BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                          C.C.No.21/2014

Dated this the 14^th day of October 2016.

(Date of Institution: 03.04.2014)

M/s Kamal Foam Private Limited rep. by its

Managing Director Habibur Rahman

B-110 & 111, PIPDIC Industrial Estate

Mettupalayam, Puducherry – 605 009.

 ….    Complainant

vs

M/s United India Insurance Company Limited

Rep. by its Branch Manager               

No.261 J.N. Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

                                                          ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Tvl. N. Mouraly and Kanagaraj, Advocates

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY: K. Ravikumar, Advocate.   

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru A. Asokan, President)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for ;

1. Directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.11,87,907/- being the remaining loss sustained by the complainant;
2. Directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, severe mental strain and agony, loss of business etc.;
3. to pay the cost Rs.25,000/- towards this complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The Complainant  had earlier insured the building ,plant machinery and accessories, electrical installations., furniture, fixtures and fittings., computers and printers., Air-conditioners and stabilizers, and stocks pertaining to trade with M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd., Puducherry vide a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 711000/11/04/00063 from 12/06/2004 to 11/06/2005 and No. 711000/11/04/00043 form 10/05/2004 to 09/05/2005 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 51,25,000/-.   During the said period there was fire accident in the unit and the Complainant had sustained a loss and the said M/s New India Assurance Company Puducherry, had settled Rs. 28,73,508/-.  The Complainant was looking for another Insurance company to insure the unit with them and one Development officer Mr. Lakshmipathy from the opposite party’s company had approached the complainant at his unit and had canvassed about taking an Insurance policy form the opposite party’s company,  he had promised to come to the complainant’s unit and collect premium, issue receipt and policy copy.  Impressed by his words and believing them to be true in utmost good faith the complainant had transferred from the opposite party.     Thus at first insured the building, plant machinery and accessories, electrical installations., furniture, fixtures and fittings., computers and printers., Air-conditioners and stabilizers and stocks pertaining to trade., with the opposite party’s insurance company vide a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy No. 011701/11/05/01281 from 17/11/2005 to 16/11/2006 for a sum of Rs. 61,25,000/-.  The said policy was issued on the basis of a proposal from dated 17/11/2005.    Mr. Lakshmipathy had usually called the complainant before the policy expired and then used to come to the unit and collect the premium and then issue a receipt, he never used to give the copy of the insurance policy to the complainant for the next year, the complainant had again continued the Insurance policy with the opposite party’s insurance company vide a standard fire and special perils policy No. 011701/11/06/11/00000817 from 17/11/2006 to 16/11/2007., for a sum of Rs. 61,25,000/- .  No new proposal form was given and the said second policy was issued on the basis of the earlier proposal form dated 17/11/2005.     The complainant had again continued the Insurance Policy with the opposite party’s insurance company vide a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy No. 011701/11/07/11/00000420 from 17/11/2007 to 16/11/008., for a sum of Rs. 71,25,000/-.  The said third policy was issued on the basis of a new proposal form dated 12/11/2007., by which the complainant insured the building, plant machinery and accessories, electrical installations., furniture, fixtures and fittings., computers and printers., Air- conditioners and stabilizers, and stock of raw materials, finished and semi finished goods pertaining to trade.   The complainant had again continued the Insurance policy with the opposite party’s insurance company vide a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy No. 011701/11/08/11/00000356 form 17/11/2008 to 16/11/2009 for a sum of Rs. 71,25,000/- .  No new proposal form was given and this fourth policy was issued on the basis of the earlier proposal form dated 12/11/2007.  During may 2009 the complainant was required to maintain an increase in stock and in-turn had to increased the Insurance cover for Raw material and finished goods for a limited period starting from 12/05/2009 to 16/11/2009 only and this was not to be affecting the next year’s policy.  Hence the complainant had on 12/05/2009 issued a letter to the opposite party asking the opposite party to increase the Insurance cover for the stocks under the heads Raw Material for Rs. 24,00,000/- and Finished Goods for Rs. 6,00,000/- for a limited period starting from 12/05/2009 only.  Based on that letter the opposite party have increased the Insurance cover for Raw Material to 24,00,000/- and finished goods to
