1. First Appeal No. 153 of 2019 is filed by Trans Car India Private Limited, and cross First Appeal No. 394 of 2022 is filed by Mr. S Paramaguru, the Complainant. These appeals challenge the Order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Puducherry (“State Commission‟), dated 27.04.2018 in Complaint No. 8/2024 which partly allowed the complaint.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in both Appeals are similar, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, FA No.153 of 2019 is being considered as lead case, and the facts outlined below are derived from CC No. 8/2024.

3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the State Commission.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he wanted to purchase a Mercedes Benz car and approached OP-2 for the same in September 2012. On 01.11.2012, he accepted the ex- showroom price of Rs.36,05,153, and the vehicle he wanted was delivered to him the next day through OP-3. Soon after the purchase, on 04.12.2012, the Complainant approached OP-2 for servicing and he was informed about an alloy wheel defect, for which replacement was promised, but deferred due to lack of stock. On 14.03.2013, only one wheel was replaced despite defect in two wheels. He was again assured that the remaining wheel would be replaced later. Similar problems recurred on 21.06.2013 and 22.06.2013, and OP-2 replaced the defective alloy wheel with a stepney and assured proper replacement in due course. Subsequently, additional issues arose relating to the anti-lock braking system (ABS), cruise control, and wiring harness. The Complainant handed over the vehicle to OP-2 on 17.10.2013. However, the same was returned on 21.11.2013 without complete repair, and the problems persisted. On 02.12.2013, he discovered that the car supplied had an engine and windshield of the 2011 model, though records reflected 2012 as the manufacturing year. Despite repeated requests, OP-2 failed to clarify the discrepancy. Further, the first registration of the vehicle was dated 30.04.2012, even though the Complainant had approached OP-2 only in September 2012, making it clear that an old used vehicle was sold to him and misrepresented as new. Further defects continued, including battery and wiring harness issues, with repeated but ineffective repairs between December 2013 and June 2014. Feeling cheated by the sale of a used and defective car, the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking appropriate relief.

5. On being issued notice, OP-1 filed the written version contending that the vehicle was purchased from OP-2, an independent authorised dealer operating on a principal-to-principal basis. There is no merit in the Complainant’s allegations and contended that the complaint deserved to be dismissed. It was further contended that he was not a "consumer" under the Act, 1986, as he purchased the car for business purposes. The allegations of misrepresentation and blank signatures were completely false. The vehicle was sold on 01.11.2012 and registered thereafter, and the manufacturing date was 22.03.2012. The "2011" prefix in the commission number was an internal transaction code, and not the manufacture year. OP-1 further contended that if the Complainant had any doubt, he should have raised it when the first service invoice was issued on 04.12.2012 instead of waiting until 02.12.2013. The warranty remedies were limited to repair/replacement of defective parts of the vehicle and not replacement of vehicle itself, and this warranty was also extended by one year as a gesture of goodwill. All concerns, including the alloy wheels, was duly attended by OP-2 and thus, there was no deficiency in service. OP-1 contended that the vehicle was manufactured as per ISO/TS 16949:2009 standards and duly approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). Since, no evidence had been produced to establish any defect or unfair practice attributable to OP-1, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6. OP-2 in its written version contended that the entire allegations of the complainant are figment of Complainant's imaginations and are completely false. It was contended that every grievance reported by the Complainant had been duly attended to within the warranty period, and no instance of negligence, misrepresentation or unfair practice could be attributed to OP-2. The allegation relating to the date of manufacture or that a used vehicle had been sold was denied in entirety, as the vehicle had neither been previously sold nor registered in anyone’s name, nor used by OP-2 at any stage. OP-2 further denied all the assertions contained in the complaint, including the claim of any unjust enrichment from the Complainant’s money. Thus, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7. After hearing all the parties and appreciating facts of the case, the State Commission on 27.04.2018 passed the following Order:

                          "12. Thus, the complaint is disposed of in the following manner:-

                          a) The second opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and mental agony faced by the complainant;

                          b) a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded which is payable by the second opposite party to the complainant toward cost of this complaint;

                          c) The complainant is not entitled to seek for recall of the defective vehicle and for payment of Rs.36,05,153/- with interest from the opposite parties."

