This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.H.Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for complainant; Sri.E.Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for opposite party Nos.1 to 3; Sri.K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for opposite party No.4; Sri.G.Hareender Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.5; Notice of opposite party No.6 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a transporter and doing transport business, the opposite party No.1 is the dealer of Premier Company vehicles manufactured by the opposite party No.4, made wide publicity in regard to the capacity of the vehicle, providing of finance at 85% from opposite party No.5 without any processing fee, also made advertisement that the opposite party No.6 will give 80% finance on the vehicle. Having attracted with the above said publicity, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and on their suggestion, he purchased Premier Road Star-2500 brand vehicle on 18-9-2006, with chasis No.XP 2000 278 X, Engine No.3HHDL 018456 manufactured by opposite party No.4, for Rs.3,60,000/-, by taking the finance inclusive of VAT charges vide Delivery Receipt No.42, also had obtained finance on the vehicle from the opposite party No.5 at Khammam. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party No.1 issued a sales certificate on 30-9-2006 under Form-21, collected an amount of Rs.2,500/- for registration charges from the complainant, as the opposite party No.1 handover the vehicle documents with a delay, the vehicle got registered on 15-11-2006. The opposite party No.1 also given two different invoices and two different insurance documents for the same vehicle.
Since the date of purchase, the vehicle had given troubles, broke down for 40 days, at every repair when the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite party No.1, they used to call the technicians from outside and utilize the services of others, such as Kakatiya Diesel House, Warangal, Technicians from private mechanic sheds in Auto Nagar, Warangal. Due to frequent repairs and breakdown of the vehicle purchased from the opposite party No.1, the complainant sustained heavy financial loss and lost prestige in the business and regular customers. The complainant further submitted that the vehicle is giving very poor mileage and it is not even giving 3/4th of the promised mileage and in fact it has to give 12 kilometers per liter of diesel.
Even after servicing the vehicle by opposite party No.1 on 18-12-2006, the vehicle was breakdown on 20-12-2006 at Bhadrachalam, and the same was informed to the opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 sent a mechanic to the complainant at Bhadrachalam, the said mechanic inspected the vehicle, but the said mechanic without attending the repairs went back, and on persistent demands made by the complainant, one J.J.Sunil Kumar, Sales Manager of the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant on 2-1-2007 alleging that the complainant is not using the vehicle properly and asked the complainant to send the vehicle to their workshop, accordingly the complainant sent the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 on 4-1-2007 for rectification of the problems and also addressed a letter to the Sales Manager of the opposite party No.1 by name J.J.Sunil Kumar on 5-1-2007 mentioning the problems of the vehicle and the opposite party No.1 kept the vehicle with them for more than 25 days and on 2-2-2007 opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to handover the vehicle, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and questioned for the inordinate delay caused in getting the vehicle repaired, opposite party No.1 informed that they took lot of time to get spares from the opposite party No.4 from Pune and the complainant tested the vehicle and found that the vehicle was not repaired, as such he left the vehicle with the opposite party No.1 and the same was informed to opposite party No.6.
The complainant also represented the matter to the opposite parties No.2 and 3, which are the main head offices of the opposite party No.1, even there is no response from them. Vexed with the evasive attitude of the opposite parties No.1 to 3, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 22-3-2007, through his counsel, to pay back the invoice amount to the complainant, within weekdays from the date of receipt of legal notice. The said legal notice sent to the opposite party No.1 was returned as ‘no such addressee’, to the opposite party No.2 was served on 27-3-2007 and to the opposite party No.3 was served on 26-3-2007. Inspite of serving the legal notices on opposite parties No.2 and 3, they did not turn up to give any reply or come forward to return the invoice amount to the complainant. The complainant submitted that the opposite party No.1 had managed in returning the legal notice as if no such addressee in the given address, he lost hope that the opposite party No.1 to 4 are not going to fulfill the demand made by him in the legal notice. In the meanwhile, the opposite party No.6 started demanding him and his guarantor, to pay the monthly installment and the due amount under the finance and in fact due to non-running of the vehicle he could not able to pay the monthly installment. The threats of the opposite party No.6 on the complainant is imminent, he lost hope that the opposite parties No.1 to 4 will pay back the invoice amount of the vehicle, i.e. Rs.3,60,000/- with interest. Hence, the complaint.
