Date of Filling: 31.01.2013
Date of Disposal: 29.09.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
THIRUVALLUR-1
PRESENT: THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M. ….PRESIDENT
THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., …MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.03/2013
TUESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
R.Raja,
S/o.Ramasamy,
No.1, Thiruviga Nagar,
Sothupakkam Village,
Melmaruvathur(Post)
Kancheepuram District. ……..Complainant
//Versus//
1.The Manager,
M/s. Royal Enfield,
Thiruvottriyur High Road,
Thiruvottriyur,
Chennai -600 019.
The Manager,
M/s.Sri Kalikambal Autos,
Near Palar Bridge,
Viruthampattu,
Vellore - 632 005.
The Manager,
M/s.Royal Enfiled,
No.350-354, 4th Link Street,
Nehru Nagar,
Kottivakkam (D.M.R),
Chennai - 600 096. ……. Opposite parties
This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 11.09.2018 in the presence of Thiru.S.RubanPrabu Counsel for the complainant, and Thiru.K.S.Jeyaganeshan, counsel for the opposite parties and upon hearing arguments having perused the documents and evidences this Forum delivered the following:-
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been preferred by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties seeking direction to replace the vehicle of the same model or to refund a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards complainant bike service charges and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties with cost.
2.The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-
From the date of purchase the vehicle, it has been giving so many problems. On 02.03.2011 when the complainant was taking the vehicle to the 2d opposite party for first service he had to pull the vehicle as there was a defect in the petrol tap and consequently it resulted in empty tank. The complainant informed the 2nd opposite party at the time of leaving the vehicle for first service the following problems namely noise in engine head racer, problem in gear shifting and leakage in head oil seal. At the time getting back the vehicle after first service the above said problems were not rectified by the 2nd opposite party and the same was informed to the 1st opposite party by the complainant on 12.01.2011 as well as on 29.04.2011. Even though the complainant has sent two reminders to the 1st opposite party there was no reply from them to any of his reminders. Again the complainant on 10.05.2011 has left vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for rectifying the above said defects. At that time the 2nd opposite party have rectified only the engine oil seal leaving the other defects as such. But again he found leakage in engine oil seal. On 09.08.2011 again the complainant has left the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for rectifying the above defects. But without complying with the defects they handed over the vehicle to the complainant. Left with no other option, the complainant has made a complaint to the service Manager Mr.Ganapathi of Royal Enfield service complaining that the defects in vehicle were not rectified and also his vehicle is getting rust. The Service manager has asked the complainant to leave the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party.
3. According to the instruction of the service manager the complainant on 24.09.2011 has left the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party. At that time the complainant had informed the 2nd opposite party the following problems namely oil seal leakage in the front right fork, noise in engine head, self motor bearing problem, leakage of engine oil, non-functioning of back shock absorber and getting rust all over the vehicle. After some days the complainant has taken delivery. At that time there was no leakage of engine oil. But to his shock and surprise within a weeks time the complainant noticed all the above said problems and hence he again contacted Mr.Ganapathi the Service Manager has replied that the present he is not the service Manager and hence the complainant has to contact one Mr.Abraham, when the complainant has contacted the said Abraham, he replied to leave the vehicle with the 3nd opposite party. Accordingly the complainant on 24.10.2011 has left the vehicle for all the above said defects. But the complainant while taking delivery found the same problems existing and again he contacted the service Manager Abraham. Mr.Abraham replied the complainant to leave the vehicle and he will take care by sending his representative to there.