8. Aggrieved by the State Commission order, OPs 2 & 3 filed FA No. 153 of 2019 before this Commission with the following prayer:

                          "For the reasons stated above, this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to set aside the order dated 27.04.2018 passed in C.C. No.8/2014 by the Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry and pass such further or other orders as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case."

9. On the other hand, the Complainant filed cross- First Appeal No. 394 of 2022 with the following prayer:

                          "Since from 04-12-2012 I lost my focus on business and my focus shifted towards the O.P2 for first 10 months that is from 04-12-2012 to 25-12-2013 and then towards both of O.P2 and O.P1 and later on mainly to O.P1. Since it was planned, deliberate and dishonest and well executed agenda of White- Collar Crime I request the National Commission to pass an order to compensate.

                          1. For ill-treating him like a colonial slave by an imperial country as they have not answered for the complaint reference No. given by Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd 1- 541825429, 736799118 to compensate that 2.0 Cr from O.P1

                          2. Rs 3,00,42,900 that is 3 Crore 42 Thousand and 9 Hundred only for mental agony caused by O.P2

                          3. Rs 6,00,85,800 for mental agony caused by O.P1,

                          4. Rs.3,33,47,619 for Unfair Trade Practice by O.P2, though integrity cannot not be compensated by any means.

                          5. Rs.3,33,47,619 for deficiency in service caused by OP-1&2

                          6. Income loss by for past 112 months was 11,20,00,000."

                          10. In FA No.153 of 2019, OP-2 & 3 mainly raised the following grounds:

                          A. The State Commission erred in treating the Complainant as a "consumer." He, by own admission, was a business person who purchased the vehicle for business promotion and not for self- employment. The Commission failed to apply the settled law laid down in Lakshmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, Duggirala Prasad Babu v. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (RP No. 428/2013), and RP No. 709/2016, held such purchases fell outside the definition of consumer.

                          B. The State Commission failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence and relied solely on his allegations without considering the defence of OPs 2 & 3 that all defects were duly rectified.

                          C. The finding of deficiency in service and award of Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation were unjustified, as the vehicle was delivered after due inspection and was serviced regularly. OPs 2 & 3 being authorized dealers, were responsible only for providing service. There was no negligence or lapse on their part. The alleged defects were, attributable to improper upkeep and use by him. D. The Commission overlooked that the vehicle, purchased in 2012, had been used by the Complainant for nearly six years, showing that the vehicle was functional and that OPs 2 & 3 had duly attended to all service issues.

11. In FA No. 394 of 2022, the Complainant mainly raised the following grounds:

                          A. The State Commission failed to consider that OP-1 made false and misleading statements regarding the Commission Number, Date of Manufacture and Warranty Commencement Date. The material on record indicated that the vehicle was assembled and released on or before 13.03.2012, contrary to OP-1’s assertion of manufacture on 22.03.2012.

                          B. The State Commission failed to note that an independent authorised dealer, M/s Sundaram Motors, Coimbatore, confirmed by email dated 03.06.2014 that the vehicle’s warranty expired on 29.04.2015. It implied that the commencement of warranty was on 30.04.2012 and not 02.11.2012 as OP-1 claimed.

                          C. The State Commission failed to note that OP-1 and 2 jointly indulged in misrepresentation and unfair trade practice by selling a used/demo vehicle as new one. The “Date of First Registration‟ as 30.04.2012, which was fundamentally at variance with the Order Confirmation, Invoice and Delivery Note dated 01.11.2012, thereby establishing deception at the inception of the transaction.

                          D. The State Commission failed to appreciate that on his questioning the discrepancy, OP-1 and OP-2 tampered with the vehicle’s master data to alter the registration date to 01.11.2012. It further failed to examine the allegation that OP-2 relied upon forged and fabricated documents, including a purported invoice dated 17.09.2013, which conflicted with the genuine Delivery Acknowledgement Note showing 67 km on the odometer, and that OP-2 took inconsistent and shifting stands in its replies.