On receipt of the notice, opposite party Nos.1 to 5 appeared through their counsels and filed counters. Notice of opposite party No.6 served, but failed to appear and to file counter.
Counsel for opposite party No.1 also filed a memo adopting their counter to opposite party Nos.2 and 3. In the counter, opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant purchased the Premier Road Star-2500 (Trolly vehicle) from them on 18-9-2006, they are having sufficient workshop, skilled technicians, trained from premier company and is going to maintain sufficient spares. It is denied that they suggested and encouraged the complainant to purchase any particular vehicle, to obtain finance from opposite party Nos.5 and 6, they used to utilize the services of others such as Kakatiya Diesel House, Warangal and technicians from outside private mechanic sheds in auto nagar, Warangal, Wheel alignment from a private person at Warangal, they cheated the complainant by not maintaining the workshop and causing inconvenience by getting the spare parts from the opposite party No.4. It is further submitted that due to improper use of the vehicle, there is every possibility to damage the vehicle. It is admitted by the opposite party No.1 that when the vehicle was broke down they sent the mechanic along with a service engineer and they inspected the vehicle and without repairing the same returned back, as their duty is to inspect the vehicle and report to the workshop and necessary repairs will be affected in the workshop only, as per warranty terms and conditions if a defect is observed in any vehicle, its liability is to repair or replace those parts are considered to be the cause of malfunction free of charge of both labour and material, such defective vehicle should be brought to the nearest service center by the owner for necessary inspection. It is further submitted that if any part is defective the particular part can be repaired or replaced and for such problem the total vehicle need not be taken back. In the counter opposite party No.1 submitted that the opposite party No.1 acted as dealer of opposite party No.4 on commission basis, now the dealership also cancelled, as such the opposite party No.1 is not liable for the consequences, further submitted that the complainant is liable to pay the repair and replacement charges for the repairs affected to his vehicle and the complainant is liable to pay garage rent of Rs.100/- per day from 2-2-2007 to till its actual delivery. It is submitted by the opposite party No.1 that it is not concerned with the allegations made against opposite parties No.5 and 6, it is the dealer of opposite party No.4, as such opposite party No.4 is liable for consequences, there is no deficiency of service on their part in rendering service to the complainant. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In the counter, opposite party No.4 submitted that the complaint instituted by the complainant is misconceived, all the allegations are figment of the imagination, the nature of the submission made by the complainant shows that he has no case against opposite party No.4, only to harass the opposite party No.4 filed a false and frivolous complaint. Further submitted that the complainant is not a consumer, the present complaint is not tenable and maintainable before the forum. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy, “any claim or dispute relating to or arising out of the warranty shall be subject to jurisdiction of the courts at Mumbai only”. The complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that there was any deficiency in service or vehicle allegedly purchased by the complainant is having any manufacturing defects and the complainant is trying to achieve unlawful gain by filing the complaint. The opposite party No.4 submitted para-wise detailed reply to the contents of the complaint, which are the opposite party No.4 is not aware about the contention of the complainant as he is transporter, opposite party No.1 made vide publicity, opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.4, the opposite party No.1 offered that they will provide 85% finance on the vehicle from opposite party No.5 without any processing fee, opposite party No.1 is having sufficient workshop, skilled technicians, who are properly trained by the company, opposite party No.1 informed that Premium Road Star 2500 will give more mileage than TATA ACE model vehicle. Opposite party No.1 suggested the name of opposite party No.6, the complainant is put to strict proof as regards the contention that the opposite party No.1 made wide publicity at Bhadrachalam. The opposite party No.4 also submitted that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 are the authorized dealers of opposite