Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/63/2011

V.Girija - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arooran Sugars Ltd and Two others. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Manoharan

30 Sep 2014

ORDER

Date of Filing      : 22.12.2011

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 30.09.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.63/2011

 

DECIDED ON THIS 30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER  2014.

 

 

            V. Girija,

             w/o Varatharajan,

             No.28,Thirumanajana Veethi

             Thiruvizhandur, Mayiladithurai Town,

             Nagapattinam  District.                                                        …..      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

1. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd,

Thirumandagudi, represented by its

 Authorized signatory.     

2. State Bank of India,

Mayiladuthurai, represented by its

Branch Manager.

3. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd,

Kumbakonam represented by its

Branch Manager.                                                                  ….. Opposite parties

  

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 16.09.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.G.Manokaran, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.G. Ramamoorthy counsel for the 1^st opposite party, Thiru.K. Ramalingam counsel for the 2^nd opposite party, Thiru.S. Veerapandiyan, counsel for the 3^rd opposite party, having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

                        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that her nanja lands of Ac 7.80 in Kozhaiyur village was registered as plot No.1103327, 1100854, and 1101787 with the 1^st opposite party, farmer number being 1113064.  The complainant raised the sugarcane in the month of Feb 2009, after getting the tie-up loan from the 2^nd opposite party and the said crop loan was insured with the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party inspected the crop lands with other opposite parties and issued the group Insurance policy No.721101/47.  The policy amount has been paid by the 2^rd opposite party under the group Insurance Scheme, in which various other sugarcane growers are also policy holders.  The crop was fully damaged due to attack of acute root pest and caused huge damage to the complainant.  The subordinates of the 3^rd opposite party inspected the damaged crop field and noted the extent of damages also.  The complainant submitted the claim form which was given by the 3^rd opposite party on 21.05.2009 in bulk for future need through the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore the crop registration, advancement of crop loan and crop insurance are interlinked with all the opposite parties and each and everyone is tie-up with the business. The 3^rd opposite party committed the dereliction and negligence in performing their function properly.  For the letter forwarded by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party for claim of compensation, the latter sent letter stating that the claim was under consideration.  On 02.11.2010 the 3^rd opposite party sent a letter stating that the premium amount was paid belatedly, so that no amount will be given to the complainant.  The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is without any basis.  The complainant is not responsible in any way for the belated payment made by the 2^nd opposite party, who is interlinked with the 3^rd opposite party.  The opposite parties have also committed unfair trade practice also. The complainant has suffered from mental agony and the loss cannot be estimated in terms of money.  The complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.140800/- jointly or severally with interest at the rate claimed by the 2^nd opposite party, as crop loan, to pay the sum of Rs.100000/- towards damages, for the mental agony and torture caused to the complainant along with the costs of this litigation and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum may deem fit.

                        3.  The gist of the written version filed by 1^st opposite party, is that the 1st opposite party is purchaser of sugarcane from the sugarcane grower for crushing in their factory for manufacturing sugar.  Thus the complainant is seller of sugar cane and the 1^st opposite party is the purchaser of it.  As such the 1^st opposite party is the purchaser of sugarcane sold by the complainant and the complainant is not a consumer and on that ground the petition is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.  The complainant during the season sold 43.446 tons of sugarcane and obtained voucher value from the 1^st opposite party and it is not even mentioned in the petition as to how the value of the crops is claimed at Rs.140800/- with the highly exaggerated scale and in her application to the 3^rd opposite party the complainant has claimed only Rs.48000/- which shows that the complaint is making tall claim falsely.  The 1^st opposite party has nothing do with the crop insurance and it is the responsibility of the complainant only to insure her crops at her discretion and the 1^st opposite party is dragged to Court unnecessarily with illegal claim of damages against him.  The 1^st opposite party has remitted Rs.55362/- to the 2^nd opposite party towards the loan amount of the complainant towards the sale proceeds of sugarcane supplied by her.  The contract also had come to an end with that payment.  The allegation of unfair trade practice is without basis as against the 1^st opposite party.  The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with the costs.