12. The learned Counsel for OP-1 reiterated the contentions made in the written statement and argued that the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant from OP-2, an independent authorised dealer acting on a principal-to-principal basis. He asserted that the Complainant was not a "consumer" under the Act, 1986, as the vehicle was bought for business use, and that the Complainant’s allegations of blank signatures and misrepresentation were unfounded. He asserted that the vehicle in question sold on 01.11.2012, was manufactured on 22.03.2012, and that the "2011" prefix in the commission number denoted only an internal code. The learned counsel asserted that any doubt regarding the manufacturing year should have been raised when the first service invoice was issued on 04.12.2012, rather than belatedly after a year on 02.12.2013. The warranty obligations were limited to repair or replacement of defective parts, not vehicle replacement itself, and that the warranty had already been extended by one year as a goodwill gesture. All issues, including the alloy wheel concern, had been duly attended to by OP-2, negating deficiency in service. As the vehicle conformed to ISO/TS 16949:2009 standards and was ARAI-approved, and no evidence had been produced to establish any defect or unfair practice by OP-1, thus, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13. The learned counsel for OPs 2 & 3 argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant was not a “consumer‟ under the Act. It was contended that, admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the vehicle to promote his business and, therefore, the transaction was for a commercial purpose. He contended that the State Commission failed to examine this jurisdictional issue despite the complaint itself describing the Complainant as an "emerging business person" and linking the purchase to business reputation, and despite the settled requirement that a buyer of goods for commercial use must prove self- employment for livelihood. He contended that the Complainant never pleaded such self-employment and, on the contrary, projected high business income and admitted in FA.394/2022 that the premium vehicle was intended to enhance his business stature, thus confirming the commercial nature of the transaction. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, MANU/SC/0271/1995; Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, 2002 5 SCC 42; and Kamal Kumar Jain v. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd., CDJ 2016 (Cons.) Case No.711`. On merits, it was argued that the alleged defects stood rectified by OPs 2 & 3, as admitted by the Complainant in cross- examination. The grievance with respect to registration and the allegation of a used vehicle are completely unfounded since delivery records showed the car had run only 67 KM for testing. The vehicle was an automatic model with an optional paddle shift, and even the Motor Vehicle Inspector, relied upon by the Complainant, admitted that he was not an expert in vehicles manufactured by OP-1 and that there was no second registration. It was argued that OPs-2 & 3, as dealers, had fulfilled their limited obligations of providing proper service and attended to every complaint, and the alleged defects arose due to his own lack of upkeep. Despite this, the State Commission erroneously held deficiency in service. The continuous use of the vehicle since 2012, having run 15,316 km by June 2013 and reportedly around 55,000 km by 2017, demonstrated that all issues were duly rectified and belied the Complainant’s claim of persistent defects. It was submitted that the award of Rs.9,00,000 was unsustainable, as the Complainant had taken delivery after inspection on each service and had admitted that all defects were attended to. Reliance was placed on M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Niravbhai K. Purohit, CDJ 2017 (Cons.) Case No.427. Lastly, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed.

