BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER - I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 14 / 2007 TUESDAY THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST 2011. P. Thulasiraman, S/o. V. Padmaraja, No.69, Balaji Nagar, Solapuriamman Koil Street, Thottapalayam, Vellore – 4. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. N. Manivannanan, Managing Director, Mahathma Modern Form No.44/34, Salem Kadaloor Main Road, Athur Town & Taluk, Salem District. 2. S.V. Lakshmi, Dealer Vellore District. Mahatma Modern Form, No.11/93-1, Murugan Koil Street, Pernampet. 3. Mahatma Modern Form, Rep. by its Managing Director, N. Manivannan, No.44/34, Salem Kadaloor Main Road, Athur Town & Taluk, Salem District. … Opposite parties. …… This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 18.7.11, in the presence of Thiru. A. Ekambaram, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. M.N. Natesh, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. I. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is resident of Vellore Town. Complainant has seen an advertisement published in Daily Thandi dt. 30.11.05 circulated at Vellore and the same was issued on behalf of the opposite party by the News agency. The advertisement relates to Emu – birds growing and breeding etc. from the complainant came to know about one S.V. Lakshmi of pernampet, Gudiyatham Taluk is the dealer for Vellore District persuaded by the said advertisement the complainant approached the opposite party through the dealer and after satisfying the terms and condition the complainant and the opposite parties have entered into contract which was reduced into writing on 3.12.05. As per the terms of the concluded contract the opposite parties as to supply five units of Emu birds of tender age which consist of five male and five female, and the price for the pair Rs.30000/-. The complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- for the five pairs to the opposite parties herein and the opposite party having received the same, but supplied only 4 pairs birds on 22.12.05. The opposite party dealer S.V. Lakshmi also received a sum of Rs.10,000/- being extra cost of birds and also Rs.1000/- for transport charges and passed a receipt also. As per the terms of the condition of the contract the opposite party has to supply the birds on or before 14.12.05 but on the other hand the opposite party has supplied 8 birds only through the dealer. The opposite party told to the complainant that the Emu-birds will lay eggs within the 18 months. At the time of supply the birds were 13 months old. In spite of the recommended nutrious feeding given by the complainant to the birds, the birds failed to lay eggs from May to September as told by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant informed about the same and then approached the veterinary doctor to test the Emu birds. While testing the doctor told that out of the 8 birds female birds are two only and the remaining were six males. Then only the complainant came about the fraud played by the opposite parties. Because of non-delivery of female birds the complainant has not able to see 120 eggs per year for 2 female birds so the loss of income which the complainant has sustained comes to Rs.1,44,000/- (180 x 1200) p.a. for two years 360 x 1200 = 4,32,000/-. 2. Therefore complainant is deprived of the insurance benefit Rs.50,000/-. Now one male bird died and the same was intimated to the 1st opposite party by telegram for that no reply so far. Since the opposite party failed to supply the remaining one pair and failed to return the price of Rs.30,000/- that apart if that birds is supplied the complainant would have got Rs.72000/- per year through the egg to be laid he has deprived of that benefit by the opposite parties. Now the net monetary loss which the complainant sustained come to Rs.4,32,000/- for two years. The complainant has issued a notice demanding the loss of Rs.2,46,000/- per year on 19.9.06 to the opposite party and the opposite party having received the same has sent a reply on 27.9.06 which containing false averments and incorrect particulars. PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND DAMAGES 1. 