KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
C.C. No. 88/2013
JUDGMENT DATED: 30.03.2021
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
K. Muraleedhara Kurup, Managing Partner, M/s SarDe, T.C 24/10, Panavila Junction, Thycaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-14.
(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)
OPPOSITE PARTIES:
- The President and Country Head, BMW India, DLF Cyber City, Phase II, Building No. 8, Tower B, 7th Floor, Guraon-122 002.
(By Adv. Thomas P. Kuruvila)
- M/s Platino Classic Motors India Pvt. Ltd., NH 47 Byepass, Maradu P.O., Kochi-682 304.
(By Adv. Narayan R.)
- SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, TAARRA Towers, T.C. 9/2596(6), Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.
(By Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)
JUDGMENT
SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Complaint filed under Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows:
On 25.08.2011 the complainant purchased a brand new BMW car for Rs. 24,42,711/- from the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the car and the 2nd opposite party is the dealer and authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party. The vehicle was insured with the 3rd opposite party. Total cost spent by the complainant for running the vehicle in the road was Rs. 27,59,370/-. The complainant had availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the State Bank of Travancore, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram and he had been paying the monthly instalments of the vehicle loan without any default. On 26.06.2013 while the complainant was travelling in the vehicle from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram, when he reached near Palluruthy Bridge, Alappuzha the vehicle suddenly came to a halt. The complainant noticed that the vehicle had stopped due to the entry of water into the silencer and the sensors fitted inside the silencer might have brought the vehicle to a sudden stop. The complainant who is an engineer by profession knew that no attempt should be made to restart the engine as it may cause damage to some of the engine parts. The complainant immediately made a call to the registered assistance number of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party who attended the vehicle transferred the vehicle to their service centre within two hours of the breakdown. The complainant had informed the matter to the 3rd opposite party also. The 2nd opposite party to whom the repair works were assigned did not prepare the estimate for more than one month and thereafter on 23.07.2013 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 4,59,563/- was the estimate for the work. Thereafter on 28.07.2013 the complainant was informed that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- had to be deposited as his share of repair cost. On the next day itself, on 29.07.2013 the complainant transferred the said amount through his account to the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter the vehicle was left in the open yard of the 2nd opposite party for more than 5 months without any work being done. By the said time, by exposure to the elements the vehicle had sustained grievous damages including rust on the body and moving parts, damage to the internal upholstery and controls and damages to the lines and hoses left open at the time of removing the engine from the vehicle. When there was delay on the part of the 2nd opposite party in making the repairs the complainant informed the matter to the 1st opposite party, but they have not taken any steps apart from sending a reply with an apology. The complainant realized the fact that the manufacturer and dealer did not take care of their customers, for aftersale service of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party has neither cared to attend the repairs promptly nor even cared to keep safe the vehicle purchased from them and brought for service. There is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. The complainant had purchased the vehicle after taking loan from the bank and he has been regularly repaying the loan amount. The complainant had to hire other vehicle for his immediate needs. The complainant has spent more than Rs. 2,82,600/- in that account till 31.10.2013. Because of the negligent act of the 2nd opposite party the vehicle was totally damaged and it is beyond repair. Even if major repairs are carried out to the above vehicle the damages caused to the vehicle, due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in keeping the vehicle in an open yard for a period of 5 months cannot be rectified. Thus, the complainant has sustained irreparable injury and great loss to the vehicle. There is defect and default in the performance of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and their action will amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. So the prayer of the complainant is to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to issue a brand new BMW car or to return an amount of Rs. 27,59,370/- being the price of the car and other expenses met by the complainant for running the vehicle in the road, to pay an amount of Rs. 5,05,292/- towards interest and bank charges paid by the complainant for obtaining the vehicle loan, to pay Rs. 2,82,600/- the amount spent by the complainant for hiring private car, to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- paid by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party for repairing the vehicle and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. The 1st opposite party filed version raising the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle was purchased for the partnership firm SarDe Systems for commercial purpose and hence the complaint is not maintainable. There is no manufacturing or inherent defect to the vehicle. The complainant had used the vehicle for nearly two years without any difficulty/complaint. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. The sale contract was between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is not an agent to the 1st opposite party. The relation between the opposite parties 1 & 2 is principal to principal basis. So no vicarious liability can be fastened on the 1st opposite party. The owner’s manual specifically directs the vehicle owners not to drive in more than 30 cms of deep water and as such there is violation of warranty condition. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party and complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the 1st opposite party.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle was brought to the 2nd opposite party with problem of hydrostatic lock and as such required extensive work before the damages could be assessed. There was delay in making payment by the complainant. The oil pump which was an essential part to be repaired was out of stock and took some time to be received. Due to the delay the vehicle had to be moved to the parking lot, outside the workshop premises. The vehicle was thereafter repaired and kept ready, but the complainant refused to accept it back and refused to pay the remainder of the repair charges. The vehicle is presently maintained in the basement of the workshop of the 2nd opposite party and is ready in all aspects. It is for the complainant to pay the balance repair charges and also the parking charges. There is no justification on the part of the complainant in not taking delivery of the vehicle with effect from 14.02.2014, the date from which the vehicle was kept ready and roadworthy by effecting complete repair and replacement of the defective parts. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the 2nd opposite party.