4. That on 30.11.2011 the complainant has left the vehicle with the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party have changed oil in the front right fork, adjusted back shock absorber and also adjusted self motor bearing. Again when the complainant was driving the vehicle he found except the defect in front right form all other problems recurred. As the defects in his vehicle were not rectified by any of the opposite parties, the complainant was compelled to issue a lawyer notice dated 27.12.2011 to all the opposite parties. After receiving the lawyer notice the 2nd opposite party had made a phone call and also SMs to the complainant to leave the vehicle to them and they will set right the same. On 27.01.2012 the complainant has left the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party and at that time they rectified only oil leakage and substituted the rusted parts. But in respect of shock absorber, self motor bearing and some other rusted parts they informed the complainant that there are no spares available for these parts and as soon as they receive the same they will inform the complainant. A few days after the complainant had contacted them over phone for replacement of the spare parts. But they informed that they are still awaiting the spares. For with the complainant has replied the guarantee period expires on 09.02.2012. The 2nd opposite party has informed that as the matter was taken to their knowledge well before the guarantee period, the complainant need not worry about the expiry of the guarantee period.
5. That when the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party over phone on so many occasions, they replied they are still to get the spares. By that time the vehicle developed the engine problem, shock absorber problem and therefore the vehicle stated giving vibrations. The complainant as a result has suffered back pain and shoulder pain. The vehicle also developed problem in air filter. Hence the complainant was unable to drive the vehicle. On 17.07.2013 again the complainant has left the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for setting right the above defects. But they rectified only the air filter and not rectified any of the above referred defects. That apart they also not replaced the rusted spare parts. Again within 10 days the vehicle developed air filter problem and therefore the complainant had to leave the vehicle on 01.08.2012 with the 2nd opposite party.
6. That, On 01.08.2012 the 2nd opposite party have refused to give job card. In spite of the insistence by the complainant they ultimately refused to enter job card. Then the complainant has contacted Mr.Abraham the service Manager and Mr.Abraham advised to contact one Mr.Rithan John. The complainant accordingly has contacted the said Rithan John and he narrated all the problems and also the refusal by the 2nd opposite party for entering the job card. Thereafter on the direction of the said Rithan John the cob card was entered. The 2nd opposite party at that point of time directed the complainant to pay for the above said defects and also for replacement of the rusted parts. The complainant has replied that the problems are recurring from its purchase and therefore there is no necessity for him tp pay for the above heads. But the 2nd opposite party have refused stating that the guarantee period was already over. The complainant again contacted the said Rithan John. He assured the complainant that he will take care to set right all the defects and therefore asked the complainant to leave the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party.
7. That on 03.08.2012 and on 04.08.2018 the complainant has contacted the 2nd opposite party but there has been no positive response from them. Therefore the complainant had sent a SMS to them. Even for that also till 06.08.2012 there was no reply from them. On 06.08.2012 in the afternoon the complainant has contacted Mr.Rithan Johh, he assured the complainant that he will contact the 2nd opposite party immediately. On 06.08.2012 evening the 2nd opposite party have informed the complainant to take the vehicle on 07.08.2012. on 07.08.2012 the complainant noticed that over rusted areas they have sprayed paint and the same was spilled over the other parts. The rusted parts that is wheel reem and chasis were not replaced and he found the rust existing. There was depainting over the chasis area and the extra noise from the engine was not set right.
8. That actually a defective vehicle was sold out by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. The complainant having spent a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for purchase of the vehicle was offered only mental agony, stress and untold hardship instead of a good vehicle. That apart the services taken care by the 2nd opposite party was not effective so as to set right the defects.
9. That as far as the 3rd opposite party is concerned the vehicle given by the complainant to them for service on various occasions as stated supra in this complaint, the defects were not rectified by them. Therefore the complainant has made out a clear case of negligence against all the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
10. The contention of written version of the opposite party is briefly as follows:-
The averments contained in para No.3 of the complaint is party denied. It is true that the complainant had brought the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party on 01.03.2011 and not on 02.03.2011 as averred in the complaint. As per the job card No.1164 on 01.03.2011.
1st SERVICE
ENGINE OIL CHANGE
CHECK HORN
KICKER SIDE OIL LEAK
HARD TO KICK START
CHECK SELF START
ACCELERATOR TIGHT
GEAR SHIFTING HERD
GENERAL CHECK UP.
It was observed no hard kick starting, no defect in self start. All the complaints of the complainant were attended and vehicle was delivered to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has signed his signature in the job card. The complainant had informed the territory manager that he is residing in Melmaruvathur and would take the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party 05.05.2011. The averment that the vehicle was brought on 10.05.2011 is admitted as true but the other averments that the defects were not attended to is denied.