14. On the other hand, the Complainant appearing in person, reiterated the issues raised in the complaint and asserted that that OPs-1 & 2 jointly indulged in misrepresentation, unfair trade practice and tampering of vehicle data. Asserting that the "Date of First Registration" was consistently reflected as 30.04.2012 in Exhibits C-3 to C-11 but was later altered to 01.11.2012 after he questioned the mismatch between the Order Confirmation and the Invoice/Delivery Note dated 01.11.2012. He argued that the OPs cheated him and an used/demo vehicle was illegally passed off to him as if it was new. Since 26.09.2013 he had repeatedly alerted OP-1 through emails and toll-free calls about the six-month discrepancy. He alleged that OP-1 shielded OP-2 for nine months despite his specific emails dated 26.09.2013 and 02.12.2013 accusing them of cheating, and that repeated mechanical failures like ABS malfunction, cruise control issues, gear noise, dead battery, wiring harness failure and non- functional manual transmission, between October 2013 and March 2014. The Complainant asserted that, when he approached another authorised dealer, M/s Sundaram Motors, Coimbatore, between 26.05.2014 and 07.06.2014, it confirmed by email dated 03.06.2014 that his warranty expired on 29.04.2015 itself, meaning it commenced on 30.04.2012 and not on 02.11.2012 as claimed by OP-1 at the time of vehicle delivery. He asserted that immediately upon confronting OP- 2 with this information, both OP-1 and 2 tampered the master data in the system on or about 05.06.2014 to alter the registration date to 01.11.2012. This act of OPs, along with M/s Sundaram Motors refunding certain amounts on 10.06.2014, established cheating at the time of sale and again later tampering by OP-1. He also alleged that OP-2 had forwarded forged documents, including a fabricated invoice dated 17.09.2013 that conflicted with the genuine Acknowledgement Delivery Note showing 67 KM in the odometer, and pointed to OP-2’s inconsistent stands in its reply dated 05.02.2015 and subsequent written submissions after its termination by OP-1. He asserted that OP-1 made false statements concerning the Commission No., Date of Manufacture and Warranty Commencement Date, asserting that the vehicle was assembled and released on or before 13.03.2012, contrary to OP-1’s claim of 22.03.2012. He further cited multiple decisions involving Mercedes-Benz vehicles, to argue that similar unfair trade practices had consistently been recognised, asserting that his case fit into a continuing pattern, with OP-1 choosing to prolong litigation and mislead the fora rather than resolve the matter as it had done in other cases. He relied on Mr. Narayan Thakkar, vs M/S. Auto Hanger India Pvt.Ltd., SCDRC, CC/07/36-Mumbai; Techno Mukund Constructions Vs. Mercedes Benz India Limited & Anr., 2011 case; Tata Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz, CA NO. 574/ 2021 ARISING OUT SLP (C) NO. 10220 OF 2020; Ranjan Jain v. Mercedes-Benz India Private, CC/428/2016, SCDRC, Chandigarh; Pawan Gupta vs. Mercedes Benz, CC/20/13; Aashnaa Roy v. ITC Hotels, CC/1619/ 2018, NCDRC; M/s Bhagat Automotive India Pvt Ltd vs Ranjan Jain and Ors., FA/1493/2017, NCDRC; Shounak Layek vs Bhalotia Nissan and Others, SCDRC Jharkhand, CC/43/2017; Master MA Gadaffi vs Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd, NCDRC, OP/106/1999. He urged that punitive damages be imposed to deter such conduct by large corporations so that meaningful justice is rendered after the devastating impact the prolonged unfair trade practice and litigation had caused him.

15. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

16. Undisputedly the complainant approached OP-2 in September 2012 for purchase of a Mercedes Benz vehicle and ex-showroom price of Rs. 36,05,153 was accepted between the parties on 01.11.2012, and the delivery of the vehicle was made to the Complainant on 02.11.2012 through OP-3. It is also undisputed that the Complainant reported certain issues soon after purchase, including an alloy wheel defect on multiple occasions in June 2013. It is a matter of record that the Complainant continued to bring the vehicle to OP-2 for regular servicing, for repairs after the vehicle had met with an accident and other servicing requirements, and that the vehicle was returned to the Complainant after repairs. Both sides admit that the Complainant raised a dispute regarding the manufacturing year of the car, warranty commencement date and registration particulars during December 2013, and that several communications were exchanged thereafter. Each of the contentions of the Complainant were addressed by the OPs and certain clarifications were provided.

17. The main issues to be determined are whether the purchase of the vehicle in question was for a commercial purpose so as to bar the complaint from falling under the definition of “consumer‟ under the Act; and whether OPs-1, 2 & 3 have committed any deficiency in service or indulged in any unfair trade practices, including allegedly selling him an old used car as new, misrepresenting the car manufacturing year and registration?