5. The 3rd opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the 3rd opposite party had issued an insurance policy with respect to the vehicle and it was valid from 25.08.2012 to 24.08.2013. The liability if any of the 3rd opposite party is restricted to the terms, conditions and limitations of the insurance policy. It is true that the insured has reported a claim and on getting the intimation an independent surveyor was engaged to inspect, evaluate and assess the reported loss sustained by the vehicle. The surveyor conducted inspection of the vehicle. The claim assessed by the independent surveyor as per the terms and conditions of the policy is pending for want of bills from the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is ready to settle the claim on receipt of bills and duly signed discharge voucher as per the assessment of the independent surveyor. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. So the complaint is to be dismissed as against the 3rd opposite party.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
7. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the complainant. The reports submitted by the commissioner were marked as Exts. C1 & C2. DWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B13 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. A mistake occurred regarding the numbering of the documents marked on the side of the opposite parties. Exts. B1 to B10 were marked through the witness. After that the 2nd opposite party had produced a document with the prayer to mark the same and the said document was marked on consent, as Ext. B11. Thereafter the 1st opposite party produced two documents with the prayer to mark those documents. Those documents were marked as Exts. B11 & B12, on consent, instead of Exts.B12 & B13, by mistake. The said mistake is corrected and the documents were numbered as Exts. B12 & B13.
8. Point (i):- It is contended by the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable and K. Muraleedhara Kurup who filed the complaint has no right/locus standi to file the complaint since the vehicle was not purchased by him and it was purchased in the name of the partnership firm M/s SarDe. The opposite parties relied on Ext. B1 copy of the Registration Certificate and Ext. B2 copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle which shows that the vehicle was registered and insurance policy of the vehicle was taken in the name of M/s SarDe. They also relied on Ext. A3 the copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite parties in which it is stated that the car is owned by the firm. It is admitted by the complainant that the car was purchased in the name of the firm ‘SarDe’. In paragraphs 1 & 2 of the complaint it is stated that the complainant after retirement from Govt. Service as Deputy Chief Engineer is running a firm ‘SarDe’ and he is the Managing Partner of the firm. The car was purchased by the complainant for his personal use. The address of the complainant is stated as Managing Partner M/s SarDe, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. So the complainant has filed the complaint in the capacity as Managing Partner of the firm M/s. SarDe and not in his individual capacity. The opposite parties have no case that the complainant is not the Managing Partner of the firm. So the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has no right/locus standi to file the complaint with respect to the vehicle is not sustainable.
9. It is also contended by the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They contended that the vehicle was purchased in the name of ‘SarDe’, Partnership concern for commercial purpose and earning profits. There is no dispute to the fact that the vehicle was purchased in the name of the ‘SarDe’ Partnership Firm. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant is the Managing Partner of the firm. In the complaint it is also specifically stated that the complainant has purchased the car for his personal use. PW1 deposed that the car was purchased for his personal use and at the time of the alleged incident he was driving the car. DW1 deposed that he was not aware whether the car was being used for the personal purposes of the complainant or for the purpose of his business. He further stated that he did not know the nature of the business conducted by the complainant. So there is no evidence to conclude that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose. Because of the sole reason that the vehicle was purchased in the name of the partnership firm, it cannot be concluded that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. The Hon’ble Apex Court and the National Commission have repeatedly held in a number of decisions that the question whether a transaction is for commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be adopted. Both sides relied on the decision of the National Commission in “Crompton Greaves Limited and Ors. Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Private Ltd. & Ors.” reported in 2016(4) CPJ 469 (NC). In that decision the issue referred to the larger bench of the National Commission for decision was “Whether the purchase of a car or any other goods by a company for the use/personal use of its Director amounts to purchase for a commercial purpose, within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act or not”. The said issue was referred to the larger bench of the National Commission since there was apparent conflict in the decisions rendered by the benches of National Commission comprising two members on the issue. In that decision it was held that a vehicle purchased by the company for the use of its Directors or employees does not amount to purchase of goods for commercial purpose. It was held that even if the vehicle was used by the Directors or employees of the company for the purpose of the company that would not lead to the conclusion that the purchase of the car was for a commercial purpose. It was also held that the purchase of a car or any other goods or hiring or availing of service by a company for the purpose the company amounts to purchase for a commercial purpose even if such car or other goods or other services are incidentally used by the Directors or employees of the company for their personal purposes.