11. No abnormal vehicle vibration was absorbed. The 2nd opposite party had attended all the above listed customer voices and delivered the vehicle to his entire satisfaction with his signature in the job card. The averment that the complainant had left the vehicle on 09.08.2011 again for the engine leakage is denied as false. The complainant had reported only the following defects in the vehicle history details on 09.08.2011.
3rd FREE SERVICE
ENGINE NOISE
FORK OIL LEAK
12. The complainant had not reported engine oil seal leakage in the case history but has mention only in the complaint for the first time. No abnormal engine noise was observed. The 2nd opposite party had attended all the above listed customer voices and delivered the vehicle to his entire satisfaction with his signature in the job card. It is denied that the complainant had left the vehicle as per the advice of service manager Mr.Ganapathi. it is true that the vehicle was left for service on 24.09.2011 which the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had reported only the following defects as per the job card in the vehicle history details on 24.098.2011.
13. The complainant had not reported noise in engine head, self motor bearing problem, engine oil leakage, non-functioning of back shock absorber and vehicle rusting in the history while leaving the vehicle for service on 24.09.2011 but has mention in the complaint which is denied as false. The complaints of the complainant has narrated in the history were attended and vehicle was delivered to his entire satisfaction with his signature in the job card. This opposite party understands that the vehicle was attended by the 3nd opposite party and the other details are not within the knowledge of this opposite party.
14. The complainant himself has written a letter stating that the 2nd opposite party has rectified the defects and has taken back all the averments which was stated in the legal notice dated 27.12.2011. The vehicle was attended on 09.01.2012 and the complainant had taken delivery on 27.01.2012 though the vehicle was ready earlier itself. The complainant has recorded his entire satisfaction by a written letter on 27.12.11 taking back all the averments of the legal notice thereby taken back all the averments of the legal notice. Hence the complaint itself is not maintainable because he has taken back all the averments and has recorded satisfaction. The averment that the vehicle developed some engine problem and other averments are denied as false. The history as per the job card dated in the vehicle history details on 17.07.2012.
SERVICE
CHECK OIL LEVEL
GENERAL CHECK UP
ENGINE NOISE
15. The complainant has not reported shock absorber complaint, vehicle vibration, back pain, shoulder pain, air filter problem, parts rusting but the complainant has mentioned these only in the complaint and hence the complainant is put to strict proof to prove the same. All the above mention in the job card was attended the 2nd opposite party had delivered the vehicle to the complainants entire satisfaction with his signature in the job card.
16. The complainant as per the job card had reported the following defects in the job card No.5820 on 01.08.2012.
VEHICLE VIBRATION
ENGINE OIL LEAK
LOW MILEAGE
CHECK RR SHOCK ABSORBER
GEAR SHIFTING HARD
SELF MOTOR NOISE
CARBURETOR MISFIRING
TAPPET NOICE
RUST IN HANDLE BAR FITTING HEAD BRACKET.
17. The vehicle was received on 01.08.2012 but the complainant is put to strict proof of the averment that this opposite party had refused to open job card & the complainant contacted Mr. jithin john to make it happen are denied as false. The handle bar fitting head bracket was replaced under dealer goodwill on customer request as the vehicle is in post warranty period. The rusting had happened due to very poor vehicle are &maintenance. The 2nd opposite party had attended all the above listed complainant voices and delivered the vehicle to his entire satisfaction with his signature in the job card.
18. This opposite parties is not aware of any telephonic calls or SMS as averred in the complaint in para - iv. The complainant is liable to prove the same. The rust in the vehicle was because the vehicle was not properly maintained resulting in rust.
19. The averment that the 1st opposite party had sold a defective vehicle is denied as false. The averment that the 2nd opposite party rectified is also false because the complainant has written a letter stating that the vehicle service is satisfactory. In all occasion the vehicle was serviced and the complainant has sighed satisfactory in the job card itself shows that the complainant was satisfied with the service of the opposite party. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed all the facts. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action for the complaint.
20. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit filed as his evidence and Ex.A1toEx.A27 were marked. While so, on the side of the opposite parties, the proof affidavit is filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 are marked on their side.
21. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this forum is:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
22. Written arguments filed on both the parties and oral arguments also adduced by the complainant and closed the opposite sides.
Point No.1:-
23. respect of this point, on careful perusal of the evidence and documents adduced by the complainant it is learnt that the complainant has purchased a Royal Enfield Bike, 350CC for full consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- for which Ex.A1 advance payment receipt, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 part and final payment respectively and the Tax invoice and Debit invoice are marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. The opposite party has delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 09.02.2011 through Ex.A6 and the Risk cover letter is marked as Ex.A7. On further perusal it is stated that from the date of purchase vehicle, it has been given so many problem, the complainant has brought to the 2nd opposite party for first service by stated certain defects in the petrol tap on 02.03.2011 and for which the service bill is marked as Ex.A10 and further narrated that after getting back the vehicle after first service the said problem were not rectified by the 2nd opposite party and the same was informed to the 1st opposite party through e-mail communication Ex.A11 and Ex.A13 and service job card dated 02.01.2011 is marked as Ex.A12 and thereafter on subsequently different dated viz.10.05.2011,09.08.2011,24.09.2011,13.11.2011 the vehicle was brought to the opposite party for continuous problem for certain defects such as leakage of Engine oil etc. and the same were not rectified and for which the service and job card are marked as Ex.A14 to Ex.A18 and so that the complainant issued Advocate Notice Ex.A19 dated 27.12.2011 and also even thereafter the main problem in the vehicle precast. On receipt of the SMS Ex.A20 the vehicle was handed over to the 2nd opposite party for rectified the defects and for which the work ship cash bill was issued which is marked as Ex.A21 and also subsequent repairs the service and job card issued on 17.07.2012,1.08.2012,4.08.2012 and07.08.2012 are marked as Ex.A22 to Ex.A25. it is further stated by the complainant that in spite of repeated services by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties the noted defects on all times has not been rectified and thereby very incurred certain expenses for purchase of spares which is marked as Ex.A26. The photo copies showed the appearance of the vehicle and the defect of the vehicle are marked as Ex.A27(s). The Advocate Commissioner along with expert opinion is marked as Ex.C1.
24. On the other hand, on going through the evidence of the opposite parties it is seen that all the complaint of the complainant were attained and the vehicle was delivered entire satisfaction of the complainant for which he signed his signature in the job card in all time while delivering the vehicle after completion of service and during that facts Ex.B1, Ex.B2, Ex.B4, Ex.B5 to Ex.B9, Similarly, Ex.B10 which is also given by the complainant for write copy on satisfaction of all the service provided by the 2nd opposite party. It is further reposted that it is denied that the 1st opposite party has sold a defective vehicle and 2nd opposite party not rectified the defects is also not correct and in fact all occasion the vehicle was service full satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore the complainant has not to this Forum with clean hands and suppress of the facts Since there is no cause of action and thereby no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
25. At this juncture on careful perusal of the rival submissions putfortn on either side it is not disputed that the alleged vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties by means of Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Similarly the alleged vehicle was handed over to the opposite party for initial service as per the terms and warranty as well as terms and conditions on different dates and the same have been properly serviced by the opposite parties then and there which are clearly prove by means of Ex.A10, EX.A12, Ex.A14, Ex.A15, Ex.A16, Ex.A17, Ex.A18, Ex.A21, Ex.A22 and Ex.A23. Further it is seen from the above said documents that the opposite parties have not credited the amount only for change of oil on different parts as already agreed with the terms and conditions and warranty and not for any amount collected for the labor charges and otherwise. In furtherance from Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 which are the job card maintained by the opposite parties for services of the vehicle it is clearly reveals the fact that after completion of each and every services done by the opposite parties the complainant herein has received the vehicle on full satisfaction and to that effect the complainant has signed and acknowledged the perform of the services and change of spare parts and engine oil on different part of the said vehicle. Moreover Ex.B6 the complainant has himself written letter to ensure this satisfaction for taking delivery of the vehicle after completion of service on 27.01.2012 at 2.00 P.M. Therefore from the above all facts and circumstances it is needless to say that the opposite parties have done their service in respects of the alleged vehicle whenever the said vehicle was handed over to the service the complainant has full satisfied with the service of the opposite parties and acknowledged the same. Hence the allegations made against the opposite parties 1 and 2 hold not good.