1 pair of Emu birds no supplied but price of its received by the opposite parties Rs. 30,000.00 2. Loss of eggs 360 for two years (360 x 1200) price of 1eg Rs. 4,32,000.00 3. Insurance expenses which the 1st opposite party, failed to make good Rs. 50,000.00 4. Mental suffering Rs.1,00,000.00 5. Cost of proceedings Rs. 10,000.00 ---------------------- Total Rs.6,22,000.00 ---------------------- The complainant states that the 2nd opposite party is a Vellore District dealer signed the contracts along with the 1st opposite party and she is residing at Pernampet, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District comes within the preview this Forum jurisdiction, even though the opposite party No.1 carries on his business at Athur, Salem District within the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum. Hence the complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Therefore the complainant prays this Forum for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest 12% p.a. from the date of petition to till the date of payment as claimed being the damages sustained and sufferings and cost of this complaint. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite parties are as follows: Except those which are specifically admitted by the opposite parties, the rest of the allegations that are found in the complaint are not true and are not admitted by the opposite parties. The compensation that is claimed in the present complaint is Rs.6,22,000/-. Hence this Forum shall have no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The 1st opposite party is the main party to the both Emu birds agreements dated 3.12.05. The 2nd opposite party is not a necessary party either to the transactions between the complainant and the 1st opposite party or to the Emu birds agreements both dt. 3.12.05. She is only a formal party. Thus the main and the real dispute is between the 1st opposite party and the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is only a formal party who is acting only as the commission agent. The 1st opposite party is admittedly residing within the jurisdiction of Salem District Forum. He is admittedly resides, carries on business and personally works for gain at D.No.44/34 Salem to Cuddalore main Road, opposite to Government Higher Secondary School, Attur, within the local limits of District Forum, Salem. The complainant had taken delivery of the 5 pairs of Emu birds at his own risk from Mahatma Modern Farm on 4.12.05 within the local limits of District Forum, Salem. Hence the cause of action wholly arose for the complaint at Attur Salem District within the local limits of the District Forum at Salem. Thus this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act defines a consumer as any person who buy goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. EMU Birds agreement dt. 3.12.2005 reads thus vA;fsJ kfhj;kh khh;ld; ghh;k; NK BfhHp gz;izapypUe;J BfhHpf;Fq;Rfis bgw;Wf;bfhz;L mJ BghLk; Kl;ilfisa[k; kw;Wk; BfhHpfisa[k; vA;fsplBk jpUk;g bfhLj;Jtpl Btz;Lk;. vA;fsJ MByhridg;go Kiwahf tsh;j;J guhkhpj;J tuBtz;oaJ. mJ BghLk; Kl;ilfis cilahky; gj;jpukhf vLj;J Brjhuk; ny;yhky; vA;fsplk; bfhLj;Jtpl Btz;Lk;. mg;go bfhLf;Fk; Kl;ilfis xU Kl;il U}.1200/- tPjk; ehA;fBs bgw;Wf;bfhs;fpBwhk;. 3 tUlk; fHpj;J BfhHp tsh;g;gth; tpUk;gpdhy; MBuhf;fpakhd BfhHpfis capUld; vil Bghl;L xU fpByh U}.750/- tPjk; jpUk;g bgw;Wf;bfhs;fpBwhk;. “ The purchase of five units of Emu birds are no doubt for the business and commercial purpose and for resale purpose. It was mutually agreed by the parties to the contract for the repurchases and sales of the eggs and the EMU birds after 3 years. Accordingly in the present case the complainant had sold away entire five units of the birds to third parties and had replaced the birds of underage. Thus the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the complaint is not at all maintainable before the Forum. The identification of sex said to have been done by the private veterinary practitioner manually is not correct, is not valid and sustainable. The sex of EMU birds cannot be diagnosed manually or externally. The sex identification of EMU birds could be done only by examining the internal sex organs of the EMU birds by pouring the hands inside the anus and then lifting the fingers slightly upwords over the wall of anus so as to ascertain the sex organs of the birds. If it is male we can find out organale mass and if it is female we can find out organale orifice only. This is the only way of sex identification. Further more the said private veterinary practitioner has given post mortem certificate stating that broken of left tibia and Fibula at the time of mating on the early morning on 2.10.06, that first aid treatment was given immediately at 8. 