party No.4, M/s.Surekha Auto, Warangal is branch of the above said dealers and further submitted that as regards the contention of complainant from the date of purchase itself, the vehicle giving troubles to the complainant, the vehicle was broke down for 40 days and so far the vehicle could only run 9,000 kilometers that too with so many day to day problems, the opposite party No.1 used to call the technicians from outside such as Kakatiya Diesel House, Warangal, technicians from Auto Nagar, the opposite party No.1 cheated the complainant and not maintaining the required spare parts, not having workshop and not having trained technicians thereby even for small problems, opposite party No.1 is getting spare parts from Pune i.e. opposite party No.4 and thereby caused a lot of inconvenience to the complainant in delivering the vehicle for days together, even the vehicles mileage is very poor and it is not even giving 3/4th of the promised mileage, due to non submission of proper documents, the vehicle could not be registered immediately and thereby the complainant also could not get finance on the vehicle from opposite party No.6 in time is false. Further submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was given for servicing to opposite party No.1 on 18-12-2006 and the vehicle was delivered on 19-12-2006 and immediately the vehicle was broke down on the way to Bhadrachalam on 20-12-2006. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 sent a mechanic to the complainant, the mechanic went back without attending the repairs, on 2-1-2007 the Sales Manager of opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant to send the vehicle to their workshop, opposite party No.1 kept the vehicle for more than 25 days and on 02-2-2007 the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant to collect the vehicle, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and questioned for the inordinate delay, the complainant tested the vehicle and found the vehicle was not repaired, left the vehicle with the opposite party No.1 on 4-2-2007 and since then the vehicle is lying with the opposite party No.1, vexed with the evasive attitude of opposite party No.1 to 3, the complainant got issued legal notice, called upon the opposite parties to pay back the invoice amount to the complainant within week days. The opposite party No.4 further submitted that the complainant has nowhere alleged that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, hence the opposite party No.4 is not liable to pay damages. Opposite party No.1 informed to opposite party No.4 that on 18-12-2006 the vehicle was delivered in good condition, the break down took place, however when the technician of opposite party No.1 attended the vehicle, it was observed that the engine was tampered and some vital parts in cooling system also found missing, which implied that the complainant had unauthorisedly repaired and got the work done in respect of the vehicle from the local mechanics, the complainant was not maintaining the vehicle as instructed. As per the guidelines mentioned in the operations manual, the alleged problems of the complainant come across due to overloading, negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant in maintaining the said vehicle. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In the counter, opposite party No.5 admitted that the complainant approached their office at Khammam and obtained loan for an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- and finance charges Rs.70,125/- total value of Rs.3,45,125/- for the Premier Road Star 2500 Brand vehicle and executed necessary documents, the complainant has to pay the loan amount in 36 installments, first 35 installments at Rs.9,590/- each, and the last installment at Rs.9,475/-, commencing from 1-10-2006. It is submitted by the opposite party No.5 that they are no way concerned with the defects in the vehicle, as the complainant has committed default in payment of installments, they have issued a legal notice on 5-9-2007 demanding him to pay 9 installments amounting of Rs.93,867/- and also issued copy of notice to his guarantor, since the complainant had obtained the finance from this opposite party, they are entitled to recover the same from him and they are at liberty to take appropriate legal proceedings against him. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Along with the complaint, the complainant filed an affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint and also filed the following documents.
Ex.A.1 - Notice to the complainant and the guarantor issued by Shriram
investments Ltd., dt.5-9-2007.
Ex.A.2 - office copy of legal notice, dt.21-09-2007
Ex.A.3 - Acknowledgment, dt.26-09-2007.
Ex.A.4 - Delivery report, dt.18-9-2006.