26. In such circumstances it is learnt from the written version filed by the opposite parties 1and 2 that the question of replacing the vehicle and refund of the amount with interest is not preview of the opposite parties herein and the same to be paid from the manufacture. Regarding this fact, on careful perusal of the averment of the complaint it goes without saying that the alleged manufacture of the said alleged vehicle for the impeaded as a party to this complaint. Not only that, there is no specific averments regarding the facts of manufacturing defects and not produced any expert opinion regarding the facts of manufacturing defects along with the complaint. After filing this complaint the complainant has filed CMP.27/2013 to the Appointment of Advocate Commissioner. On that petition ExC1 along with expert opinion of the T.Vairavanathan, authorized Auto Mobile Engineer, SiruKaveripakkam has been filed. At the outset this Forum wants to state that the complainant has taken a plea as any manufacturing defects in the vehicle the complainant is bound to prove the same with reliable and consistent evidence.
27. At this juncture, On going through the Ex.C1 report along with the expert opinion, it is seen that the certificate proof ,d;Ipd; Nghy;l; xd;wpd; topahf Mapy; yPf; MfpwJ. Except other defects noted in the said Report are all normal and have to be rectified, which cannot be committed the classic of defects. Such being so, on perusal of the oral evidence given by the said expert Engineer before this Form is as clear y has stated as follows.
thfdk; thq;fpa NjjpapypUe;J Kd;wiu Mz;Lfs; fopj;Jjhd; Ma;T Nkw;nfhz;Ls;Nsd; vd;W nrhd;dhy; rupjhd;. vdJ mwpf;ifapy; 13 FiwghLfs; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd; Sl. 4,1 ,itfs; Major defects MFk;. Engine ghjpf;Fk;
28. From the above evidence of the Expect Engineer now where it is stated by him the major defects Serial No. 4 and 1 are due to manufacturing defects. Not only that, it is an admitted fact that the alleged vehicle have been inspected after a long period on the date of purchase. Furthermore as per averments and evidence of the complainant that the alleged vehicle has been used the complainant nearly one and half years therefore the subsequent plead taken by the complainant during the evidence that there is a manufacturing defect and that no such plead taken at the time of filing the complainant and not come forward to amend the complaint in the latest stage. At this point of time this Forum wants to enlighten that without taking specifically regarding certain vital aspects the same cannot be agitated in the latest stage by not following in the procedure of law. In this aspects, the complainant herein has failed is burden to prove the manufacturing defects.
In such circumstances this Forum wants to enlighten the following decision held in
IV (2010) CPJ 56 (SUPREME COURT) : AIR2011 SC 523:2011) 1SCC 460
C.N.Anantharam
//Vs//
Fiat India limited.
Held that contention, vehicle had been duly certified to be completely roadworthy and petition’s complaint duly attended was accepted. Apart from complaint relating to noise from engine and gear box there was no other major defect. Engine was duly replaced by new one. National Commission’s order was not unreasonable. Directions were issued to independent technical expert.
III(2009)CPJ 389 (NC)
Sundeep polymers Private limited.
//Vs//
Mercedes Benz India limited.
Held that the clutch pedal had collapsed. Burden to prove inherent manufacturing was on complainants. Car was not made available to O.P for inspection by Senior Technical Specialist and attend to complaint related to clutch. Car had suffered damages due to lack of maintenance proved by joint inspection report. Complainants were not offered to bring the car to operational condition. Alleged complaint of clutch failure could not be checked. Inherent manufacturing defect in car was not proved.