00 A.M. and that the bird died at 2 .00 p.m. on the same day. The Veterinary practitioner has failed to mention the reasons and causes for the death of the bird. No intimation was given to either of the opposite parties. No postmortem was done in the presence of witnesses. The bird had not been buried in the presence of witnesses both the certificate dt. 15.8.06 and 3.10.06 are not true, valid and binding upon the opposite parties. 4. As per the terms and conditions of the EMU birds agreements dt. 3.12.05 the birds are to be maintained as per the directions and advise of Mahama Modern Farm. The feeds may be purchased from Mahatma Modern Farms. The complainant had neither purchased any feeds from the 1st opposite party nor prepared as per the feeds formala that is being given. The complainant has not maintained his farm as per the directions and advises of the 1st opposite party. It is only the complainant who has committed breach of contract and there by caused damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- towards breach of contract, loss of future income and compensation for having raised damaging and defamatory allegations as claimed in the reply notice. The 2nd opposite party is not a dealer. She is only a commission agent, she has received Rs.10,000/- towards her commission and Rs.1000/- towards fare for transport of birds to Vellore from the Mahatma Modern Form. The 1st opposite party is not responsible for the said amount. It is true to say that the expenses for the insurance has to be paid by the 1st opposite party. The insurance has to be done only at Vellore. Hence the 1st opposite party has paid Rs.7000/- to the complainant for the purpose of taking insurance policy for the 5 units of EMU birds. The alleged intimation with regard to the death of one bird is not true. No intimation was given as alleged. The 1st opposite party has not received any telegram as alleged. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amounts to the tune of Rs.6,22,000/- as claimed by the complainant wrongly. They have not committed any acts of breath of contract. The breach and the negligent are on the part of the complainant. The 1st opposite party has been suffering from mental agony and torture because of the defamatory allegations raised by the complaint. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for breach of contract, towards business loss are compensation for mental agony, torture and sufferings. Therefore the opposite parties humbly prays that this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 5. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether the complainant is not a “consumer” within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?. b) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a): The complainant contended that after satisfying the terms and condition, the complainant and the opposite parties1 & 3 have entered into contract / agreement Ex.A2 which was reduced into writing on 3.12.05. As per the terms of the concluded contract, the opposite parties supply five units of Emu birds of tender age which consist of five male and five female and the price for the pair Rs.30000/-. Accordingly, the complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- for the five pairs to the opposite parties 1 and 3, but they supplied only four pairs birds on 22.12.05. The opposite parties told the complainant that the Emu-birds will lay eggs within the 18 months. At the time of supply, the birds were 13 months old. In spite of the recommended nutrious feeding given by the complainant to the birds, the birds failed to lay eggs from May to September. While testing, the doctor told that out of 8 birds, female birds are two only and the remaining were six males. Because of non-delivery of female birds, the complainant has not able to see 120 eggs per year for two female birds so the loss of income which the complainant has sustained comes to Rs.1,44,000/- p.a. for two years Rs.4,32,000/-. Hence, the opposite parties have committed a deficiency in service. 