BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
C.D.NO.4 OF 2004
Between:
T. Nagaiah, S/o. T. Narasimulu,
Aged about 63 Years, R/o. Bellampalli,
Adilabad Dist.
Complainant
A N D
1. M/s. Jain Irrigation System (P) Ltd.,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Bhanheri, Jalagaon, Maharashtra.
2. M/s. Pioneer Drip Systems Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
R.P. Road, Secunderabad.
3. The Govt. of A.P.
Through the Secretary,
Horticulture, Hyderabad.
4. The Director of Horticulture
Govt. of A.P. Public Gardens
Hyderabad.
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant M/s V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents M/s Jandhyala Ravi Shanker
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c President)
***
1. This is a complaint filed u/s 17 of consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of `59,08,000/- towards loss of crop and `1,00,000/- towards damages together with costs of `25,000/-.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that the complainant, a progressive farmer purchased drip irrigation system manufactured by the opposite party No.1 through its distributor, the opposite party No.2 in the year 1998 for irrigation of Annato Dye Crop over an extent of 72.00 acres paid `8, 03,342.70 towards the consideration of the drip system contributed by the complainant and partly by the A.P. State Government. The complainant, his family members and other farmers had installed the drip irrigation system for the following crops.
a) Under Annato Crop 72 acres
b) Under Pomegranate Crop 12 acres
c) Papaya/ Medicinal Plants 13 acres
Crop -----------
Total 97 acres
-----------
3. The complaint relates to drip system purchased to irrigate Annato Crop which was an innovative crop taken up by the complainant and others which yields natural colour for dyeing foods, beverages and other edibles and edibles and on the representation of complainant. The Government of A.P. accorded sanction for subsidy and issued circular to all the concerned Drip System Manufacturers and that NABARD has issued guidelines prescribing parameters for financing the ‘Annato Project’ and fixed the cost of cultivation at `17,200/- per acre @ 500 plants per acre.
4. The complainant and other farmers made investment for implementing the Annato Plantation Crop which is not native to India and has to be managed with utmost care and that of irrigation in summer is of much importance and that the failure of irrigation in summer is very dangerous to the crop and succumb to drought conditions.
5. The drip system manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and distributed by the opposite party No.2 started showing cleavages in the month of August, 2002 over an extent of Ac.25.00 gts which subsequently spread over to Ac.35.00 gts. The drip system supplied by the Opposite Party No.1 was not up to the standard of ISI. The complainant had installed the system on the assurance given by the opposite parties 3 & 4 that the system is of high standard and would function for years together. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have also undertaken to replace the system if it does not function properly and reimburse the entire damage.
6. The complainant brought the problem to the notice of the opposite party No.2 who promised that they will take up the matter with the opposite party No.1 for taking corrective measures. Thereafter in the month of November, 2002 the cleavages developed on the yellow line mark of the 12mm lateral pipes and started breaking horizontally all along the pipes causing leakage up to the connecting junctions. The complainant has shown the broken pipes to the Opposite party No.2 and addressed letter on 24.12.2002 requiring the opposite party no.2 writing to replace the pipes immediately otherwise the plants will die for want of water in the summer.
7. The Opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that they have intimated the matter to the opposite party No.1 who has agreed to replace the pipes which are broken due to manufacturing defect. The complainant submitted that though the Opposite parties agreed to replace the broken pipes they forced to replace the pipes on one pretext or the other. The request made by the complainant for replacement of pipes proved futile and as the summer started the crop started withering and the complainant could remain as a hapless spectator since he depended on the high the drip irrigation system and has not though of other alternative means to provide irrigation facility to the standing crop. The crop spread over Ac. 35.00 gts suffered damage due to lack of water. Four years of the complainant’s hard work had gone waste and the loss could be avoided had the Opposite parties 1 & 2 acted in time and replaced the broken pipes to save the crop and the complainant would not have suffered the loss.
8. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties 3 & 4 should have verified before release of subsidy whether the material supplied to the farmers is in conformity with ISI standards and the Department should have collected the samples even after notice was issued to them and they should have sent the samples of broken pipes for chemical analysis to find out whether the pipes are manufactured with ISI standard material. There is negligence on the part of manufacturer and distributor (Ops 1 & 2) in not visiting the farm of the complainant to assess the damage of crop and collect the samples of broken pipes. The opposite party no.1 claimed that the pipes will last for ten years. They furnished 2 or 3 Years warranty in writing which is not justifiable as the gestation period for any Horticulture Commercial Crop is 5 to 6 years.
9. The complainant submitted that entire loss caused to the complainant is due to failure of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in not replacing the broken pipes on time and their indifferent, irresponsible attitude and carelessness caused huge loss to the complainant for which they are liable to compensate the loss apart from replacing the entire broken pipes. The complainant seeks compensation on the basis of project report and NABARD appraisal under various heads as shown hereunder.
a) Plantation cost for 5 years
@ Rs.28, 800/- per acre for 35 acres Rs.10,43,000/-
b) Cost of cultivation for replacing
the crop Rs.7,52,500/-
c) Crop yield & revenue loss for next
5 years Rs.41,12,500/-
------------------
Total Rs.59,08,000/-
------------------
10. The complainant submitted that the opposite party No.4 which has identified the manufacturing company did not verify whether the pipes supplied by them were up to the standards prescribed by the Government and whether they are up to ISI standards and that even after receiving the notice they have not preferred to send the samples for chemical analysis. The dealer invoice prescribes two years warranty whereas the manufacturer in their reply mentioned three years warranty and the department prescribed five years warranty. The ISI specifies the materials used in the manufacture of pipes should last long for minimum period of 10 years.
11. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties supplied substandard pipes and also there is deficiency of service on their part in not replacing the pipes on time i.e., by August, 2002 and they are liable to pay damages and compensation for their callous attitude towards consumer /farmer. The Opposite parties 3 & 4 are also liable to make good the loss since they categorized the opposite party No.1 as authorized supplier. Hence the complaint.
12. The opposite Party No.1 filed written version admitting that the opposite party No.2 is one of the distributors of the opposite party No.1 and that the complainant did not place any order on opposite party No.1 and they had no knowledge about the total value of the drip system purchased by the complainant. The complainant had not informed the opposite party No.1 that he intended to irrigate Annato Crop with drip irrigation system. The drip system was supplied to the farmers under 90% subsidy given by the State Government.
13. It is contended by the opposite party No.1 that Annatto Crop is not native to India and cultivation of Annato crop was there in India even prior to complainant taking up the same. Annato plant is native to Continental Tropical America and indigenous to Caribbean and Central America where it naturally grows as a wild plant. The plant does not require regular or continuous watering and it is drought resistant. Annatto plant is also quite resistant to most pests. It is susceptible to attacks by termites where abundant ground water/ moisture is available. If proper plant protection measures are not taken by the cultivator on periodical basis there is every chance of endemic attack by white ants resulting in large scale death of plants and total loss of the crop. The complainant had not taken any steps for preventing and controlling the termite attack. The only reason for the loss of crop is attributable to the termite attack.
14. The opposite Party No. 1 submitted that the drip irrigation systems manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1 conform to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards. The Horticulture Department had identified and empanelled the Opposite Party No. 1 as one of the eligible suppliers only after satisfying itself that the Opposite Party No. 1 meet all the eligibility criteria. The Opposite Party No. 1 offers a limited warranty of three years for the drip system manufactured by it to repair or replace the irrigation system if any, manufacturing defects are pointed out within the warranty period. The warranty period as mentioned by Opposite Party No. 1 does not differ from the period prescribed by the Horticulture Department. The ISI standards refer to a life expectancy period of ten years of the lateral pipes under normal working conditions which is always subject to several external factors, agricultural practices, and environmental conditions.
