State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T.Santhamma vs Senior Executive,M/S Premium ... on 26 May, 2015
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OP.NO.02/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:26.05.2015 PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER COMPLAINANT T.Santhamma, Propriterix, A.S.Feeds, Chirattakonam, Thalachira.P.O, Kotttarakkara, Kollam, Kerala Rep.by power of attorney holder, G.Abraham, Manager (By Adv.Sri.M.K.Valsalakumari, Adv.Sri. Konniyoor S.Harichandran & Adv.Sri.Reji Rajan) Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The senior Executive (Marketing), M/s.Premium Engineers pvt.Ltd, 603, Chinnubhai Centre, Nehru Bridge Corner, Ashram Road, Ahemedabad 380009 2. Mr.Sasiraj, M/s.Concepts & Projects, SIB Pancharatna Apartments, TPCH Public School, Janatha Junction, Vaittila, Cochin - 5, Pin - 682 005 (OP1 by Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar) (OP2 by Adv.Sri.C.E.Unnikrishnan) JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a petition filed under 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegations in the amendened petition in brief, are the following. The petitioner decided to start a cattle feed manufacturing unit as a source of livelihood. Accordingly, she submitted order dated 20.01.2001 to the first opposite party through the second opposite party for purchasing machinery worth Rs.14,32,956/-. The first opposite party issued proforma invoices dated 10.09.2001 and 11.10.2001. As per the terms and conditions of the purchase order 90% of the total value of the machinery is to be paid at the time of delivery of the machinery and 10% after successful installation and trial run. The petitioner paid the entire 90% amount towards the value of machinery with the financial assistance of KFC. The petitioner had paid Rs.50,000/- as advance for booking the machinery. Subsequently, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through the second opposite party. Thus, the petitioner paid the entire cost of the machinery that is Rs.14,32,956/-.
2. Loan was availed from the KFC after executing security documents and creating equitable mortgage over her property. Loans were availed also for other purposes such as meeting the cost of electricity connection and constructing a building for the purpose of starting the cattle feed manufacturing unit. On examination and trial run of the machinery supplied it was seen that three out of seven machinery were very old used second hand and altered machinery. These items are ' hopper below mixer', Pedal type with two HP Motor, pellet Mill with 60 HP Motor, and Pellet collar with distributor, 0.5 HP Motor and gear box. Further the opp.parties did not take steps to install the machinery and conduct trial run. Though the petitioner complained about the deficiency in service, the attitude of the opposite parties was lukewarm. The opposite parties rejected the demand of the petitioner to replace the defective machinery with new one. Though the second opp.party received Rs.7,04,694/- on different dates in advance as erection for installation charges, they did not come forward to install the machinery. From the very beginning opposite parties colluded with each other to cheat the complainant. At last the petitioner installed the defective machinery with the help of other expert persons and on conducting trial run came to know that the machinery are not functioning properly due to defective components. As a result, the machinery are kept idle. The opposite parties are not ready to repair or replace the defective machinery. The acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The grievances of the petitioner were not redressed even after notice issued through her advocate. In the meanwhile KFC has initiated revenue recovery proceedings to realize the amount due from the petitioner putting the petitioner to mental agony financial loss and further misery. The KSEB has also initiated revenue recovery proceedings demanding Rs.4,00,496/- and notice is issued on 03.08.2005. The petitioner seeks recovery of Rs.14,32,956/- towards cost of machinery and Rs.7,04,694/-, the money received towards erection and installation charges. The petitioner further seeks recovery of Rs.10,00000- as compensation towards the hardships, mental agony and expenses suffered by her. Towards the interest on the loan charged by the KFC an amount of Rs.4,00,496/- is sought to be recovered . The petitioner further claims Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of income due to the non functioning of the machinery.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed separate version. The first opposite party has contended that the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The contract for purchase of machinery was concluded at Ahmadabad which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission of Gujarat. The first opposite party voluntarily resides and carries on business within the state of Gujarat and has no branch office within Kerala. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the state of Kerala. The petitioner purchased the machinery for running a large scale industry and earn profit. Therefore, she is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner had entered into a separate contract with opposite party no.2 for purchase of other parts and for service. The order was initially placed in the name and style Elixir Agro Feeds a running business concern. Thereafter it was converted in the name of AS Feeds. Even the letter head of AS Feeds suggests that it is a branch of Elixir Agro Feeds. Therefore, the petitioner purchased the machinery for expanding an existing business and it can not be considered as a unit to earn livelihood. The petition is barred by limitation. The first opposite party supplied the machinery in October 2001. Since they were told that KFC would release payment only after seeing the satisfactory performance of the machinery trial run was arranged and after being satisfied cheque for Rs.1,43,000/- was issued on 25.02.2002 towards final payment to the first opposite party. The cheque was dishonoured for lack of funds in the account of the petitioner and the first opposite party has initiated proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Mr.G.Abraham the husband and power of attorney holder of the petitioner was carrying on business under the name and style of Elixir Agro Feeds. The first opposite party is a marketing company of various machinery manufactured by different companies of premium group. M/s.Precision products and M/s.Premium Pullman Pvt. Ltd are the pioneers in manufacturing animal feed plants and are marketing their products through the first opposite party. The said companies have manufactured and supplied more than 40 plants in India and abroad. The first opposite party received business inquiry from M/s.Elixir Agro Feeds in 2000 and in reply budgetary offer was made and catalogue was supplied to them. The second opposite party as business associate of the first opposite party discussed with Mr. Abraham, the various aspects of the proposal to purchase machinery in detail. It was concluded that the first opposite party would supply plant and machinery with all accessories , drive parts and other infrastructure at the cost of Rs.12,86,500/- and excise at 5% sales tax at 4% against C Form and two percent packing and forwarding charges. Second opposite party has under taken to supply certain other machinery parts and accessories and undertook the job of erection and commissioning of the machinery supplied by the first opposite party. On the basis of the understanding Elixir Agro Feeds sent DD for Rs.50,000/- as advance payment along with letter dated 20.01.2001. On receipt of the DD first opposite party had informed Mr. Abraham over telephone that the order was acceptable subject to payment of minimum 30% as advance against confirmed order. Both parties have signed the letter dated 06.02.2001 confirming the order for purchase.
5. Though the petitioner agreed to pay 30% as advance payment only Rs.50,000/- was deposited . Hence the first opposite party through letters dated 26.02.2001, 15.04.2001, 26.04.2001 and 21.06.2001 called upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount. They were also informed that the machinery were ready for despatch. Despite the letters when there was no payment phonogram was sent on 16.07.2001. In reply they were told that KFC would make payment on behalf of the petitioner. At that time OP.No.2 came to know that loan was sanctioned in the name and style AS Feeds. The petitioner then requested to send proforma invoice in the name of AS Feeds and that was sent with a request to clear the outstanding advance payment. Then the petitioner informed the first opposite party that the KFC was asking for proof of advance payment and requested the first opposite party to issue stamped receipt to show that advance amount had been paid. The first opposite party insisted for payment. But the petitioner insisted that she would make payment but stamped receipt should be issued in advance. The first opposite party was left with no option, but to consider the request of the petitioner Since the first opposite party feared that once the machinery were despatched advance payment would not be made OP.No.2 was asked to assess the situation and decide whether to hand over documents pertaining to purchase or not. To win the confidence of the first opposite party the petitioner then sent post dated DD for Rs.1,00,000/- and post dated cheque for Rs.1,43,000/- drawn on the Syndicate Bank and requested the first opposite party to issue . Receipt for Rs.2,93,000/-. The second opposite party issued the receipt in good faith. The KFC was agreeable to release the eligible amount (84.6%) of the cost of machinery shown in the proforma invoice provided the machinery items were received in good condition at the factory premises. The petitioner was then asked to submit his CST NO. to prepare documents for despatch and she gave CST Number which was not really allotted to the petitioners firm. Hence delivery of the machinery was withheld by the authority and a delay of two weeks happened due to the fault of the petitioner alone. Subsequently, the KFC released payment in favour of the first opposite party for which stamped receipt was issued.