Rs. 6,00,000/- and collected Rs. 2,460/- for the extra insurance cover.   The complainant had again continued the Insurance policy with the opposite party’s insurance company vide a standard fire and special perils policy No. 011701/11/09/11/00000343 form 17/11/2009 to 16/11/2010 for a sum of Rs. 82,01,100/-.  No new proposal form was given and this fifth policy was issued on the basis of the earlier proposal form dated 12/11/2007, whereby the complainant intended to insure the building, plant machinery and accessories, electrical installations., Furniture, fixtures and fittings., computers and printers., Air- conditioners and stabilizers and stock of raw materials, finished and semi finished goods pertaining to trade.   The complainant had again continued the Insurance policy with the opposite party’s insurance company vide a standard fire and special perils policy No.011701/11/10/11/00000343 from 17.11.2010 to 16.11.2011 for Rs.82,01,100/-.  No new proposal form was given and this sixth policy was issued on the basis of the earlier proposal form dated 12/11/2007.     The complainant had again continued the Insurance policy with the opposite party’s insurance company vide a standard fire and special perils policy No.011701/11/11/11/00000347 form 17/11/2011 to 16/11/2012., for a sum of Rs.82,01,100/-.  No new proposal form was given and this seventh policy was issued on the basis of the earlier proposal form dated 12/11/2007.  The Complainant submit that on 07/08/2012 there was a fire accident in the factory premises and there was a loss of about Rs. 16,00,000/- including the building, plant machinery and accessories, electrical installations., stock of raw materials, semi-finished goods and finished goods.   The complainant had immediately on 07/08/2012 issued intimation to the opposite party and the opposite party has issued a claim form to the complainant.  The opposite party had also appointed M/s Crystal Surveyor as the surveyor and one Swaminathan had visited the factory at about 11.00 a.m. and had taken photographs and went.  The complainant submits that the surveyor was in constant touch with the complainant and he was provided with all the details that he asked for.   The complainant submits that it had submitted all the papers along with the completed claim form on 12/01/2013.  But even after that the Opposite party had not settled the claim and was asking for more and more documents and the complainant had provided the opposite party with all the documents.  The complainant submits that when enquired, the surveyor had mentioned that he had submitted his report to the opposite party on 22/03/2013 itself.  But even after the surveyor’s report the opposite party had not settled the claim of the complainant.  The complainant was made to run from pillar to post as no proper reply was given to him.   During the end of March 2013 the opposite party had arranged for a meeting with Divisional Manager of the opposite party at the Divisional office in J.N. Street, Puducherry., and in the meeting the complainant was offered Rs. 2,50,000/- as against the total claim of Rs. 15,92,378/- made by the complainant.  The complainant did not agree to the same and had insisted that the Surveyor had done a mistake in not coming for a second visit, hence the opposite party had arranged for a second visit by the surveyor.  After the second visit during April 2013, the opposite party had increased the opposite party’s offer to Rs. 4, 00,000/-.    The opposite party had not given any explanation on how the opposite party had arrived at the sum of
Rs.4,00,000/-.     The complainant did not accept the opposite party's offer and had sought to provide the full compensation., but the opposite party had refused to increase the opposite party’s offer.   On 19/06/2013 the opposite party had asked the complainant to collect a voucher form the opposite party’s office, stating that the complainant was offered Rs. 4,04,471/- , the opposite party had also mentioned that the complainant will have to sign the voucher and give the same and only after signing the voucher the said amount will be transferred to the complainant’s account through RTGS.  The complainant submits that he had asked the opposite party to release the amount under protest reserving the complainant right to claim the remaining amount, but the opposite party had refused to do so.    The complainant had contacted the Divisional manager but he too said that the complainant will have to sign the voucher.  The complainant submits that he was left with no other option, due to financial constrains, he had to sign the voucher under pressure and duress and sent the same to the opposite party.  