15. The ISI standards cannot be confused with warranty period offered by the opposite party No. 1. Cracks in the lateral pipes can develop even due to rough handling of the pipes. The very fact that the other lateral pipes supplied by the same Opposite Party No. 1 simultaneously along with the alleged defective pipes are still being used in other parts of the orchard belonging to the complainant would amply demonstrate that the alleged damage to the lateral pipes was due to factors other than manufacturing defects and the same cannot be attributed to the Opposite Party No. 1 The limited warranty does not extend to paying consequential losses or damages allegedly suffered by the consumers.
16. The Opposite Party No. 1 submitted that the complainant purchased the drip irrigation system in the month of October, 1998 and as such the warranty period offered by the Opposite Party No. 1 expired in the month of October, 2001. The complainant did not inform the Opposite Party no.1 of any manufacturing defects during the warranty period. The complainant did not inform the Opposite Party No. 1 about the defects even in the month of August, 2002. The complainant did not bring the alleged cleavages in the lateral pipes to the notice of the Opposite Party No. 1. There was no manufacturing defect in the pipes manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 1. The Opposite Party No. 1 is not responsible for the alleged cracks in the pipes the complainant has failed to establish that the pipes supplied by the Opposite Party no.1 developed cracks within the warranty period.
17. The opposite Party No. 1 denied that the complainant had incurred an amount of ` 29,800/- per acre for cultivation of Annatto crop and also denied that he suffered loss on account of plantation of crop for five years amounting to `10,43,000/- . The computation of crop loss quantified at `41, 12,500/- for next five years is totally untenable and not supported by any documentary evidence. The amount of `59,08,000/- as computed and claimed by the complainant is a false claim and artificially puffed up for the purpose of making wrongful gain without any evidence.
18. The opposite Party No. 1 submitted that the Annato crop raised by the complainant died due to pests and termites rather than lack of irrigation. And that report of Horticulture Department clearly indicates that the crop loss was due to pests and termites. The Opposite Party No. 1 denied any gross inaction, indifference amounting to deficiency of service on their part. The Opposite Party No. 1 denied that the Opposite Party No. 2 contacted the chief operation Officer of the Opposite Party No. 1 on internet on 18.4.2003 . Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
19. The opposite Party No. 2 filed written version denying the averments of the complaint and admitted that he received complaint from the complainant in the month of December, 2002 and by the time the manufacturer’s warranty period of three years from the date of installation had expired by 16.10.2001 and 30.12.2001. The complainant has not made complaint in the month of August, 2002 nor was any assurance given by the this opposite party no.2. The first intimation about the alleged defects was received from the complainant by the Opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 24.12.2002 and immediately the opposite party no.2 took steps to inform the Opposite party No.1. The Opposite party No.2 is only a dealer and no way responsible for the alleged defects in the material manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite party No.2 denied that he contacted Mr. Ajay Jain (OP1) on internet on 18.4.2003 and no such communication was sent on 18.4.2003 to opposite party no.1. It is stated that the Horticulture Department after survey reported that there were defects in the drip irrigation system. It is contended by the Opposite Party No.2 that the complaint is barred by limitation since the drip irrigation system was installed on 17.10.1998 and 31.12.1998 and the two years prescribed under CP Act expired by 16.10.2001 and 30.12.2001 respectively.
20. It is further contended by the Opposite party No.2 that the State Government did not prescribe five years warranty nor any assurance was given by the Opposite Party no.2 that the pipes would last long for a period of 10 years. The Land Owners were well aware that the warranty period was only for three years and they did not raise any protest at the time of installation of drip irrigation system. The question of replacing the pipes in August, 2002 does not arise as first information regarding the alleged defects was brought to notice of the Opposite party no.2 in the month of December, 2002, after the expiry of warranty period. It is prayed to dismiss the claim as the Opposite Party No.2 is no way concerned with the alleged manufacturing defect in the drip irrigation system and also the alleged loss and compensation claimed by the complainant.