18. As regards the contention of the OPs that the Complainant is not a "consumer" since the vehicle was purchased for business promotion, the learned State Commission, in its order held that the Complainant qualified as a "consumer" under the Act, 1986, observing that the allegations related to inherent defects and the sale of a used vehicle could not, by any stretch, exclude him from the purview of the Act. The principal objections raised by OPs are that he himself projected that he is an emerging businessman and that the purchase of a premium vehicle such as a Mercedes Benz was driven by his wish to enhance his business profile and portray a better lifestyle in society. This contention, in our considered view, does not take the case outside the ambit of "consumer." The desire to maintain a certain lifestyle or to possess a premium vehicle to create a personal impression in society is not equivalent to using the goods for a commercial purpose. Such motivations are personal and aspirational in nature and do not constitute commercial activity connected with profit generation. It is further noted that the Complainant is admittedly self-employed, and there is no material to show that the vehicle was deployed for any commercial purpose like rental activity or business inventory. Thus, the purchase cannot be said to be for commercial purpose, and thus the Complainant falls within the definition of "consumer." We therefore affirm the finding of the learned State Commission on this issue.

19. As regards deficiencies in service or unfair trade practices, OPs specifically denied any misrepresentation of the details of the vehicle, tampering of records, tampering of warranty clause, or sale of a used vehicle. The OPs asserted that the manufacturing particulars and registration details were accurate and that no inherent manufacturing defect or irregularity in details was proved. The Complainant, on the other hand, argued that the vehicle sold to him was a used/demo car passed off as new, the OPs manipulated the warranty commencement date and registration particulars after he raised objections. Repeated mechanical failures coupled with forged or inconsistent documents demonstrated a pattern of misrepresentation, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

20. On the issue of deficiency in service, the State Commission observed that the vehicle was purchased on 02.11.2012 and that the Complainant had admittedly continued to use it thereafter, while periodically approaching OP-2 with complaints. The State Commission noted that although the Complainant repeatedly alleged that a second- hand or used vehicle had been delivered to him, no evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. The State Commission further held that the reply of OP-1 convincingly explained that the belief of the Complainant of having received a used vehicle was based on misunderstanding, and that no material on record supported the allegation of prior sale or registration. However, while rejecting the allegation of sale of a used vehicle, the State Commission considered that the car had suffered numerous mechanical problems, which necessitated repeated visits to OP 2 for repairs. It observed that a consumer cannot reasonably be expected to face such frequent and varied issues, and that the persistent nature of the defects indicated that OP 2 had failed to provide proper and effective service.

21. With respect to the claim of refund of the cost of the vehicle on account of manufacturing defect, it is a settled law that scope for grant of refund for manufacture defect requires establishment of the same through expert examination by an accredited laboratory in terms of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act which embodies the statutory mechanism for obtaining expert evidence in consumer disputes relating to defects in goods. This Commission, in Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. v. Revathi Giri, FA No. 766 of 2021, decided on 11.10.2023, has reiterated that such expert opinion is indispensable in cases alleging manufacturing defect. In the instant case, vide order of the State Commission dated 17.12.2015, the vehicle in question was inspected, and on 26.02.2016 an inspection report was forwarded by S.D. Sundaresan, Transport Commissioner. Relevant part of the said report is reproduced below:

                          "As per the instructions of the Transport Commissioner, Puducherry, I have inspected the vehicle beating Registration No. PYOt-BT-1212 (LMV-Car), Mercedes Benz) on 17-02-2016 at 4,30 P.M, and identified the following defects -

                          (i) Left side puling/wheel alignment

                          (ii) Tyre noise

                          (iii) Manual transmission not working

                          (iv) Cruise control not working"

22. The above report nowhere mentions that there was any sort of manufacturing or inherent defect. The expert report or opinion is necessary for establishing manufacturing defect, and merely because a vehicle has been taken to a workshop a number of times for regular servicing, accident repairs and other repairs do not amount to a manufacturing defect. We, therefore, concur with the conclusion of the learned State Commission that the Complainant is not entitled to recall of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price on the grounds of manufacturing defect.