The complainant submits that he had not signed the voucher as full and final settlement of the claim.  The complainant submits that the opposite party has transferred the sum of Rs.4,04,471/- to the complainant’s account on 21.06.2013.   The complainant issued a letter dated 27/06/2013 to the Divisional Manager asking for the details of settlement, but no reply was received. Again on 11.07.2013 the complainant had issued a letter asking for the remaining sum of Rs. 11,87,907/-,  on 11/07/2012 the opposite party Divisional Manger has issued a letter denying the complainant claim.   The complainant submits that he does not even know how the said sum of Rs. 4,04,471/- was arrived at.  The complainant submits that he had requested a copy of the surveyor’s report and the detailed accounts by which the said sum of Rs. 4,04,471/- was arrived at but the opposite party have denied to give any such copy or details.  This is in violation of the complainant’ rights.   The complainant submits that his claim has not been properly processed and that there has been no violation of any policy conditions and there was no delay on the part of the complainant and there was no fault on the part of the complainant is processing the claim.    On 21/08/2013 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party asking for the surveyor’s report and further claiming the details of accounts and also to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 11,87,907/- being the remaining loss and also Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the gross deficiency in service, severe mental strain and agony, loss of business sustained by the complainant.  The said notice was served on the opposite party and the opposite party had on 26/09/2012 issued a vague reply with the surveyor’s report.  But the opposite party did not come forward to pay either the difference of Rs. 11,87,907/- being the remaining loss or Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation.      The complainant submits that the after reading the surveyor’s report the complainant had found that at page 6 serial No.14 of the surveyor report, the depreciation of 45% and the opposite party is liable to apply the appropriate average factor towards damages to the building.     The complainant submits that at page 9 item No.[E] of the surveyor report, there is no amount granted under the damages to semi finished goods.  The complainant submits that as per the proposal and the policy issued to the complainant, semi finished goods have been covered, The complainant submits that the complainant’s letter dated 12.05.2009, asking the opposite party to increase the Insurance cover for the stocks under the heads Raw Material for Rs. 24,00,000/- and finished goods of Rs. 6,00,000/- was only for a limited period for a limited period starting from 12.05.2009 to 16.11.2009 only.  The complainant submits that based on that letter the opposite party have increased the insurance cover for Raw Material to Rs. 24,00,000/- and finished goods to
Rs6,00,000/- and collected Rs. 2,460/- for the extra insurance cover.  The complainant submits that the very next year when the complainant renewed the policy, the opposite party ought to have covered the all the stocks pertaining to the trade of the complainant.  Hence the opposite party is liable to pay
Rs. 2,96,369.15/- towards damages to semi finished goods.   The complainant submits that the at page 9 Item No. [G] of the surveyor report, there is no amount granted under the damages to packing materials.  The complainant submits that as per the proposal and the policy issued to the complainant packing material have been covered.   Hence the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 55,063.68 towards damages to packaging material.   The Complainant submits that on 22.11.2013 he had issued a second legal notice to the opposite party asking the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 11, 87,907/- being the remaining loss and also Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the gross deficiency in service, severe mental strain and agony, loss of business sustained by the complainant.  The said notice was served on the opposite party and the opposite party had on 27/11/2013 issued a vague reply but had not come forward to pay either the difference of
Rs.11,87,907/- being the remaining loss or Rs. 1,00,000/-  towards compensation.   The complainant submits that the actions of the opposite party in not settling the full claim of the complainant and in not serving the copy of the surveyor’s report and the details of the calculation to the complainant and forcing the complainant to sign a voucher before paying a partly sum, and applying the wrong depreciation, all amount to gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and caused severe mental strain and agony, loss of business sustained to the complainant.    Hence, this complaint.   