22. The complainant filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Officer of the opposite party no.1 and the Managing Director of the opposite party no.2 company filed their respective affidavits and the documents, Exs.B1 to
23. The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii) Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation?
iii) Whether the opposite parties rendered deficient service?
iv) To what relief?
24. POINT NO.1: The complainant purchased 12 mm lateral drip irrigation pipes manufactured by the opposite party no.1 and supplied by the opposite party no.2 in the year, 1998 for irrigation of Annato Dye Crop spreading over an extent of Ac.72.00gts . The sale consideration of the drip irrigation system is `8,03,342/- which was paid partly by the complainant and partly by the state government. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is the authorized signatory of his family members and they installed the drip system to irrigate Ac.72-00gts for annatto crop, and Ac.12-00gts of pomegranate crop, a total extent of Ac-97-00 gts and
25. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments as also the counsel for filed written arguments the opposite party no.1 filed written arguments and the opposite party 2 has filed written arguments .
26. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complaint has no locus standi to file the complaint, the crop raised, Annanto is a commercial crop intended to generate profit which is a commercial purpose and the dispute raised after 2 years of expiry of warranty and 5 years after date of purchase of pipes. He has contended that the complainant is not the landowner nor did he raise Annato Crop in his field and that the State Government which paid 90% of the cost of the Drip Irrigation System is not made party to the complaint in the absence of which the complaint is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in “Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd vs Malgonda A.Patil“ reported in (1992) II CPJ 404.
27. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant is in view of recent decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, the farmer raising commercial crops is also a consumer within the meaning of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is authorized by the other farmers who are his family members to file and prosecute the complaint as also the complaint cannot be said to be filed beyond the period of limitation in view of the promise made by the opposite party no.2 on behalf of the opposite party no.1 that they would replace the pipes.
28. The opposite party no.2 has contended that the pipes supplied to the complainant were covered by manufacturer’ s guarantee for a period of 3 years from the date of installation which the complainant and the owners concerned are aware of and the fact was intimated to the Government Department concerned which has provided subsidy for purchase of drip irrigation system.
29. The opposite party no.2 has contended that the complainant for the first time complained of defect in the pipes beyond the period of warranty on 24.12.2002 and he forwarded the complaint to the opposite party no.1 which agreed to replace the pipes. The opposite party no.2 submitted that he is a dealer and he has no liability to pay any amount and in case it is a manufacturing defect, the opposite party no.1-company is responsible and not the opposite party no.2.
30. The learned counsel for the first opposite party no.1 has submitted that the opposite party no.2 had taken somersault and for his adopting U turn from what he stated earlier before the matter is remanded to this Commission, the opposite party no.2 is liable for committing ’perjury’.
31. The admitted position of the facts of the case is that there has been dispute between the complainant on one hand and the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand and there is dispute between the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.2 which surfaced subsequent to the period of the order dated 30.03.2007 of this Commission.
32. This Commission allowed the complaint against the opposite party no.1 and dismissed the complaint against the opposite party no.2 which was carried to the Hon’ble National Commission by way of preferring appeal, F.A.No.392 of 2007. The National Commission remitted back the matter and passed the following order:
“In view of the concession made by the counsel for the parties, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh after providing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their claims.
All contentions are left open.
33. After the matter was remanded to this Commission, the complainant and the opposite parties are cross examined and all the parties have filed additional evidence which are marked as Ex.A16 to A37 and ExB9 to B26.
34. Coming to the question of maintainability of the complaint on the premise of Annato being a commercial crop, the National Commission in “Jain Irrigation System’ (supra), made distinction between the purpose for purchasing the drip irrigation system and the purpose of laying it in the field. It was held:
7. In the appeal the appellants have submitted that the State Commission has erred in its finding that the motive of the complainants in making the purchase of drip irrigation system was to irrigate the grape groves and not to earn any profit. In other words, the State commission has failed to distinguish between the function of the machinery which is purchased and the object of the complainants in purchasing that machine. While the function of the drip irrigation system of the purchasers was to increase their productivity and thus to increase their income.