Ex.A.5 - Invoice No.35, dt.18-9-2006
Ex.A.6 - Form No.21, Sale certificate, dt.18-9-2006
Ex.A.7 - Receipt for Rs.3,60,000/-, dt.29-9-2006
Ex.A.8 - Receipt for Rs.2,500/-, dt.30-9-2006
Ex.A.9 - Form NO.21, sale certificate, dt.30-9-2006
Ex.A.10 - Invoice No.35, dt.30-9-2006
Ex.A.11 - Form No.22
Ex.A.12 - Certificate of inspection of motor vehicle, dt.15-11-2006.
Ex.A.13 - Advertisement broacher for the vehicle Premier Road star
vehicle.
Ex.A.14 - Job sheet issued by Surekha auto, dt.25-12-2006
Ex.A.15 - Letter, dt.2-1-2007 addressed by the Sales Manager of
opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A.16 - Letter, dt.5-1-2007 addressed by the complainant to the sales
manager of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A.17 - Letter, dt.2-2-2007 addressed by Sales Manager of opposite
party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A.18 - Letter, dt.19-2-2007 addressed by the complainant to the sales
manager of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A.19 - office copy of legal notice, dt.22-3-2007
Ex.A.20 - Acknowledgments (Nos.2),
Ex.A.21 - closed cover along with acknowledgment.
Ex.A.22 - Certificate cum policy schedule, dt.14-11-2006.
Ex.A.23 - Certificate cum policy schedule, dt.23-11-2006.
On behalf of the complainant, the counsel for complainant also filed written arguments along with the case laws, i.e. DLR 2007 NC 25 in between Tractors And Farm Equipments Ltd., Chennai Vs. K.N.Mallappa, 2009 CJ 513 (NC) in between Larsen & Toubro Ltd., and others Vs. Sunder Steels Ltd., and others.
On behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3, their counsel filed written arguments along with the following documents
Ex.B.1 - Warranty policy of opposite party No.4
Ex.B.2 - Photocopy of Job sheet, dt.18-12-2006.
Upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
- To what relief?
Point No.1:
The complainant having attracted with the publicity of opposite party No.1, purchased Premium Road Star 2500 vehicle on 18-9-2006, manufactured by opposite party No.4 for Rs.3,60,000/- by taking finance from opposite party No.5. As per the complainant since the date of purchase, the vehicle had given troubles, broke down for 40 days, at every repair when the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 used to call technicians from outside workshop such as Kakatiya Diesel House and Auto Nagar mechanic sheds in Warangal, due to frequent repairs of the vehicle purchased from opposite party No.1, the complainant sustained heavy financial loss and also lost prestige in business community. On 18-12-2006 the complainant got service the vehicle, at the time of servicing informed all the problems which were faced by him in regular usage and also about non giving mileage as promised by the opposite parties No.1 to 4. On 20-12-2006 at Bhadrachalam the vehicle was broke down and the same was informed to the opposite party No.1, on receipt of complaint the opposite party No.1 sent a mechanic to the complainant, the said mechanic after inspecting the vehicle went back without attending the repairs. On 2-1-2007 Sales Manager of opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant to send the vehicle to the workshop, accordingly the complainant sent the vehicle to the opposite party No.1. After 25 days on 2-2-2007 the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to collect the vehicle from their workshop, In response to the letter, the complainant questioned about the inordinate delay, the opposite party No.1 has informed they took a lot of time to get spare parts from opposite party No.4. The complainant represented the matter to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 from the date of purchase, the vehicle giving troubles, not giving mileage even 3/4th of the promised mileage and regularly getting break down. At the time of broke down the complainant has to engage another vehicle to lift the same to opposite party No.1 for repairs for that he used to spend huge amounts. Vexed with the above, the complainant got issued legal notice on 22-3-2007 and the same was served on opposite party Nos.2 and 3, but they failed to give reply even after receipt of notice, for that the complainant approached the forum for deficiency of service.