6. After receipt of the machinery in good condition it was between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 to carry out erection and commissioning of the machinery. The first opposite party has no role in that regard except to give guidance if required. From the letter dated 19.11.2001 it is clear that the petitioner did not have money even for erection and commissioning of the machinery. It appears from records that erection of the machinery had been completed later. Only after the first opposite party initiated legal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the petitioner sent notice dated 16.07.2002 demanding the first opposite party to pay Rs.3,42,001/- towards the alleged loss. The petitioner is obviously taking shelter under the stamped receipt issued in good faith and is trying to avoid her liability. The terms and conditions of the proforma invoice are not correctly referred to in the petition. An amount of Rs.1,43,000/- is still payable to the first opposite party. Till the date of filing of the version. the petitioner has paid Rs.12,90.000/- inclusive of Rs.11,40,000/- received from KFC. The receipt for Rs.2,92,956/- sent to the second opposite party was issued by him in good faith somehow to the petitioner., though the petitioner had tendered only a post dated cheque for Rs.1,43,000/-. Only after physical inspection of the machinery done by KFC officials they released payment to the first opposite party. The amount if any paid by the petitioner to opposite party no.2 was for services rendered under a separate contract between them. The allegation that opposite parties colluded together to cheat the petitioner is incorrect. It seems that the machinery remained idle for want of funds towards working capital like raw materials, labour charges and other expenses. It is not correct to say that the petitioner was put to agony and hardship due to any action of the first opposite party. There was no defect for the machinery supplied. The alleged notice issued by the petitioner had not been received by the first opposite party. There was no unfair trade practice of deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party
7. The second opposite party has contended that they are not the authorized distributors of the first opposite party but are contract employee responsible for laisoning works like collection of payments, taxforms and certificates arranging tickets, booking etc. It is incorrect to say that purchase order dated 20.01.2001 was submitted to the first opposite party though second opposite party. The order was directly placed by the petitioner to the first opposite party The allegation that the cost of machinery that is Rs.14,32,956/- was paid to the first opposite party through the second opposite party is denied. The cost of machinery was directly released to the first opposite party by the KFC. The second opposite party received Rs.7,04,694/- in 7 instalments. The final settlement was made only when the work of the second opposite party was completed and the petitioner was satisfied with the work. The records reveal that the technical officer of KFC has inspected the machinery and was satisfied about the genuineness as well as correctness of erection before payments were made by the KFC. The second opposite party installed and commissioned the machinery to the utmost satisfaction of the petitioner well before payment was released by KFC. The second opposite party also did not receive the alleged legal notice. Considering the plant production capacity and cost of the cattle feed the annual turn over of AS feeds should be around Rs.12 crores and such a unit is not a unit for self employment. In other respects, the contentions of the first opposite party are reireterated.
8. The petitioner filed rejoinder refuting the contentions of the opposite parties.
On the pleadings in the petition and the contentions raised the following points arise for determination.
1. Whether this commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition?
2. Whether the petition is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act?
4. Whether deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is established by evidence?
5. What are the reliefs if any the petitioner is entitled to?
9. The evidence consists of the deposition of the husband of the petitioner as PW1 and three witnesses as PWs 2 to 4. Exts.A1 to A38 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Ext.X1 (series) was marked through PW4. The reports of the commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 & C1 (a) .On the side of the opposite parties, the Director of the first opposite party is examined as a DW1. The second opposite party is examined as DW2. The chief Manager of KFC, Kollam branch is examined on the side of opposite parties as DW3. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. After closure of the evidence arguments were heard.
Point No.1
10. According to the first opposite party this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as no part of the cause of action for the petitioner has arisen within its jurisdiction. The contention is that the contract to purchase machinery was concluded within the State of Gujarat within which the first opposite party is registered as a limited company. It has no branch office within the State of Kerala. But the fact remains that the machinery is supplied within the State of Kerala for starting cattle feed manufacturing unit. The payment of consideration also obviously proceeded from within the State of Kerala. Thus part of the causes of action has certainly arisen within the State of Kerala and this sufficiently invests this commission with jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Hence this contention of the first opposite party is negatived.
Point No.2
11. This petition is filed on 08.03.2004. The contention of the first opposite party is that they had supplied machinery in October 2001 and as such the petition is barred by limitation. It is evident from the contentions of the first opposite party itself that after installation of the machinery and trial run and after being satisfied with the performance of the machinery, the KFC had issued cheque and the party herself issued the cheque for final payment on 25.02.2002. In so far as the allegation is that defective and old machinery were supplied and this the petitioner came to know later, it appears that the petition is filed within two years after the facts constituting the deficiency came to the knowledge of the petitioner. Of course the truth of the allegations that old and defective machinery were supplied would be adjudicated at a later stage. But there is no material to find that the petition is barred by limitation.