8. Secondly, according to the appellant the expression “Commercial purpose” is much wider than “trade or commerce”. A person may be said to purchase goods for commercial purpose when he carries on an activity with profit or loss considerations in view. Therefore, even if a person is not engaged in trade or in commence as such, the purchase of goods may well be for a commercial purpose if the object is to earn profit or to reduce loss.
9. Thirdly, the appellant submitted that the complainants respondents were not engaged in subsistence cultivation. They are not growing grapes for personal consumption. Engaging in trade or commerce is inherent in and incidental to the production of a cash crop.
10. Fourthly, according to the appellants, they had only sold “goods”, i.e., the drip irrigation system to the respondent complainants and not contracted to provide “service” for consideration.
35. Subsequently in several other its decisions, the National Commission held that for the purpose of commercial purpose, the distinction between an agriculturist raising a commercial purpose and another person purchasing a vehicle or equipment to earn profit should make the farmer whose occupation is the source of his livelihood, come within the precincts of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, we do not find substance in this regard in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
36. The complainant made the “Agreement for Joint Forming” as the basis to maintain the complaint on the premise of authority conferred on him by the other farmers whom the complainant referred to as his family members in absence of any reference made therein the agreement. The parties to the agreement bind themselves to stand surety to each other and offered their individual holding of land as collateral security for repayment of loan obtained from Andhra Bank and they authorized the complainant to open bank account pertaining to the project which include signing deeds and documents etc.,. For better appreciation, paragraph 10 of the Agreement is extracted herein below:
“That all the members hereby authorize and give general power of attorney to Shri T.Nagaiah, as the authorized signatory, to deal with all the matters pertaining to the project including opening fo Bank Accounts, signing of deeds, documents, instruments to receive and to repay loans, to purchase implements, inputs, services etc., to sell, lease, and realize the outputs, crops bye-products, to recruit and control workmen, and to do all such other deeds and acts which are warranted in the overall implementation of the project and to pursue the farming. The members further declare that all the commissions and omissions committed by the authorized signatory are binding upon all members and this general power of authority is irrevocable until all charges, liens and liabilities to the Bank and others are cleared and discharged”.
37. A perusal of the contents of the agreement make it clear that the other farmers had not authorized the complainant file and prosecute the complaint before this Commission or in any court. The provisions of Section 12(c) of the Consumer Protection Act do not give power to the State Commission to convert an individual complaint into a representative suit. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 that the complainant is not aggrieved party and he cannot maintain complaint on behalf of true owners and cultivators of Annato crop.
38. There is no evidence brought on record that the complainant raised Annato crop in his piece of land and the cultivators of the crop had not raised any dispute in regard to any defect in the drip irrigation system nor did they authorize the complainant to file suit or complaint in the matter pertaining to the Pipes manufactured by the opposite party no.1 and supplied by the opposite party no.2.On the score, this Commission is of considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant without any authority from the other farmers is not maintainable. The point is answered against the complainant.
39. POINTS NO.2 & 3: As the complaint is held not maintainable, we do not consider it any more necessary to discuss the matter under these points. Once the complaint is held not maintainable on the premise of locus standi of the complainant, the complainant cannot be heard to say the grievance of true owners of the land who raised the Annato crop.
40. POINT NO.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.02.01.2014
కె.ఎం.కె.*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the complainants:
Ex.A1 Letter dated 24.12.2002 of complainant to OP1.
Ex.A2 Message Dated 18.04.2003 of OP2 addressed to
Mr. Ajit Jain
Ex.A3 Letter dated 07.06.2003 of complainant to Ops 1 & 2
Ex.A4 Letter dated 17.06.2003 of OP2 to complainant
Ex.A5 Legal notice Dated 07.07.2003 got issued by
complainant to Ops.
Ex.A6 Reply notice Dated 01.08.2003 of OP1.
Ex.A7 Report of Asst. Director of Horticulture, Adilabad.