IV (2009) CPJ 144 (NC)
Maruti Udyog limited
//Vs//
Casino Dias
Held, that the allegations were not supported by reliable documents. Complainant had abandoned vehicle although vehicle properly attended during warranty, defective components replaced free of charge. Complainant was adamant throughout with predetermined mind to get replacement of vehicles. Consumers could not throw their weight around and be adamant to decide on their own that there is manufacturing defect. Order directing replacement of vehicle was set aside. Petitioners were directed to make the vehicle road worthy and free of defects.
29. From the foregoing among other facts and circumstances this Forum held that the complainant has not come forward to prove the manufacturing defects as alleged in the last stage and also not following the procedure of law and other amend the complaint in order to impleading in the manufacture in the complaint. Furthermore, it is learnt from the averments that the complainant has produced the vehicle one point of time the opposite parties with some intention for the reason him and till date he has not chosen to taken back the vehicle adamantly which is not a mistake for the 1st and 3rd opposite parties and hence that the fact this Forum need not to be considered.
30. In the light of the above facts and circumstances this forum held that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:-
31. In view of the decision arrived in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint. Thus, the point No.2 is answered accordingly.
In the Result, this complaint is Dismissed. No cost.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 25th September 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
List of documents filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 30.10.2010 | 1st Advance payment | Xerox |
Ex.A2 | 04.02.2011 | Part payment | Xerox |
Ex.A3 | 09.02.2011 | Final payment | Xerox |
Ex.A4 | 09.02.2011 | Tax Invoice | Xerox |
Ex.A5 | 09.02.2011 | Debit invoice | Xerox |
Ex.A6 | 09.02.2011 | Delivery Note | Xerox |
Ex.A7 | 09.02.2011 | Risk cover letter | Xerox |
Ex.A8 | 09.02.2011 | (Cash Bill) Cost of extra pitting and water service charges. | Xerox |
Ex.A9 | 10.02.2011 | R.C.Book & Insurance | Xerox |
Ex.A10 | 02.03.2011 | Service | Xerox |
Ex.A11 | 29.04.2011 | Mail | Xerox |
Ex.A12 | 12.04.2011 | Service and job card | Xerox |
Ex.A13 | 29.04.2011 | Mail | Xerox |
Ex.A14 | 10.05.2011 | Service and job card | Xerox |
Ex.A15 | 09.08.2011 | Service and job card | Xerox |
Ex.A16 | 24.09.2011 | Service and job card | Xerox |
Ex.A17 | 24.10.2011 | Job card | Xerox |
Ex.A18 | 30.11.2011 | Job card and cash bill | Xerox |
Ex.A19 | 27.12.2011 | Advocate’s notice | Xerox |
Ex.A20 | 12.01.2012 | Kalikamba SMS | Xerox |
Ex.A21 | 27.01.2012 | Service | Xerox |
Ex.A22 | 17.07.2012 | Service and job card | Xerox |
Ex.A23 | 01.08.2012 | Job card | Xerox |
Ex.A24 | 04.08.2012 | Raja to kalikamba SMS | Xerox |
Ex.A25 | 07.08.2012 | Service bill | Xerox |
Ex.A26 | 21.09.2012 | Self | Xerox |
Ex.A27(s) | | Photo copies | Color Xerox |
List of document filed by the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 | 01.03.2011 | Job card -1164 | Xerox |
Ex.B2 | 12.04.2011 | Job card -1322 | Xerox |
Ex.B3 | 29.04.2011 | Mail communication | Xerox |
Ex.B4 | 10.05.2011 | Job card -1427 | Xerox |
Ex.B5 | 24.10.2011 | Job card -650 | Xerox |
Ex.B6 | 27.12.2011 | Customer satisfaction note | Xerox |
Ex.B7 | 09.01.2012 | Job card -4429 | Xerox |
Ex.B8 | 01.08.2012 | Job card -5820 | Xerox |
Ex.B9 | 30.11.2011 | Job card -1248 | Xerox |
Ex.B10 | | Complainant letter to the | Xerox |
Sd- Sd-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