Point No.3
12. Another contention raised by the first opposite party is that the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The specific allegation is that the machinery were purchased to start a cattle feed manufacturing unit as a source of livelihood for the petitioner. It appears that her husband was already in similar business in the name and style Elixir Agro Feeds. In fact, initially order was placed for machinery with the first opposite party in that name. The machinery purchased were intended to produce huge annual turn over by manufacturing cattle feed ,but that itself may not be sufficient to negative the contention that the unit was intended as a source of livelihood. In particular the allegation is that old used and machinery with manufacturing defect were supplied and this part of the deficiency in service alleged will have to be adjudicated with reference to the evidence available. So we are not inclined to reject the petition on this plea.
Point No.4
13. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted order on 20.01.2001 to the first opposite party for purchasing machinery worth Rs.14,32,956/-.According to the petitioner the entire consideration for the machinery was paid but according to the first opposite party a cheque for Rs.1,43,000/- issued by the petitioner when presented for payment was dishonoured and said amount is still outstanding to be paid to the first opposite party. But it is an admitted fact that the machinery is already supplied by the first opposite party. It also appears that proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending relating to the amount covered by the cheque. In any view of the matter the question whether any amount is due to the first opposite party is not a matter to be adjudicated in this proceedings and if as a matter of fact any amount is due to the first opposite party they will have to resort to other appropriate proceedings to realise the same.
14. The petitioner has a case that the machinery were held up at the sales tax check post as a result of the error on the part of the opposite parties. But it appears from the admission of the husband of the petitioner as PW1 that as on 20.10.2001 there was no sales tax registration for AS Feeds, the proprietory concern of the petitioner, whereas the Elixir Agro Feeds of PW1had sales tax registration and the evidence available is that sales tax registration number of Elixir Agro Feeds was given. Obviously when invoice and connected documents were prepared in the name of KFC there was no proper sales tax registration number and it was as a result of that the sales tax authority failed to clear the machinery for release. So obviously, for this delay the opposite parties can not be blamed. In fact, the petitioner seeks no relief by way of compensation from the opposite parties in this regard.
15. What remains to be adjudicated is the grievance of the petitioner that on examination and trial run of the machinery it was found that three out of the seven machinery were found to be very old used second hand and altered machinery. The machinery suffered from some manufacturing defects as well. What exactly is the manufacturing defect is not specified in the petition. The three machinery allegedly defective are hopper below mixer with 2 HP Motor, 3 pellete mill with 60 HP Motor and pellet collar 2 TPH capacity with distributor 0.5 HP motor and gear box. The petitioner has also the grievance that the second opposite party did not come forward to install the machinery and conduct trail run, despite the fact that they had received Rs.7,04,694/- in various instalments,for the purpose.
16. In deciding the genuiness of the grievances alleged the main evidence available can be divided into three parts. Firstly, the admissions of PW1, the husband of the petitioner are relevant. Secondly, the expert evidence available is furnished by Exts. C1 & C1(a) reports and the oral evidence of PWs 2 to 4 . Thirdly, the evidence of DW3, the manager, kollam branch of KFC is relevant to certain extent along with the circumstances provided by the documents marked in evidence.
17. It is evident from the pleadings as well as the deposition of PW1 that the petitioner availed loan from the KFC not only for the purpose of purchasing machinery from opposite party no.1 but also for purposes such as constructing the building to house the machinery for electrification work etc. PW1 admitted that the KFC released payments to the first opposite party after their engineer inspected the machinery supplied by the first opposite party and after physical verification of the machinery. As regards the works undertaken by the second opposite party PW1 admitted that on 05.04.2002 electrical work was completed and payment was effected as per Ext.A31. PW1 insisted that apart from bringing the items to be supplied by the second opposite party and installing the same the second opposite party had failed to conduct trial run of the machinery and production. At the same time PW1 admitted that the entire payment due to second opposite party was given. PW1 also admitted that at one stage the first opposite party was informed that there was financial constraints for the petitioner and the first opposite party should help them. PW1 insisted that the complaint against opp.party no.2 is that they failed to erect the machinery and commission the same. At the same time, PW1 admitted that Bill No.26 dated 04.11.2001 in Ext.A6 was passed after the engineer deputed by the KFC inspected and was convinced about the work done by the second opp.party. PW1 added that Rs.2,00,000/- was fixed for erection of the machinery and commissioning of the same, but no commissioning was done. At the same time entire payment including Rs.2,00,000/- above was admittedly made . PW1 is fully aware of condition no.2 (d) in Ext.A18 that payment of the last 10% of the amount agreed is after successful commissioning of the plant. So it is quite obvious that the machinery was not only installed but commissioned as agreed to between the parties. Even in re-examination he admitted that electrification for commissioning the plant was completed on 04.02.2002 and the required personnel was deputed by the second opp.party.