8. The opposite parties contented that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement Ex.A2 the complainant purchased five units of Emu birds for the business and commercial purpose, and for resale purpose. It was mutually agreed by the parties to the contract for the repurchases and sales of the eggs and the Emu birds after three years. Accordingly the complainant had sold away entire five units of the birds to third parties and had replaced the birds of underage. Therefore the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complainant is not at all maintainable before the Forum. 9. It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant approached the 1st and 3rd opposite parties through the 2nd opposite party and after satisfying the terms and conditions the complainant and the 1st & 3rd opposite parties have entered into the contract / agreement Ex.A2 which was reduced into writing on 3.12.05. The above said contract / agreement Ex.A2 dt. 3.12.05 read as follows: NK BfhHp tsh;g;g[ kw;Wk; Kl;il kw;Wk; BfhHpfis jpUk;g bgWtjw;fhd xg;ge;j gj;jpuk; 2005-k; tUlk; ork;gh; khjk; 3k; Bjjp Bryk; khtl;lk;, Mj;J]h; tl;lk;, Mj;J]h; efuj;jpy; muR Mz;fs; Bky;epiyg;gs;sp vjphpy; 44-34, Bryk; - flY]h; bkapd;BuhL, vd;w Kfthpapy; bray;gLk; kfhj;kh mwf;fl;lisapd; Xh; mA;fkhf cs;s kfhj;kh khlh;d; ghh;k;. gh!;fh; NK ghh;k; chpikahsh; gp. Jsrpuhkd; 69, mBfj;jk;g{z;o, Bkl;Lj;bjU-2, BtY]h; vd;w Kfthpapy; trpf;Fk; jpU. gp. Jsrpuhkd; mth;fSf;F vGjpf; bfhLj;j NK BfhHpsh;g;g[ kw;Wk; BfhHp Kl;ilfisj; jpUk;g bgWtjw;fhd xg;ge;j gj;jpuk; vd;dbtd;why;: Bkw;fz;l Kfthpapy; cs;s vA;fsJ kfhj;kh khlh;d; ghh;k; NK BfhHp gz;izapypUe;J BfhHpf;Fq;Rfs; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L mJBghLk; Kl;ilfisa[k; kw;Wk; BfhHpfisa[k; vA;fsplBk jpUk;g bfhLj;JtpLtjw;fhd xg;ge;jg;gj;jpukhFk;. vA;fsJ kfhj;kh khlh;d; ghh;k; NK BfhHpg;gz;izapypUe;J 10 khj taJs;s 5 a{dpl; NK BfhHpf;Fq;Rfis (1 a{dpl; vd;gJ 1 Mz;, 1 bgz; BfhHpfis bfhz;ljhFk;) B$ho U}.30,000/- (U}gha; Kg;gjhapuk; kl;Lk;) tPjk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L vA;fsJ MByhridg;go Kiwahf tsh;j;J guhkhpj;J tuBtz;oaJ. mJ KiwBa tsh;e;J ndg;bgUf;fk; bra;J mjd;gpwF mJBghLk; midj;J Kl;ilfisa[k; cilahky; gj;jpukhf vLj;J Kl;ilfs; midj;Jk; Brjhuk; ny;yhky; vA;fsplk; bfhLj;Jtpl Btz;Lk;. mg;go bfhLf;Fk; Kl;ilfis xU Kl;il U}.1200/- (Ugha; Mapuj;J nUEhW kl;Lk;) tPjk; ehA;fBs bgw;Wf;bfhs;fpBwhk;. BkYk; 3 tUlk; fHpj;J BfhHp tsh;g;gth; tpUk;gpdhy; MBuhf;fpakhd BfhHpfis capUld; vilBghl;L xU fpByh U}.750/- (Ugha; vGE]w;wp I;k;gJ kl;Lk;) tPjk; jpUk;g bgw;wf; bfhs;fpBwhk; vd;W cWjp TWfpd;Bwhk;. ftdpf;fg;glBtz;oa tpjpKiwfs; 1. kfhj;kh khlh;d; ghh;k; bfhLf;Fk; MByhridg;go kl;LBk BfhHpfis tsh;j;J guhkhpf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. mjpy; vjhtJ khw;wk; Vw;gl;lhByh my;yJ eilKiwapy; khw;wk; bra;jhByh kfhj;kh khlh;d; ghh;k; bghWg;Bgw;fhJ. 2. Kl;ilfs; midj;Jk; vA;fsplBk jpUk;g bfhLf;fg;glBtz;Lk;. mjpy; khw;wk; nUe;jhy; ne;j xg;ge;jk; bghUe;jhJ. 3. BfhHpfs; jpUk;g bgWk;bghGJ capUld; MBuhf;fpakhf nUf;f Btz;Lk;. VjhtJ ghjpg;g[ Vw;gl;lhByh my;yJ MBuhf;fpakw;W nUe;jhByh my;yJ kw;w ve;j fhuzA;fshy; nwe;jhYk; mjw;F ne;j xg;ge;jk; bghUe;jhJ vd;gij cWjpa[ld; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpd;Bwhk;. kfhj;kh mwf;fl;lisf;fhf, (Dr.N.kzptz;zd;) Bkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s kfhj;kh mwf;fl;lisapd; Xh; mA;fkhd kfhj;kh khlh;d; ghh;kpd; midj;J tpjpKiwfSf;Fk; fl;Lg;gl;L jA;fsplk; nUe;J 5 a{dpl; BfhHpfis bgw;Wf;bfhs;fpBwd;. bgw;Wf;bfhs;gth;. Based on the contract / agreement Ex.A2, the complainant and the 1st & 3rd opposite parties have entered into an additional agreement Ex.A3, on the same day which read as follows: 2005 tUlk; ork;gh; 3k; Bjjp Bryk; khtl;k; Mj;J]h; tl;lk; Mj;J]h; efuj;jpy; muR Bky;epiyg;gs;sp vjphpy; 44-34 Bryk;-flY]h; bkapd; BuhL vd;w Kfthpapy; bray;gLk; kfhj;kh mwf;fl;lisapd; Xh; mA;fkhf cs;s kfhj;kh khlh;d; ghh;k; eph;thf naf;Feh; jpU.kzptz;zd; j/bg v!;.eBlrd; Mfpa ehd; BtY]h; khtl;lk; BtY]h; jhYf;fh 69 mUfjk;g{z;o Bkl;L bjU, Bjhl;l ghisak;, BtY]h;-4 vd;gtUf;F Bkw;go Bjjpapy; Ie;J B$ho NK BfhHpfis xU B$ho U}.30,000/- (U}gha; Kg;gjhapuk; kl;Lk;) gj;J khj Fq;Rfs; tPjk; Bgrp Ie;J B$hofSf;F U}gha; 1,50,000/- (U}gha; xU yl;rj;J Ik;gjhapuk; kl;Lk;) bgw;Wf; bfhz;Bld;. tpsk;gugo Bkw;go B$hofis 14.12.05 (g[jd; fpHikf;Fs;) blypthp bfhLj;Jtpl