After careful perusal of material papers on record, it is observed that the complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.1, at the time of purchase he paid Rs.85,000/- and obtained finance for an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- from opposite party No.5. On 30-9-2006 the complainant paid Rs.2,500/- for registration charges, but opposite party No.1 got registered the vehicle on 15-11-2006 with a delay. As per the complaint and the documents available on record, since the date of purchase the vehicle had been giving troubles from time to time. In the counter, opposite party No.4 relied on the warranty policy clause (6), clauses (12) and (13) which were prepared by their own accord and they are not binding on the parties and also opposite party No.4 had taken plea that the complainant is not a consumer and jurisdiction of court was to file at Mumbai only. The above two objections raised by the opposite party No.4 are against the principles of natural justice and when the complainant purchased the vehicle from their dealer or their authorized branch, he can be called as consumer to opposite parties No.1 to 4.
Opposite parties No.1 to 4 failed to give proper service to the vehicle purchased by the complainant, even failed to arrange available the spare parts, workshop and technicians to give minimum service. As per the contention of opposite party No.4, in the complaint, the complainant nowhere alleged about the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The expression “defect” has been defined in clause (f) of Section 2(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it means any fault, impression or shortcoming in the quality, potency, purity or standard, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. A defect in the goods may be a inherent manufacturing defect or not. A sale or supply of defective goods gives a right to the consumer to seek appropriate redressal. It is a misconceived notion that unless manufacturing defect is pointed out, the goods cannot be declared as defective goods, if having defect which causes inconvenience and discomfort and requires the purchaser to visit manufacturer and/or dealer time and again, have to be declared defective. In such cases mere allegations of defect is sufficient and onus to prove contrary lies on manufacturer. The same was observed in the case of Endolite India Ltd., Vs. Reena Aggarwal, I (2009) CPJ 564 and Nexus Computer Private Ltd., Vs. K.Thenmozhi IV (2009) CPJ 295(NC). In both the aforesaid authorities, the Supreme Court authority pronounced in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh II (2004) CPJ 12 SC has been relied on.
As far as facts of the present case are concerned, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 18-9-2006, thereafter it was taken to the opposite parties service center at Warangal with the complaints that the vehicle giving troubles, not giving 3/4th of the promised mileage, at the opposite party No.1’s workshop, the complainant observed that opposite party No.1 cheated him by non maintaining the required spare parts, not having workshop at all, not having any authorized technicians, thereby even for small problems, the opposite party No.1 getting spare parts from Pune from opposite party No.4, thereby causing a lot of inconvenience to the complainant in non delivery of the vehicle for days together. On 18-12-2006 the complainant got serviced the vehicle at opposite party No.1. On 20-12-2006 the very next day, the vehicle was broke down at Bhadrachalam, the same was informed by the complainant to the opposite party No.1, accordingly on the advise of opposite party No.1, the complainant sent the vehicle for rectification of problems and also addressed a letter to the Sales Manager of opposite party No.1 mentioning the problems raised in the vehicle. The opposite party No.1 kept the vehicle with them for more than 25 days and on 2-2-2007 the Sales Manager of opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant to collect the vehicle from their workshop. In regard to the problems regularly raised in the vehicle during the warranty and at the time of service, the complainant addressed a letter as in Ex.A.16 and also submitted that he cannot operate the vehicle without availability of spare parts, company authorized service mechanics, authorized service center and take the vehicle return and refund the amount. The complainant served legal notice on the opposite parties, but they did not turn up.