3. The reply version filed by the opposite party briefly discloses the following:

Apart from denying the allegations of the complainant, this opposite party specifically denied that the complainant has earlier insured the building, plant machinery and accessories, electrical installations, furniture, fixtures and fittings, computers and printers, Air-conditioners and stabilizers and stocks pertaining to trade with M/s New India Assurance Company, Puducherry vide a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 711000/11/04/00063 from 12/06/2004 to 11/06/2005 and No. 711000/11/04/00043 form 10/05/2004 to 09/05/2005 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 51,25,000/- and also denied that during the said period there was fire accident in the unit and the Complainant had sustained a loss and the said M/s New India Assurance Company Puducherry, had settled Rs. 28,73,508/- and the  Complainant was looking for another Insurance company to insure the unit with them and one Development officer
Mr. Lakshmipathy from the opposite party’s company had approached the complainant at his unit and had canvassed about taking an Insurance policy form the opposite party’s company and also promised to come to the complainant’s unit and collect premium, issue receipt and policy copy.  Impressed by his words and believing them to be true in utmost good faith the complainant had transferred from M/s New India Assurance Company, Puducherry and had consented to take a policy from the opposite party.  The opposite party admitted the policy taken for the periods covering from 17.11.2005 to 16.11.2006;  17.11.2006 to 16.11.2007;  17.11.2007 to 16.11.2008;  17.11.2008 to 16.11.2009;  17.11.2009 to 16.11.2010;  17.11.2010 to 16.11.2011 and 17.11.2011 to 16.11.2012 and also the complainant had given a letter to increase the Insurance cover for the stocks under the heads Raw Material for Rs.24,00,000/- and Finished Goods for Rs.6,00,000/- and also collected Rs.2,460/- for the extra insurance cover,  however denied that the same was only for a limited period starting from 12.05.2009 to 16.11.2009.  e increase in the policy for a limited period from 12.05.2009 to 16.11.2009.  This opposite party further denied that on 7.8.2012 a fire accident was occurred in the factory premises of the complainant and thereby sustained a loss of about Rs.16,00,000/- including the building, plant machinery and accessories, electrical installations, stock of raw materials, semi finished goods and finished goods.  It is stated by the complainant that on 7.8.2012 the complainant had issued an intimation about the fire accident without estimation of the loss.  On 8.8.2012, the complainant issued a letter to the Surveyor claiming loss to be Rs.25,00,000/-.  The opposite party denied that the complainant submitted all the papers along with completed claim form on 12.01.2013.  The complainant only on 16.01.2013 had submitted the documents partly and had not submitted the required documents as the Managing Director of the complainant had gone abroad.  The Surveyor had issued a letter on 25.02.2013 to the complainant asking for remaining documents, but the complainant had not given the required documents, but the complainant had taken objections to the Surveyor's request for further documents and during the second week of March 2013, the opposite party had arranged for a meeting with the Divisional Manager and in the meeting the complainant was offered Rs.2,50,000/- as against the total claim of Rs.15,92,378/- made by the complainant.  The complainant did not accept for the same and insisted that the Surveyor had done a mistake in not coming for a second visit.  The Opposite arranged for second visit by Surveyor in April 2013 and then the opposite party had increased the offer to Rs.4,00,000/- and asked the complainant to collect a voucher and then they have transferred the sum of Rs.4,04,471/- to the complainant's account on 21.06.2013.  The opposite party further stated that on 26.06.2013, the Surveyor had clearly explained to the complainant about the details of assessment.  But even then on 27.06.2013, the complainant had issued a letter to the opposite party and also issued a letter to the Divisional Manager asking for the details of settlement.  On 11.07.2013 the complainant issued a letter for the remaining sum of Rs.11,87,907/- for which the Divisional Manager had issued a letter denying the complainant's claim.  It is also stated by the opposite party that the complainant had accepted the offered amount of Rs.4,04,471/- and had voluntarily signed the discharge voucher and had given the bank details of the complainant, only after that, the opposite party had transferred the said amount through NEFT.  After receiving the said amount and after signed due discharge, the complainant is estopped from claiming the remaining amount.  The complainant had received the amount in full and final settlement, but later as an after-thought issued a letter dated 11.07.2013 asking for the remaining amount.  The opposite party has also issued reply dated 26.09.2013 for the legal notice dated 21.08.2013 issued by the complainant.   The opposite party further stated that while renewing the policy, the complainant ought to have requested to cover the semi finished goods but he had not done so, hence, the opposite party is not liable to insure the damages to semi finished goods and denied to pay Rs.2,96,369.15 towards damages to semi finished goods.  Likewise, as per the proposal and the policy, the complainant ought to have requested to cover the policy for packing materials also, but they have not done so and hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay the damages for the packing materials.  For the second legal notice dated 22.11.2013 issued by the complainant, the opposite party had suitably replied on 27.11.2013.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.       On the side of the complainant, one Shangar, Chief Accounant of Complainant's company was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C22 were marked and one Habibur Rahman, Managing Director was examined as CW2.  On the side of the opposite parties, one Lakshmipathy, Administrative Officer (Marketing) of opposite party's company was examined as RW1 and the Insurance Surveyor was examined as RW2.  However, no documents had been marked through them.    