18. On these aspects the evidence of DW3, the Chief Manager, Kollam branch of KFC corroborates the evidence of PW1. Exts.X1 & X2 series were produced by him. He deposed that ordinarily payment to the supplier of the machinery would be made only after verification of the machinery supplied. The engineer of the corporation would conduct the verification. In this case also when the invoices and other documents supplied by the first opp.party were submitted along with application, the engineer of KFC, verified the machinery and thereafter directly paid the loan amount to the supplier. Rs.11,40,000/- was paid on 13./11.2001. It is clear from the deposition of DW3, that there was another valuation by the engineer subsequently on 14.01.2002 and based on his certificate cheque dated 16.01.2002 was given. In that report it is certified that eletrification of the plant was completed. Even the suggestion made to DW3 shows that electricity connection was given to the plant by the KSEB. But according to the complainant the electricity connection was given on 12.07.2002 and according to DW3, on 25.02.2002 the engineer conducted inspection and he was convinced that the unit had started trial production. It appears from Ext.C1 (a) report that electricity connection was obtained in the premises on 12.07.2002. But there is nothing unusual in conducing trial run before that because trial run is possible using other sources of electricity like generator. So the available evidence indicates that the unit started production using the machinery supplied by opposite parties 1 & 2 and after installation by the second opposite party. There is no convincing circumstance to hold otherwise.
19. There are certain other circumstances which support the above conclusion. Till the petitioner sent suit notice dated 12.11.2001 absolutely no complaint was raised that the machinery supplied were old or suffered from manufacturing defect. When Ext.A7 (a) notice was sent through the advocate of the petitioner complaint raised was something else and it is evident that dispute existed as to whether full payment for the machinery was made or not. Ext.A27 also indicates that in the light of the said dispute the first opp.party failed to send its representative to supervise installation and trial run of the machinery. In fact, the allegation in paragraph 9 of the petition is that since the opp.parties did not come forward to install the machinery, the petitioner was forced to install the " defective machinery" with the help of other expert persons and understood on trial run that the said machinery are not functioning properly due to defective components. Obviously, had this been the truth the petitioner would have never paid the agreed amount to opp.party No.2 in full.
20. Along with these circumstances, the admitted fact remains that the Kerala State Electricity Board had initiated revenue recovery proceedings to realise Rs.4, 00,496/- from the petitioner. The notice for the purpose was issued on 02.08.2005. This clearly indicates that the machinery were being used in all probability for production for a substantial period Ext.C1 (a) report mentions the date of disconnection of electricity as on 02.02.2005 that is about 21/2 years after connection was obtained in the premises. So it is obvious that considerable electricity was used in the premises after obtaining electricity connection and the allegation that the machinery supplied were defective and used one is raised for some other reason. The allegation in paragraph 6 of the petition is that three of the machinery supplied were second hand and used one and had "some manufacturing defects.". The immediate question is whether the said allegation is substantiated in evidence. In this regard, the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 and Exts.C1 & C1 (a) reports are the only available pieces of evidence.
21. PW2 is only a foreman of VEE Seven Engineers, Tamilnadu. He had examined the pellette machine and according to him certain parts of the machinery are not functioning properly. Not only that he inspected the machinery long after the filing of the case his evidence is not acceptable or convincing to show that there was manufacturing defect for any machinery or that it was an used and old one at the time of supply. PW3 is only the advocate commissioner who helped the expert PW4 in inspecting the machinery and filing Ext.C1 (a) report. PW4 deposed that the machinery were seen assembled as a single unit. He inspected the machinery 12 years after installation of the same. Yet, he deposed that on inspection of the machinery it seemed that trial run was conducted, but production was not started. This version itself is sufficient to show the interest of PW4, in supporting the petitioner. He was working in a rubber based industry and his qualification to give authentic opinion regarding cattle feed machinery is doubtful, Since there was no power supply. He was not able to say anything about the performance of the machinery. Obviously, he did not say and he could not say anything about the existence or otherwise of manufacturing defect in the machinery. So the available expert evidence and Ext.C1 (a) report are insufficient to establish the allegation in the petition that the opposite parties supplied defective old and used machinery. In that regard, the allegation in the petition or the evidence of PW1 alone is not sufficient. As seen already when suit notice was issued the petitioner set up a case which she hither to never had and failed to substantiate the case set up by her. Hence the point is found against the petitioner.