10. In “Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. Unique Shanti Developers” [2020(2) SCC 265], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the broad principles to be applied for determining whether an activity or transaction is for a commercial purpose. It was held that the purchase of goods or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit generating activity. The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary. If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the goods or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question whether such purchase was for generating livelihood by means of self-employment need not be looked into.
11. In the light of the dicta laid down in the above mentioned decisions and considering the evidence it can be seen that the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complaint is not maintainable is without merit and it has to be found that the complaint is maintainable. For the above reasons, we find that the complaint is maintainable. The point found accordingly.
12. Point (ii):- Complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 and reliefs were sought against them. Even though the insurer of the vehicle is also made/arrayed as the 3rd opposite party in the complaint, there is no specific allegation of any deficiency of service on their part and no relief is sought against them. On 25.08.2011 the complainant purchased the car from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1stopposite party. According to the complainant on 26.06.2013 while he was travelling in the said car it suddenly came to a halt when it reached Palluruthi bridge at Alappuzha. The complainant noticed that the vehicle had stopped due to the entry of water into the silencer and the sensors fitted inside the silencer might have brought the vehicle to a sudden stop. The complainant was aware of the fact that in such a situation no attempt should made to restart the engine as it may cause damage to some of the engine parts. Immediately from that spot itself the complainant made a call to the registered assistance number of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party who attended the call lifted the car to the service centre maintained by them within hours of the breakdown. There is no dispute to these facts. The allegation of the complainant is that though he entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for repairs on 26.06.2013 no repairs were conducted till the filing of the complaint. It was also contended by the complainant that the vehicle was left by the 2nd opposite party in the open yard for several months, exposed to elements which caused irreparable damages to the vehicle.
13. The allegation of the complainant is that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle. The complainant has no case that there was any manufacturing or inherent defects to the vehicle. The complainant had used the car nearly for two years without any complaint. The only allegation levelled against the 1st opposite party by the complainant is that when there was delay on the part of the 2nd opposite party in carrying out repairs of the vehicle he had intimated the matter to the 1st opposite party but they did not take any action except sending a letter with apology for the delay. It is contended by the 1st opposite party that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant and the sale contract was between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. It is stated by the 1st opposite party that the 2nd opposite party is not an agent of the 1st opposite party and the relation between them is principal to principal basis and no vicarious liability can be fastened on them for the act of the 2nd opposite party. In support of their contention, the 1st opposite party has produced Ext. B4, the copy of the Dealer Agreement between them and the 1st opposite party. We find that there is no evidence to find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party so as to entitle the complainant to get any relief against the 1stopposite party. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the complainant fairly conceded that there is no evidence to find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party so as to entitle the complainant to get any relief against them.
14. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant entrusted the car with the 2nd opposite party for repairs on 26.06.2013. The allegation of the complainant is that no work was done to the vehicle for several months and the vehicle was kept in the open yard without protection, exposed to the elements which caused irreparable damage to the vehicle. With these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint on 29.11.2013. On the basis of the application filed by the complainant an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the vehicle with the assistance of an Expert Commissioner and to file report. The Commissioner and the Expert Commissioner inspected the car on 06.12.2013 and filed report which is marked as Ext. C1. The expert commissioner was examined as PW2 and the Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW3. Ext. C1 report shows that the vehicle was kept in the open yard without any protection and no work had been done thereon. The commissioner has also extensively reported the damage caused to the vehicle by the improper and casual retention of the vehicle in the open yard. It is reported by the commissioner that the engine parts of the vehicle were taken out and those were placed inside the workshop, clubbed with engine parts of other vehicles and the engine parts of the car were not separately kept and preserved. It is reported by the commissioner that shrubs/bushes were found to have grown through the open portion of the wheel cups of the car. Ext. C1 report shows that on 06.12.2013, after more than 5 months of the entrustment of the car by the complainant, the 2nd opposite party had not effected any repairs to the car and the car was kept in a careless manner in the open yard without any protection and extensive damages were caused to the vehicle. So it has come out in evidence that there was delay on the part of the 2nd opposite party in carrying out the repair works to the car. Exts. A10 and A11 shows that even though the vehicle was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party on 26.06.2013, the estimate of the repairs was prepared only on 23.07.2013. Though the 2nd opposite party contended that there was delay in making payment on the side of the complainant the evidence would show that the complainant has transferred an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 29.07.2013 to the 2nd opposite party, without delay. It is the case of the 2nd opposite party that the delay in effecting repairs to the car was caused due to the non-availability of the spare parts, but they failed to prove the same with cogent evidence. Further, no reasonable explanation was given by the 2nd opposite party for keeping the vehicle in an open yard without cover for several months in a careless manner which caused considerable damage to the vehicle. DW2 admitted that the 2nd opposite party has a basement storage area where vehicles could be kept without being exposed to elements. But since there was delay and there were several other vehicles they were constrained to take the vehicle outside the workshop premises in its parking lot. If that be so, the 2nd opposite party ought to have informed the complainant about the situation and suggested the way for keeping the vehicle in a safe place without being exposed to elements and could have avoided causing damages to the vehicle. DW1 and DW2 admitted that there were procedures in the place regarding the maintenance and storage of vehicles. Even though they undertook to produce the documents showing the procedures prescribed no document has been produced before the Commission. The non-production of the said documents would raise a presumption that the 2ndoppositeparty had not stored/maintained the vehicle as per the procedure prescribed and it is to conceal the same the said document had not been produced. DW1 deposed that if the vehicle is lying in an open yard for a prolonged period, maintenance should be done as per the company standards. But he was not aware whether such periodic maintenance was done to the vehicle during that period. It is to be noted that the 2nd opposite party has no case that periodic maintenance of the vehicle was done during the period when the vehicle was in their custody. The fact that the 2nd opposite party had opportunity to store/maintain the vehicle properly and yet chose not to do so would show that there is deficiency of service on their part and they are responsible and liable for the damages caused to the vehicle due to such improper storage of the vehicle. The act of the 2nd opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. For the above reasons, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The point found accordingly.
15. Point (iii):- It is the case of the 2nd opposite party that the repairs of the vehicle were carried out and it was made roadworthy by 14.02.2014 and they informed the complainant by Ext. B10 e-mail to take delivery of the vehicle. But the complainant has not taken the vehicle. On the basis of the application filed by the 2nd opposite party the same commissioner and the expert commissioner who filed Ext. C1 report were appointed to inspect the vehicle and to report the condition of the vehicle. The commissioner and the expert commissioner inspected the vehicle on 27.07.2014 and filed the report which is marked as Ext. C2. In Ext. C2 it is reported by the expert commissioner that the vehicle was kept in the basement floor of the workshop of the 2nd opposite party. The commissioner and the expert commissioner noted that the engine of the vehicle was refitted and the battery was replaced. Regarding the roadworthiness it is reported by the expert commissioner that situation can cause malfunctioning of the electrical system and sensors which may bring sudden stoppage of the vehicle while running. The cause is mainly due to the electrical joints which might have been affected due to oxidation as the vehicle was kept in the open air for a pretty long period and also without electric charge flow. Time frame cannot be predicted when that will happen and whether the system will fail one by one or altogether. It is also reported by the expert commissioner that it is not safe to use the vehicle as all the four tubeless tyres either