                        4.  The gist of the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is that the 2^nd opposite party has advanced agricultural loan to the limit of Rs.140800/- on the recommendation of the 1^st opposite party, for raising the sugarcane in the complainant’s lands under the insurance coverage of the 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party released the loan amount to the complainant and insurance premium amount to the 3^rd opposite party and there is no dereliction of the duty on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, regarding the insurance of crops under the group Insurance Scheme.  The total sum of insurance premium of all the riots in that village has been sent to the 3^rd opposite party in time.  There is no dereliction of the duty on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, who is unnecessarily added in this complaint.  The percentage of loss determined by the 1^st opposite party was 80% and at the same time as per the Exhibit A5 the surveyor of the insurance company has fixed it at 50% only that too without seeing the crops.  As per the statement of account of the 2^nd opposite party, the payment for seed was made up to 18.02.2009 in several times.  The 2^nd opposite party has sent the premium amount to the 3^rd opposite party, the insurance company by debiting the premium amount in the complainant’s account on 08.09.2009 and the insurance company has also received the premium amount.  The 3^rd opposite party is not entitled to say that the premium amount was paid belatedly.  Only to escape from the liability to settle the loan amount the complainant has included the bank also in her complaint without any basis.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        5. The gist of the written version filed by the 3^rd opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant cannot be termed out as a consumer as defend under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite party planted the sugarcane in her field in the month of Feb 2009 ad that was not insured with the 3^rd opposite party either by the complainant or her banker, the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant had tie-up with the 1^st opposite party to sell the sugarcane raised in her field and obtained sugarcane crop loan from the 2^nd opposite party .  The loan was granted by the 2^nd opposite party only on 14.05.2009 and it is not compulsory on the part of the sugarcane growers to insure the sugarcane crops and it is only optional on their part to insure the sugarcane crop to reimburse the actual expenses incurred for plantation. The liability of the 3^rd opposite party under the sugarcane, crop insurance policy will arise only on payment of premium that too from the date on which the premium amount was realized by the insurer.  The sugarcane crops raised by the complainant in the month of 2009 was damaged in the month of May 2009 as evidenced by the complainant’s letter dated 10.06.2010 to the 3^rd opposite party.  The 1^st crop planted by the complainant was damaged and thereafter she planted the new sugarcane for which she obtained loan from the 2^nd opposite party and thereafter only she insured the new 2^nd crop with the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party debited the insurance premium amount in the complainant’s account only on 08.09.2009 and the said premium was paid by the 2^nd opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party on 16.09.2009 by way of demand draft.  Hence the liability of the 3^rd opposite party commenced only on the realization of the premium amount i.e. on 16.09.2009.  Therefore the 1^st crop raised in the month of Feb 2009 which was damaged in the month of May 2009, was not at all insured by the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore the 3^rd opposite party is not at all liable.  The 3^rd opposite party’s surveyor inspected the complainant’s fields and submitted the report to that effect stating, that the crops raised in the month of Feb 2009, was damaged in the month of May 2009 for which there is no insurance cover with the 3^rd opposite party.  Hence complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated by the 3^rd opposite party and there is no deficiency of service on his part.  The 3^rd opposite party is no way concerned with the dispute that has arisen in this complaint and is not at all liable to pay any amount to the complainant as claimed by her.  Therefore the complaint is liable to dismissed.

                        6. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and has filed 13 documents, which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A13.  Exhibit A14 is subsequently filed with a memo.  The 1^st opposite party has filed his proof affidavits in support of his defence along with the 3 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B3.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have also filed their respective proof affidavits in support of their defence.  Written arguments have been submitted by the complainant and all the opposite parties.

7. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable against the 1^st opposite party?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

                        8. Point 1: The 1^st opposite party has filed 3 agreements between the complainant and himself, in connection with the raising of sugarcane and selling it to the 1^st opposite party.  Those agreements particularly Exhibit B1 relating to the extent  of Ac 7.80 involved in this complaint, makes it clear that the complainant has to raise sugarcane crops in his field and cut and produce it at the premises of the 1^st opposite party’s mill.  The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party, argued that the complainant is not a consumer under sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the act as he has not a hired the services of the 1^st opposite party for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised.  As per the agreement she is to cut and produce the sugarcane at the premises of the 1^st opposite party’s mill and get the price of it.  Though the mill has got a tie-up with the 2^nd opposite party’s Bank, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore there is no question of claiming any compensation or relief as against the 1^st opposite party by the complainant on the ground of any deficiency of service or negligence.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party’s impleading can be upheld only for the purpose of comprehensive and binding adjudication in this matter in as much as he is only the proper party to the proceedings and not a necessary party. 

