant has received a faulty car from the 2^nd opposite party and it is always in the service centre and smoke coming out of the car while on the way to service centre. It is stated in the 1^st paragraph of that communication from the date of purchase we cannot use the car due to mechanical problems in the car. Towards the end of page No.3 of Ext.D1 series it is stated that ‘we need a replacement of the car since we had to face problems right from the 1^st day and feel abnormality.  The averments and admissions contained in Ext.D1 series email communications also probabalises that manufacturing defect alleged by the complainant and his power of attorney holder are true and correct. 

The learned counsel for the contesting 2^nd opposite party has vehemently argued that the complainant hasdemanded total replacement of the disputed vehicle which is outside the ambit of warranty conditions.  It is further argued that the warranty of the vehicle has been provided by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer but the manufacturer is remaining exparte and the dealer or service agency is not liable under the warranty. We find no merit in the above argument since the manufacturing defect has been found from the date of purchase of the vehicle whenever it was attempted to be used by the complainant from the 1^st day of purchase.  It is also clear from the available materials that the vehicle was brought to the 2^nd opposite party’s workshop on 30.04.2016 on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant in a break down pick up van which itself would indicate that the mechanic of the vehicle was not dare enough to drive the vehicle towards the service centre hardly having 28 kms from the residence of the complainant.  It is clear from the available materials that the complainant has not used the vehicle properly even for one day without any defect. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party that the 1^st opposite party is admittedly the manufacturer and the 2^nd opposite party is only the dealer and service centre.  And also argued that whenever the complainant is made allegations regarding the defect of the vehicle the technicians of the 2^nd opposite party has inspected the vehicle and attempted to cure the defects and hence the 2^nd opposite party is having no liability either to replace the vehicle or to pay compensation for any other amount of the complainant as claimed in the complaint.  We find no force in the above argument.  Admittedly the 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle having manufacturing defect.  Both the manufacturer and dealer are having equal liability.  Therefore the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to replace the vehicle or to pay it price to the complainant.  Admittedly the complainant has not properly used the vehicle at least for one week from the date of purchase.  The said vehicle is admittedly the kept at the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party.  In the circumstances the complainant has not benefited from the road tax or insurance paid towards the defective vehicle.  Hence opposite party 1 and 2 are liable to return the same to the complainant.

In the circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle replaced or get the full value of the vehicle along with the toad tax and insurance paid by the complainant. Points No.1 to 3 answered accordingly.

Point No.4

It is also clear from the available materials that the complainant has not safely used the vehicle even for one day which was purchased for 8 and odd lakhs  from 1^st& 2^nd opposite party.  In the circumstance the chance of sustaining mental agony apart from financial loss inconvenience and hardships to the complainant cannot be ruled out. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation for financial loss mental agony and hardship caused to him. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by the complainant as compensation on this count  is not excessive.  The point answered accordingly.

Point No.5

          In view of the findings under points No.1 to 4 the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. The  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to replace the disputed defective vehicle with a brand new one of the same type and specifications to the complainant.
2. They are also directed to return the road taxRs.67,500/- and Rs.19,500/- towards insurance charges collected from the complainant along with the interest @  6% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle.
3. The complainant is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. 
4. Opposite party 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
5. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to realise the value of the defective car amounting to Rs.8,46,623/- and Rs.1,87,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum for Rs.10,33,623/-  from the date of sale of the car till realization along with costs Rs.10,000/- from opposite party 1 and 2 and from their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the 16^th   day of  July   2020.

                                                                                       E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/- 

                                                                                      S.SANDHYA   RANI: Sd/-

                                                                                      STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

                                                          Forwarded/by order

                                                                                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1           :         Kiran

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1         :         Power of Attorney

Ext.P2         :         Order form from TV SundaramIyengar& Sons Pvt.Ltd.

Ext.P3         :         Photocopy of repair order from TV SundaramIyengar&

Sons Pvt.Ltd.

Ext.P4         :         Photocopy of repair order from TV SundaramIyengar&

Sons Pvt.Ltd.

Ext.P5         :         vehicle condition report form/job record

Ext.P6         :         lawyer notice

Ext.P7 series:        Postal receipts

Ext.P8 series:        Postal acknowledgment cards

Ext.P9         :         description of defects noted in the handwriting of the mechanic

Ext.P10       :         reply notice

Ext.P11       :         Quatation/Proforma Invoice from TV SundaramIyengar&

Sons Pvt.Ltd.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1           :         Sajith Kumar R.

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.D1series         :         email communications

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

           Stanly Harold:Sd/-

          Forwarded/by order

          Senior Superintendent