It is an admitted fact that from the date of purchase of the vehicle the complainant facing troubles with the break down of the vehicle. Opposite party No.1 without maintaining spare parts, workshop and technicians, used to call technicians from outside and private mechanic sheds to repair the vehicle. The complainant has thus proved that the vehicle was defective from the beginning during the warranty period. The onus (burden) therefore, shifts on the opponents to prove that they had repaired the vehicle completely and made it road worthy and opposite parties had not discharged their onus. Moreover the opposite party No.1 in para 8 of the counter admitted that they acted as dealer on commission basis, now the dealership also cancelled. As such they are not acting as dealer for opposite party No.4 herein. Hence, allegations have to be believed that the vehicle in question was atleast defective even if an inherent manufacturing defect is not established for want of expert opinion to that effect. In that case also it would be unfair trade practice on the part of opponents to supply the defective goods to the consumer.
In Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Vs. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd., reported in I (2008) CPJ 19 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has observed that if a brand new vehicle gives trouble within few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. Further in such cases the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power. Further a person purchased the vehicle would not be satisfied if it is defective vehicle, that the defect may not be major one, but the consumer loses satisfaction of having a new vehicle. That lost of satisfaction would be much more in a case when person buys the vehicle with his hard earned money.
In this case the complainant has proved that he had taken the vehicle to the opposite party No.1’s workshop with all the complaints shown in his job cards and letter, dt.5-1-2007, Ex.A.16 and also made allegation about non-availability of spare parts, non establishment of workshop with tools and trained technicians. If the vehicle was defective, the opposite parties were bound to repair the same to the satisfaction of the complainant, who has raised the complaints during the warranty. The opposite parties failed to prove their case as there was no defect in the vehicle or defect if any has been repaired. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:-
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,60,000/- to the opposite party No.5 (collected from the complainant and opposite party No.5) with interest at 9% P.A. from 4-2-2007 till the date of realization. And also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. Opposite party No.5 is directed to pay the down payment amount, Rs.85,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. which was paid by him at the time of purchase and also directed the opposite party No.5 to discharge the complainant and his guarantor from their liability. There is no relief against opposite party No.6.
Dictated to the Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 22nd day of October, 2010.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant:
-None-
Witnesses examined for opposite parties No.1 to 5:
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Notice to the complainant and the guarantor issued by Shriram
investments Ltd., dt.5-9-2007.
Ex.A.2 - office copy of legal notice, dt.21-09-2007
Ex.A.3 - Acknowledgment, dt.26-09-2007.
Ex.A.4 - Delivery report, dt.18-9-2006.
Ex.A.5 - Invoice No.35, dt.18-9-2006
Ex.A.6 - Form No.21, Sale certificate, dt.18-9-2006
Ex.A.7 - Receipt for Rs.3,60,000/-, dt.29-9-2006
Ex.A.8 - Receipt for Rs.2,500/-, dt.30-9-2006
Ex.A.9 - Form NO.21, sale certificate, dt.30-9-2006
Ex.A.10 - Invoice No.35, dt.30-9-2006
Ex.A.11 - Form No.22
Ex.A.12 - Certificate of inspection of motor vehicle, dt.15-11-2006.
Ex.A.13 - Advertisement broacher for the vehicle Premier Road star
vehicle.
Ex.A.14 - Job sheet issued by Surekha auto, dt.25-12-2006
Ex.A.15 - Letter, dt.2-1-2007 addressed by the Sales Manager of
opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A.16 - Letter, dt.5-1-2007 addressed by the complainant to the sales
manager of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A.17 - Letter, dt.2-2-2007 addressed by Sales Manager of opposite
party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A.18 - Letter, dt.19-2-2007 addressed by the complainant to the sales
manager of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A.19 - office copy of legal notice, dt.22-3-2007
Ex.A.20 - Acknowledgments (Nos.2),
Ex.A.21 - closed cover along with acknowledgment.
Ex.A.22 - Certificate cum policy schedule, dt.14-11-2006.
Ex.A.23 - Certificate cum policy schedule, dt.23-11-2006.
Exhibits marked for opposite party Nos.1 to 3
Ex.B.1 - Warranty policy of opposite party No.4
Ex.B.2 - Photocopy of Job sheet, dt.18-12-2006.
Exhibits marked for opposite party No.4 & 5:
-Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