Ex.A8 Reply of OP2 to the notice issued by complainant
date 04.07.2003
Ex.A9 Reply of Asst. Director of Horticulture, Adilabad date 13.11.2003
Ex.A10 copy of certificate of excellence issued to complainant.
Ex.A11 Series of photographs.
Ex.A12 Specifications issued by BIS for drip irrigation equipment.
Ex.A13 Agreement for joint farming.
Ex.A14 Quotation and Bill of quantities of OP2
Ex.A15 Lay out of Drip Irrigation System
Ex.A16 Invoice No. 325, date 09.10.1998
Ex.A17 Invoice No. 344, date 19.10.1998
Ex.A18 Invoice No. 326, date 09.10.1998
Ex.A19 Invoice No. 343, date 19.10.1998
Ex.A20 E-mail date 16.01.2003 sent by OP. No.2
Ex.A21 E-mail date 29.03.2003 sent by OP. No.2
Ex.A22 E-mail date 11.06.2003 sent by OP. No.2
Ex.A23 E-Mail date 12.06.2003 sent by OO.No.2
Ex.A24 E-Mail date 20.01.2003 sent by the complainant to OP. No.2
Ex.A25 BIS India Standard for irrigation equipment.
Ex.A26 NABARD Model Bankable Project on Annato or BIXA Plant.
Ex.A27 Cost of cultivation by the National Medicinal plant Board.
Ex.A28 True copy of the writeup on Termite in Agroecosystems
Ex.A29 Bunch of photographs of the Annato Plant.
Ex.A30 Certificate, dated 01.04.2002 issued by Jain Irrigation System Ltd.
Ex.A31 Letter No. B/Accts/2006, dated 30.03.2007 issued by Asst Director of Horticulture, R.R district.
Ex.A32 NCDRC Order in FA . No. 392/2007, dated 10.08.2007
Ex.A33 Additional Affidavit of Mr. Anil Lalchand Lodha, date 03.07.08
Ex.A34 A certificate of Auditors
Ex.A35 Copy of invoices of the appellants.
Ex.A36 Copy of letter of Guarantee
Ex.A37 Index dated 30.07.2008 in FA 392/2007
Opposite Parties
Ex.B1 Invoice No. 325, date 09.10.1998
Ex.B2 Invoice No. 344, date 19.10.1998
Ex.B3 Invoice No. 326, date 09.10.1998
Ex.B4 Invoice No. 343, date 19.10.1998
Ex.B5 Replacement of Poly tube 12mm to Mr. T. Nagaiah
Ex.B6 Complainant received from Mr. T. Nagaiah
Ex.B7 Defective material supplied to Mr. T. Nagaiah
Ex.B8 Complaint of Farmer.
Ex.B9 Empanelled Drip Irrigation Suppliers.
Ex.B10 receipt of Drip Irrigation System Installation.
Ex.B11 Extract of Chapter 8 from Horticulture Reviews
Ex.B12 Soil testing report in respect of Laxmi & Rajnarsu.
Ex.B13 Copy of Report of Horticulture final officer,
dated 12.05.2005
Ex.B14 Report of Inspection of Annato
Ex.B15 Field Inspection Report of T. Nagaiah, date 29.07.2003
Ex.B16 Index
Ex.B17 Register notice U/s. 138 of N.I Act, date 23.04.2004
Ex.B18 Reply notice given on behalf of 2nd respondent
dated 07.07.2004
Ex.B19 The summary of criminal case No. 2972/04 filed against OP2
Ex.B20 Certificate issued by OP1
Ex.B21 Letter addressed by OP1 to OP2
Ex.B22 Statement of account from 01.04.2003 to 27.07.2004 issued by OP1
Ex.B23 Statement of account from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003 issued by OP1
Ex.B24 Statement of account from 01.04.2003 to 12.05.2004 issued by OP1
Ex.B25 Letter date 30.06.2004 addressed by OP1
Ex.B26 Judgment in Criminal Writ Petition.
Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