                        9. Point 2: In this case the main contention of the complainant is that the sugarcane crops raised by him in the Ac 7.80 was fully damaged due to acute attack of root pest and therefore the 3^rd opposite party who is the insurer of the crops with a tie-up agreements with the 2^nd opposite party, who has advanced loan to the complainant for the raising of the crops is liable to reimburse the loss caused to the complainant.  He has further contended that the claim form had been submitted to the 3^rd opposite party in this regard.  But the 3^rd opposite party had been negligent and evasive without paying the compensation as per the insurance policy and therefore there is deficiency of service on his part. 

10. The main contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that under the group insurance scheme the premium relating to the complainant’s policy was debited by the 2^nd opposite party in the complainant’s account only on 08.09.2009, that the said premium amount was paid by the 2^nd opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party only on 16.09.2009 by way of Demand Draft along with the premium amount of other sugarcane growers under the group insurance scheme that the 3^rd opposite party’s liable for any loss or risk caused to the complainant only from the date of the receipt of the premium amount namely 16.09.2009 and hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief or compensation as against the 3^rd opposite party with respect to the alleged loss caused to the sugarcane crops raised in Feb 2009.  The 2^nd opposite party has contended that he has duly debited the premium amount in the complainant’s account and remitted it to the 3^rd opposite party in due time and therefore the 2^nd opposite party in unnecessary party to this proceedings and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

                        11. The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the insurance premium of Rs.2056/- was debited by the 2^nd opposite party in the complainant’s account and remitted to the 3^rd opposite party on 16.09.2009 by way of Demand Draft is not relating to the sugarcane crops raised in Feb 2009 and he is not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged loss caused to the said crops and further his liability to reimburse the loss caused to the complainant would commence only from 16.09.2009, the date of receipt of the premium amount and not prior to that date.  

                        12. From the averments contained in the complaint and Exhibit A4, the letter sent by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party, the Exhibit A2 and A11 to A14, the Bills issued by the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of the Sugarcane crops supplied by the complainant and Exhibit A14 the certificate given by the 2^nd opposite party it is clear that the complainant had obtained loan from the 2^nd opposite party only for the sugarcane crops raised in February 2009 and harvested and sold in February 2010 and he claims compensation from the 3^rd opposite party only for the crops which is said have been damaged by acute attack of root pest.  The complainant has filed Exhibit A2 as the proof of his total yield of sugarcane he harvested and sent to the 1^st opposite party’s mill from out of the crops he raised in 2009.  He has filed Exhibits A11 to A13 as proof of his total yield he harvested and sent to the 1^st opposite party in January 2009 from out of the crops raised by him in 2008.  As per the calculation sheet attached with Exhibit A13, the complainant has harvested and sent to the opposite party’s mill more than 200 Metric tons of sugarcane raised in 2008.  The Exhibit A11 to A13 are filed only for the comparison of the total yield of sugar harvested from out of the sugarcane raised in 2008 and 2009.

13. Exhibit A14, the certificate given by the 2^nd  opposite party has made it clear that loan was not advanced to the complainant only for the sugarcane raised in 2009 and harvested in 2010 under Exhibit A2 and not for the sugarcane raised in 2008 and harvested in 2009 under Exhibit A11 to A13.Further Exhibit A1 the claim form submitted by the complainant has also revealed that he has claimed compensation only for the crops raised in February 2009 and harvested and sent to the 1^st opposite party in 2010 under Exhibit A2.  The Exhibits A1, A2 and A11 to A14 are not denied by  any of the opposite parties.  Hence it is decided that the complainant has claimed compensation only for the loss caused to the sugarcane crops raised by him in February 2009 and harvested and sent the 1^st opposite party in 2010 under Exhibit A2.

                        14. The primary contention of the 3^rd opposite party in his case is that the premium amount of Rs.2056/- for the policy was debited by the 2^nd opposite party only on 08.09.2009 in the complainant’s account and paid to him only on 16.09.2009 by way of demand draft and therefore he is not liable for the alleged damage caused to the crops prior to the said date of receipt of the premium from which date only his liability would commence.  The said contention is not at all tenable and acceptable by this Forum for the following reasons:-

      a)   The 3^rd opposite party has not at all produced before this Forum, the insurance  policy relating to the complainant and other group of farmers who have  contributed the premium under the group insurance scheme.   The insurance   policy is the basic document which would disclose the particulars such as the period of policy, the amount of policy, the date of payment of premium etc. But the 3^rd opposite party has failed to produce the said document which tantamounts to suppression of material fact in this case.