5.       Points for determination are :

1. Whether the Complainant is the Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.       Point No.1:

          The Complainant has taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period from 17.11.2005 to 16.11.2006 vide Ex.C3 for various properties of their company and the same had been periodically renewed by leaving some properties and also by adding some properties till the period covering from 17.11.2011 to 16.11.2012 vide Exs.C4 to C11 for sum assured and had paid the respective premiums.     Hence the Complainant is the consumer for the opposite party as per the Consumer Protection Act.

7.  Point No.2:

We have perused the entire records, complaint, Exs.C1 to C22, reply version, chief examination of opposite party and written arguments of both parties.  The complainant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing of foam and having its industrial unit at PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettupalayam, Puducherry.   Initially the complainant had insured their stocks with the New India Assurance Company Limited vide Ex.C1 for the period 12.06.2004 to 11.06.2005.  Then, the complainant had taken the policy with the above Insurance company for the buildings including compound wall, plant/machinery and accessories, electrical installations, furnitures, fixtures, computers, printers and air conditioners for the period covering 10.05.2004 to 09.05.2005 vide Ex.C2.   Thereafter the complainant had the policy from the opposite party vide Ex.C3 covering a period from 17.11.2005 to 16.11.2006 for the above mentioned properties and also for stocks pertaining to trade.  Subsequently, the same was renewed for the period from 17.11.2006 to 16.11.2007 vide Ex.C4, and further, the complainant taken policy for the period covering 17.11.2007 to 16.11.2008  for the building, compound wall, plant/machinery and accessories, electrical installations, furnitures, fixtures, computers, printers and air conditioners and also for stock of raw materials, finished and semi finished goods for a total sum insured at Rs.71,25,000/- vide Ex.C5.  The same was renewed for the period from 17.11.2008 to 16.11.2009 vide Ex.C6.  While the things being so, on 12.05.2009 the complainant gave a letter to increase the sum insured for stocks from 20.00 lakhs to 30.00 lakhs and the endorsement effected from 20.05.2009 to 16.11.2009 and the opposite  party had received a sum of Rs.2,460/- as extra premium vide Ex.C8.  Whereas, when the policy was taken for the period from 17.11.2009 to 16.11.2010, it had contained the items such as plant/machinery and accessories, electrical installations, furnitures, fixtures, fittings, computers, printers and air conditioners, stocks of raw materials and finished goods vide Ex.C9.  The same was renewed for the period covering 17.11.2010 to 16.11.2011 vide ExC10.  Again the policy was taken for the period from 17.11.2011 to 16.11.2012 vide Ex.C11 for the items mentioned in Ex.C10. 

          8.  While the things being so, on 07.08.2012 a fire accident had occurred in the complainant's company and the same was intimated to the opposite party vide Ex.C12 requesting to depute a Surveyor for investigation and for assessing the damage to enable them to claim compensation.  On 12.01.2013 the complainant gave claim form Ex.C13 to the opposite party, along with photocopies of bills / invoices from whom the materials were purchased without narrating the extent of loss.  The opposite party engaged one Crystal Surveyors, who in turn investigated and assessed the damage pertaining to the policy No. 011701/11/11/11/00000347 covering the period from 17.11.2011 to 16.11.2012 and submitted its report estimating the loss to a tune of Rs.4,04,869.39 vide Ex.C14.  The said amount was received by the complainant vide Ex.C15 settlement intimation voucher through which the complainant agreed to accept in full and final discharge of their claim.  Even though the complainant received the said amount, they had given a letter Ex.C17  to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.11,87,907/- as the balance amount of their claim as per Ex.C13. 