one at a time or altogether may burst while running. It is reported by the expert commissioner that the inner bottom layer of the vehicle was fully soaked with water. A layer of water is seen stagnated inside the boot space and below the vehicle floor. Both sides have filed objections to the Ext. C2 report. But nothing was brought out in cross examination of PW2 & PW3 so as to discard the report filed by them. PW2 deposed that he reported that the vehicle may suddenly stop since there was possibility of malfunctioning the electrical system and sensors. PW2 admitted that when he conducted test drive of the vehicle it did not stop due to the malfunctioning of the electrical system. From Ext. C2 report it can be seen that even though the 2nd opposite party had effected some repairs to the vehicle it was not made in a roadworthy condition and for that purpose some more repair works are to be done. The vehicle is still with the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is bound to effect the necessary repairs, replace necessary parts so as to make the vehicle in a roadworthy condition. In these circumstances we consider that the 2nd opposite party is to be directed to effect/carry out necessary repairs and to replace necessary parts so as to make the car of the complainant in a roadworthy condition and hand over the vehicle to the complainant within two months from this date and if they fail to do so, they are to be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 27,59,370/- to the complainant, the price of the car and other expenses met by the complainant for running the vehicle in the road. The prayer of the complainant to give direction to the opposite parties to issue a brand new BMW Car cannot be allowed since there was no manufacturing or inherent defect to the vehicle and he had used the vehicle for about two years without any complaint. Further the 2nd opposite party had effected/carried out repair works to the car, even though some more works are to be done to make the vehicle in a roadworthy condition. Similarly, the prayer of the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 5,05,292/- towards interest and bank charges paid by the complainant to the vehicle loan cannot be allowed since the repayment of the loan amount has nothing to do with the fact that the vehicle was kept in the workshop of the 2nd opposite party for repairs and complainant had no case that the vehicle was used for earning profits by giving for hire. The complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the 2nd opposite party for doing the repair works. The acts of the 2nd opposite party caused much difficulty and hardship to the complainant. Since the vehicle was not available the complainant had to hire other vehicles for his immediate needs. Ext. A5 series documents shows that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 2,82,600/- in that account till 31.10.2013. The acts of the 2nd opposite party caused mental agony and pain to the complainant. Considering all these facts we find it just and reasonable to direct the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as costs from the 2nd opposite party. The point found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.
- The 2nd opposite party is directed to effect/carry out necessary works/repairs and replace necessary parts so as to make the car of the complainant in a roadworthy condition and handover the same to the complainant within two months from this date. If they fail to do so, they are directed to pay Rs. 27,59,370/- to the complainant, the amount spent by the complainant for running the vehicle in the road.
- The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Otherwise the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from that date till realization.
- The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as costs of the proceedings.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
jb
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS
PW1 - K. Muraleedhara Kurup
PW2 -Vinod
PW3 - Adv. C.S. Rajmohan (Advocate Commissioner)
COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS
A1 - Cash receipt dated 25.08.2011 issued by 2nd O.P for Rs.20,00,000
A2 - Performa invoice dated 07.07.2011 issued by 2nd opposite party
A3 - Email dated 05.09.2013 issued to 1st opposite party by the complainant
A4 - Reply email dated 11.09.2013 issued by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant
A5 - Receipts (18 in number) totalling Rs.2,82,600/-regarding rental of car by
the complainant
A6 - Photographs (4 Nos.) showing the condition of the vehicle in the open
yard
A7 - E-mail dated 30.09.2013 issued by Service Manager of 2nd O.P to
complainant
A8 - Bank statement from SBT
A9 - E-mail dated 17.07.2013 sent by insurance surveyor to 2nd OP
A10 - E-mail dated 17.07.2013 sent by complainant to insurance surveyor
A11 - E-mail dated 23.07.2013 from the 2nd O.P regarding repair estimate
A12 - E-mail dated 11.11.2013 issued by insurance surveyor to the
complainant.
A13 - Advocate notice dated 21.10.2013 issued to OPs 1 to 3
A14 - Postal receipts and acknowledgment cards
A15 - Invoice dated 14.02.2014 issued by 2nd O.P to complainant
OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESSES
DW1 : Jerin Konnikara
DW2 : C.P.K. Muhammed
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EXHIBITS
B1 -Registration Certificate
B2 -Policy Schedule issued by SBI General Insurance Co.
B3 - Tax invoice dated 26.08.2011 issued by 2nd O.P to
complainant for Rs. 24,48,133/-
B4 - Dealership Agreement between 1st & 2nd O.P
B5 - Copy of warranty issued to BMW owners
B6 - Relevant page of owner’s hand book
B7 - E-mail dated 11.09.2013 sent by 1st O.P to complainant
B8 - Reply email sent by 1st O.P to the advocate notice
B9 - Copy of Power of Attorney in favour of DW2
B10 - E-mail dated 11.04.2014 issued by 2nd O.P to complainant
B11 - Copy of invoice dated 14.11.2013 issued by 1st O.P to 2nd O.P
B12 - Copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of
the 1st O.P in the meeting held on 31.01.2017
B13 - Letter of authority given to DW1 by the General Manager
of the 1st O.P dated 27.07.2018
COURT EXHIBITS
C1 - Commission Report
C2 - Commission Report
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