Point No.5
22. It follows from the conclusions arrived at while discussing point no.4 that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
INDEX
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW1 - G.Abraham
PW2 - K.Surendran
PW3 - R.Narayan
PW4 - Madhavan.P
Exihibits for the complainant
Ext.A1 - Original Power of attorney
Ext.A2 - Purchase order dated 28.09.2001
Ext.A3 - The consignment dated 11.10.2001
Ext.A4 & Ext.A4 (a) - Copies of receipts
Ext.A5 & Ext.A5 (a) - Letters from A.S.Feeds
Ext.A6 (7 nos) - Copies of receipts from Vasundhara
Commodities & Services
Ext.A7 - Copies of advocate notices
Ext.A8 - Acknowledgment card and Receipt
Ext.A9 -Certificate and letter issued dated 14.10.2003
from Vee Seven Engineers
Ext.A10 - Copy of invoice from Vee Seven Industries
Ext.A11 - The original licence
Ext.A12 - Copy of S.S.I Registration Certificate
Ext.A13 - Letter from Premium Engineers Pvt Ltd
dated 16.09.2000
Ext.A14 - Letter from Premium Engineers Pvt Ltd
dated 06.10.00
Ext.A15 - Purchase order for a 2TPH Cattle feed plant
from Vasundhara Commodities and services
Ext.A16 - Copy of the purchase order
Ext.A16 (a) - Copy of the covering letter
Ext.A17 - Copy of the letter produced by the first
Opposite party
Ext.A18 - Requirement of proposal from Vasundhara
Commodities and Services
Ext.A18 (a) & (b) - Quotation from Vasundhara commodities &
Services
Ext.A19 - The copy of certificate dated 20.10.2001
issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Kottarakkara
Ext.A20 & Ext.A21 - Copies of the letters are produced by the first
opposite party as Annexure 'C' & D
Ext.A22 - Packing list send by the first opposite party
Ext.A23 - Copy of receipt
Ext.A24 - Copy of letter from A.S.Feeds
dtd:19.11.2001
Ext.A25 - A reply dtd : 25.11.2001 was issued by
first opposite party
Ext.A26 - Copies of receipts from Vasundhara
Commodities & Services
Ext.A27 - Letter from Premium Engineers pvt Ltd
dated 16.09.02
Ext.A28 & Ext.A28 (a) - Copy of the performance guarantee
certificate and lean No.charge certificate
issued by first opposite party dated
11.10.2001
Ext.A29 & Ext.A29(a) - The second opposite party issued guarantee
certificate on 05.11.2001 along with
covering letter dated 05.11.2001
Ext.A30 - Copy of the letter from A.S.Feeds
Ext.A31 - Letter issued by 2nd opp.party
Ext.A32 - The attested true copy of the Extract of the
Register of Electricity reading
Ext.A33 - Copies of the letters sent by KFC
Ext.A33 (a) - Paper publication for auction sale
Ext.A34 & A34 (a) - Copy of notice issued by KSEB, Kottarakkara
Ext.A35 - Request for information under Right to
Information Act 2005
Ext.A36 - Application form & Registration Certificate
Ext.A37 - Letter to the Deputy Tahsildar dated
20.05.2004
Ext.A38 - Main function of the business associates is
mentioned in the Annexure - G
Ext.X1 & X2 series - Loan disbursement voucher
List of witnesses for the opposite party
DW1 - Kanaijalal .G.Narumalani
DW2 - S.Sasiraj
DW3 - J.Francis
Exihibits for the opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Notice as per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
1881 from Bhadresh K.Soneji, Advocate
Ext.B2 - Return memo from Syndicate Bank
Commission Report
C1 & C1 (a) - The reports of the advocate commissioner
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Be/
KERALA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHARLANE
VAZHUTHACADU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
OP.NO.02/2004
JUDGMENT
DATED:26.05.2015
Be/