Btz;Lk; kPwpdhy; jhA;fs; vLf;Fk; eltof;iffs;, rl;l jpl;lA;fSf;F fl;LgLfpd;Bwhk;. nytr fhg;gPl;Lk; juBtz;Lk;. BkYk; 20 khj Fq;Rfs; Kl;il nLtjpy; jhkjk; my;yJ FiwghLfs; nUg;gpd; Kl;il nLk; ey;yjukhd B$ho Fq;Rfis khw;wp bfhLf;f rk;kjpf;fpBwhk;. ePA;fs; bfhLf;Fk; jPtd ghh;kyhgo brhe;jkhf jPtdk; jahhpj;J bfhs;s mDkjpf;fgLfpd;wJ. jPtdk; jukhf cs;sij ghpBrhjid bra;J gpwF cgBahfg;gLj;j mDkjpf;fgLfpd;wJ mjw;fhd ghpBrhjid fl;lzj;ij jpU.gp.Jsrpuhkd; mth;fBs Vw;Wf;bfhs;s Btz;Lk;. The complainant stated in his proof affidavit that as per the contract / agreement Ex.A2, the 1st opposite party as to supply five units of Emu-birds of tender age which consist of five male and 5 female, and the price for the pair Rs.30,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- for the five pairs to the opposite parties on 3.12.05. But they supplied only four pairs birds on 22.12.05 at Vellore. Further the 1st opposite party told the complainant that the Emu-birds will lay eggs in the 18 to 22 months old. But the birds failed to lay eggs from May to September as told by the opposite party. Further while testing, the doctor told that out of the 8 birds female birds are two only and the remaining were 6 males. Thus the opposite parties have failed to perform the terms and conditions of the contract / agreement. 10. The 1st opposite party has stated in his proof affidavit that based on the contract / agreement Ex.A2, the complainant purchased of five units of Emu-birds for the business and commercial purpose and for resale purpose. It was mutually agreed by the parties to the contract for the re-purchased and sales of the eggs and the Emu birds after three years. Accordingly the complainant had sold away entire five units of the birds to third parties and had replaced the birds of underage. Thus the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) (i) of the C.P. Act. 11. Sec. 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines read as follows: (d) “consumer” means any person who – (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and parlay promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or party paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or 12. From the careful perusal of contract / agreement Ex.A2, dt.3.12.05 and an additional agreement Ex.A3, dt.3.12.05 made between the complainant and the 1st opposite party it is clear that the disputes between the parties are relating to the contractual obligations with regard to the sales i.e. purchase of Emu birds. It is purely relating to the contract for the business and commercial purpose. Therefore, it is clear that the disputes between the parties does not come within the ambit of the Act. Thus the complainant is not a “consumer’ within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 13. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A9 and Ex.B1 to B3 we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is not a “consumer” as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986. We have also come to the conclusion, that the complainant has not clearly proved the deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party. Hence we answer this point (a) & (b) as against the complainant herein. 14. POINT NO; (b) & (c) : In view of our findings on point No.(a), since we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is not a “consumer” as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986, and we have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked by him in this complaint. Hence, we answer this point (c) also as against the complainant herein. 15. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 2nd day of August 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- -- - X-copy of Paper Advertisement. Ex.A2- 3.12.05 - X-copy of agreement. Ex.A3- -- - X-copy of Additional Agreement. Ex.A4- 22.12.05 - X-copy of receipt . Ex.A5- 19.9.06 - X-copy of legal notice. Ex.A6- -- - X-copy of reply notice. Ex.A7- 15.8.06 - X-copy of certificate by Dr.N. Thiyagarajan, Vellore. Ex.A8- 3.10.06 - X-copy of certificate by Dr.N. Thiyagarajan, Vellore. Ex.A9- -- - X-copy of Telegram. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- 3.12.05 - X-copy of Agreement. Ex.B2- 3.12.05 - X-copy of Notary Entry Register Ex.B3- 1.12.06 - X-copy of Deed of Trust. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