     b) Even the alleged delay in the payment of premium by the 2^nd opposite party is

   understandable and acceptable for the reason that the premium has to be   

  collected by the 2^nd opposite party from 30 farmers under the Group Insurance   

  Scheme before remitting it as a lump sum to the 3^rd opposite party. 

    c)  The contention of the 3^rd opposite party that his liability would commence only

            form 16.09.2009 the date of receipt of the premium amount from the 2^nd opposite

            party is not at all acceptable in the absence of the production of the Insurance

Policy under the Group Insurance scheme.  Only in cases of Accident Policies or Policies relating to Motor Vehicles the starting point of the liability would be the date of the payment of the premium amount.  But in cases of Group Insurance scheme relativity to agricultural Groups the liability would be pertaining to the period of that crops.  For sugarcane crops the period is one year and the period of the policy for the complainant’s sugarcane crops is 2009 only and therefore the liability of the 3^rd opposite party exists for the entire year 2009 even though the premium is paid in September 2009 only.

      d) The 3^rd opposite party has not disclosed the date on which he received the claim form from the complainant. In  Exhibit A1 the date of receipt of the claim form is left blank.  Exhibit A8 is the application sent by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act.  For the query no.6(5) under Exhibit A8, the complainant has raised the question as to how the 3^rd opposite party received the premium amount of Rs.2056/- on 16.09.2009, he having submitted the claim form on 21.05.2009 itself.  For that under Exhibit A9, the opposite party has given the reply as follows: - “claim forms are being issued for the farmers who report claim at our office.  At the time of accepting the premium, we do not know the status of the field as such since the premium amount was given by the Bank for a total batch of 30 farmers.” But as already pointed out the very first note printed in Exhibit A1 the Claim Form is “இந்த படிவம் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளத்தால் இழப்பீடு வழங்குவதாக  ஒப்புக்கொண்டாகி விட்டது.” which makes it clear that claims forms are issued only to those farmers who have incurred loss in the raising of the crops.  Therefore the contention of the 3^rd opposite party that they have issued the claim forms without knowing the status of the field as premium amount was collected under Group Insurance Scheme for total batch of 30 farmers is not at all acceptable.  Even otherwise if the liability of the 3^rd opposite party is to commence only from 16.09.2009 as contended by him, the question how he issued the claim form on 21.05.2009 is the million dollar question to be answered by him.  Further to the query raised by the complainant under 6(9) of Exhibit A8, the 3^rd opposite party has given the answer under Exhibit A9 to the said question as follows. “We have not received the claim form. We have taken up all the steps based on your letter dated 10.06.2010 only.” But the said claim form, Exhibit A1, is furnished to the complainant as per his request under Exhibit A8, under the Right to Information Act., along with the Exhibit A10 by the 3^rd opposite party.  Therefor it is very clear that the 3^rd opposite party has not taken the defence in good faith and he has vexatiousley  taken the defence that he is not liable to pay the compensation to the complainant as he received the premium under the Group Insurance Scheme only on 16.09.2010.

 

            15. At the same time the complainant’s claim for the relief of the payment of Rs.140800/- , the loan amount due to the 2^nd opposite party and the sum of Rs.100000/- by way of compensation for his mental agony is also not totally entertainable for the following reasons:-

a) The complainant has failed to inform the 3^rd opposite party, his insurer,

                 immediately on the alleged damage caused to his crops in 2009.  He     has

                 not even averred in his complaint specifically as to when the alleged attack of

                root pest over his crops took place.

       

        b) The complainant has not specifically mentioned the class of crops raised by

                 him in 2009, whether Ratoon or plant.  In Exhibit A5, the Surveyor’s report

                the letter written by the 1^st opposite party regarding the details of supply of   

                sugar cane to him, it is noted the extent of Ac 1.00 has Ratoon and the

                 supply is  43.66 Metric tons under Exhibit A2 and the remaining Ac 6.80 has

                 plant and at  the supply column the word ‘Nil’ is mentioned.  No clarification

                 is given by  the complainant in this regard.

          c) The complainant could not prove as to when he submitted the claim form to the

              3^rd  opposite party.  But he has sent the letter Exhibit A4 only on 10.06.2010 and

              thereafter only the Surveyor has inspected the field and submitted his report

              dt.02.09.2010 the Exhibit A5.  In Exhibit A5, the very first note printed on 1^st

 page of the Form is“இந்த படிவம் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளத்தால்