23. As regards the contention that the Complainant allegedly faced repeated mechanical issues, particularly relating to alloy wheels, ABS, cruise control, battery and wiring harness, the records demonstrate that each time the vehicle was brought to OP-2, requisite repairs were carried out and the vehicle was returned after rectification. The Complainant himself admitted that the repairs were attended to. Also, the extensive vehicle use, the car meeting with an accident and repairs paid by the insurer and the car having run for 15,316 km within the first year and about 55,000 KM by 2017, clearly indicate its continued roadworthiness. We, therefore, do not agree with the observations of the learned State Commission that repeated workshop visits, including post-accident by itself, establish the existence of deficiency in service.

24. As regards the allegation that OPs had sold a used or previously registered vehicle to him, examination of the records reveals that there is no evidence that supports this allegation of the Complainant. OP-1 satisfactorily clarified that the vehicle was manufactured on 22.03.2012 at the Pune plant and that the prefix "2011" in the commission number was only an internal procurement reference generated when the order was placed with Daimler AG in Germany and does not reflect the year of manufacture. The date of first registration "30.04.2012" he relied upon represents the date of sale OP-1 to OP-2 and has no correlation with RTO registration. The delivery note recording 67 KM at the time of sale is consistent with requisite pre-delivery inspection and test-driving procedures. No record from any statutory authority has been produced to show prior ownership, registration or use by any third party. His belief that it was used vehicle seems to be based on assumption which stood rebutted by specific clarifications and documentary evidence by OPs. Thus, there was no misrepresentation or unfair trade practice in relation to the manufacturing year or the status of the vehicle.

25. With respect to the issue of warranty, it is evident from the email dated 04.12.2013 addressed to the Complainant that the warranty of the Complainant’s vehicle became effective from the date of purchase from the authorised dealer. Accordingly, the warranty commenced on 02.11.2012, being the date of purchase, and was valid for a period of three years therefrom. The warranty did not run from any ante date, such as the date on which the dealership had procured the vehicle from OP-1, the manufacturer. It appears that the Complainant concluded that the warranty period ought to commence from the date of the transaction between OP 1 and OP 2. It is pertinent to note that while a vehicle remains with the dealers prior to its sale, it may be covered by the manufacturer for limited purposes such as routine handling or internal requirements. However, upon sale to a consumer, the assured comprehensive warranty as per the terms between the parties is extended to the purchaser and if necessarily commences from the specific date of purchase of the vehicle from the dealer. As clearly reflected in the email dated 04.12.2013, the Complainant’s warranty was duly activated by the OPs commencing from the date of purchase for three years. Therefore, the Complainant suffered no prejudice and received the warranty strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s representation.

26. It is also undisputed that, while the Complainant was in possession of the vehicle, it had met with an accident and thereafter the Complainant reported along with the vehicle to OP-2 for repairs and the vehicle was repaired. The cost for the same was borne by the insurance company with which the Complainant had insured the car. Therefore, the visits of the Complainant to OPs included regular servicing, accident repairs as well as other repairs.

27. In view of the foregoing, upon due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the Complainant appearing in person and the counsels for respondents as well as careful appreciation of the records, we find that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been established. The vehicle was in use for about 55,000 KM as of the year 2017. The allegations of the Complaint of being sold a demo or used vehicle remained unsubstantiated and, on the other hand, adequately explained by the OPs. The vehicle warranty was extended by OPs in favour of the Complainant as agreed. Further, there is nothing on record to prove the allegation of deficiency in service by OPs in providing regular periodical servicing or subsequent to the vehicle meeting with an accident, or for other repairs. The order of learned State Commission dated dated 27.04.2018 in CC No. 8/2024 directing the OPs to pay compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony is entirely untenable and, therefore, set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

28. Considering the case and facts of circumstance the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

29. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.