          9.  The complainant alleged that since the policy for the period 17.11.2008 to 16.11.2009 does not cover the finished goods and packing materials, they had issued a letter dated 12.05.2009 asking the opposite party to increase the insurance cover for the stocks under the heads Raw materials to Rs.24,00,000/- and finished goods to Rs.6,00,000/-.  The complainant further alleged that the Surveyor had not taken into consideration and not granted any amount for the damage caused to the semi-finished goods as well as packing materials in the report.   But the said allegation was refuted by the opposite party that the coverage for finished goods and packing materials is only for limited period i.e. from 12.05.2009 to 16.11.2009, the subsequent policies does not cover the above and hence, they have not taken into consideration for estimation.  On perusal of Exs.C5 and C6, this Forum observed that the above policies covered the semi-finished goods for the periods 17.11.2007 to 16.11.2008 and 17.11.2008 to 16.11.2009.  But, during the period of accident on 07.08.2012, the policy that was in existence does not cover the semi-finished goods and packing materials and therefore, the Surveyor had not estimated for the loss occurred on the above said items in his report Ex.C14.  It had covered only the stock of raw materials and finished goods.   Further, the complainant in his evidence has admitted that "We have not separately insured for semi-finished goods and packaging materials".  Therefore, the policy Exs.C5 and C6  differs from the policy Ex.C11  and therefore, the plea taken by the complainant that the policies covered the semi-finished goods and packing materials is not sustainable.  The Opposite party, insurance company while admitting the issuance  policy Ex.C11, resisted the claim on the ground that the description of properties does not cover the semi-finished goods and packing materials.    

          10.  Further, the complainant alleged that in the Surveyor's report that the depreciation of 45% @ 2.5% per year levied on building was unreasonable, as the building is only six years and the opposite party is liable to apply the appropriate average factor towards damages to the building.   On the other hand, the Surveyor's report Ex.C14 disclose that he had taken the depreciation value of the building as 45% taking into consideration that the building is 18 years old.  Though the complainant stated that the building is only six years old, they had not produced any documents that the building was only six years old.  In the cross-examination also, the complainant admitted that "The premises of the complainant was renovated in 2006.  The premises was built in 2001.  I have not filed any proof to show that the premises was renovated in 2006, but the approval plan was submitted to the Surveyor of the opposite party."  But, both the parties have not produced the said approval plan.   However, on perusal of Ex.C1 the complainant took insurance policy with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., in the year 2004 and hence, the building is more than eight years old.  In the absence of any proof that the building is six years old, the allegation of the complainant that the Surveyor ought to have taken the depreciation value for the building as 15% is not tenable.   

          11.  Further, the complainant has also  received the amount offered by the opposite party vide Ex.C15.  Though the complainant had sent letter Ex.C17 to the opposite party claiming the balance amount of Ex.C13 Rs.11,87,907/-, they have not taken up the matter to the appropriate authority to sanction such amount, which leads this Forum to come to the conclusion that the Surveyor has rightly estimated the damage caused during the fire accident occurred on 07.08.2012.  Hence, this Forum observed that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the complainant. 

12.   In view of the discussion and decision, it is held by this Forum that the complainant is  not entitled for any relief and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          13. Point No.3:

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dated this the 14^th  day of  October 2016.

1.                                                        (A.ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:   

CW1           30.07.2014           M. Shangar, Chief Accountant.

CW2           07.01.2015           Habibur rahman

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:

RW1           23.07.2015           Lakshmipathy, Administrative Officer (Marketing)

RW2           14.12.2015           Swaminathan, Insurance Surveyor.

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:   NIL

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

                                                                                                                                 (A.ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

                                                      MEMBER