இழப்பீடு வழங்குவதாக  ஒப்புக்கொண்டாகி விட்டது.” which gives an

inference that the claim       form would  

   be issued only to the claimant who has incurred loss which is to be    

  compensated by the 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore the alleged attack of root

  pest ought to have taken place prior to the issue of the said Exhibit A5 to the  

  complainant.  Whilst so why the complainant had had not taken immediate

   steps for the inspection of the surveyor and he has written a letter Exhibit A4 to 

   the 3^rd opposite party only on 10.06.2010 nearly an year after the issue of

   Exhibit A5 is not explained convincingly by the complainant.

        d) The alleged quantum of loss is not proved by the complaint and the value of the

     loss caused by the damage to the crops could not be assessed on the basis of 

    Exhibit A11 to A13 the quantum of sugarcane supplied in January 2009.

            16. In the Exhibit A5 the Surveyor’s Report he has recommended Rs.14742/- as loss of  cost after deducting certain percentage towards loss.  However the surveyor has observed at the 3^rd page of his report that “the damage occurred in May 2009 and the premium was received in September 2009.  Damage occurred   before the receipt of premium.”  The main contention of the learned counsel for the 3^rd opposite party is that he is not liable for the alleged loss incurred by the complainant since the premium amount was paid to him only in September 2009.  In view of the various reasons given in the paragraph No.14 above that contention is not acceptable since the premium is received before the expiry of the year 2009 itself.  Therefore this Forum finds that the compensation is entitled to the cost at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre of planted crops and Rs.12,000/- per acre for Ratoon sugarcane crops.  Therefore the loss of  cost for one acre of         Ratoon Crops is Rs.12,000/-

The  cost for the planted crops for the remaining Ac 6.80 is 15000X6.80=102000/-.     

 Therefore the total loss of cost = 1,14,000/-

Therefore this Forum finds that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party alone who is liable to pay the said  cost to the complainant.

                        17. Point 3: In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,14,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fourteen thousand only) by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 10.06.2010, the date of the Exhibit A4, the remainder letter sent by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party till the date of its realization.  The 3^rd opposite party is further directed to pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall also carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of its realization.  If the 3^rd opposite party has failed to pay the said compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order, he shall be liable to pay the said amount at the rate of 18% per annum in lieu of 12% per annum.

 

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this 30^th day of  September 2014.

 

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDENT

 

List  of document   filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.21.05.2009: Xerox copy of the Claim Form of the complainant to the 3^rd

   opposite party.

Ex.A2/Dt.08.04.2010: The Xerox copy of the Price List of the Complainant’s Sugarcane

    by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3/Dt.29.04.2010: The Xerox copy of the SBI Statement of Account of the

   complainant given by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A4/Dt.10.06.2010: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 3^rd

   opposite party.

Ex.A5/Dt.02.09.2010: The Xerox copy of the complainant’s Sugarcane Crop Loss

    Investigation Report given by the 1^st  opposite party’s Surveyor.

Ex.A6/Dt.27.10.2010: The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the 3^rd opposite party’s

    Regional Office, Coimbatore to the complainant.

Ex.A7/Dt.02.11.2010: The Xerox copy of the reply sent by the 3^rd opposite party to the

   complainant.

Ex.A8/Dt.07.04.2011: The Xerox Copy of the Application filed by the complainant to the

    Opposite parties under Right to Information Act.

 

Ex.A9/Dt.18.04.2011: The Xerox copy of the reply notice sent by the 3^rd opposite party

    to the Complainant’s counsel.

Ex.A10/Dt.18.04.2011: The Xerox copy of the another reply sent by the 3^rd opposite

      party  to the Complainant under the RTI Act.

Ex.A11/Dt.15.01.2008:The Xerox copy of the Bill for the supply of the Complainant’s

      Sugarcane given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A12/Dt.18.02.2008: The Xerox copy of the Bill for the supply of the Complainant’s

      Sugarcane given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A13/Dt.25.02.2008: The Xerox copy of the Bill for the supply of the Complainant’s

      Sugarcane given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A14/Dt.03.09.2014:The Xerox copy of the Certificate issued by the 2^nd opposite

     party to the complainant.

 

 

List  of document   filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1/Dt. 26.02.2009 : Copy of the Sugarcane registration Agreement between the

      complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B2/Dt.  Nil               : Copy of the Sugarcane registration Agreement between the

      complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B3/Dt.  Nil               : Copy of the Sugarcane registration Agreement between the

      complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

   

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.63/2011

Order Dt.: 30.09.2014.