DOF.1.4.2009

DOO. 4.6.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 4^th    day of    June    2011

CC.NO.88/2009

Kurunnantavida Rajendran,

Thiruvangad Amsom

PAH Padmanabhan.C.M.,

Biju Nivas,

P.O.Eranholi,

Thalassery.                                               Complainant

 (Rep.M.K.Prakash)

1. Mr.Unni, M/s.Color Homes,

   29/816 G2,

   AL-Ameen Building Parayancheri,

   Mavoor Road,

   Kozhikode 16.                                    Opposite parties

2. M/s.Lafarge Roofing,

    143/C3,Bommasandra Industrial Area,

    Bangalore 560 099

    (Rep. by Adv.P.Ajayakumar)

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `3, 21,740 towards the value of the materials and labour charges for replacing the exiting roof tiles and laying new quality tiles and towards compensation to the complainant.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Order was placed to 1^st opposite party for Elbana colored tiles for his newly built house. 1^st opposite party assured to supply same quality as approved by complainant and laying the tiles most professionally that would safeguard against any water seeping  issues Demonstrations were provided by the employees of 1^st opposite party and visuals were shown on the works previously done by them. The employee of 1^st opposite party had calculated the area of the building where the roof tiles needs to be laid and  the  1^st opposite party had made a firm offer for these roof tiles for an amount of  `1,44,172. Complainant paid `50,000 as advance payment on 28.6.08 to  1^st opposite arty.  1^st opposite party has offered the laying work of the tiles for an amount of `19360. Thus per invoice No.487 dt.14.5.08, the 1^st opposite party delivered the tiles at the work site of the complainant in Thiruvangad, Thalassery at a total cost of

`1, 46,350. While the roof tiles work was in progress workers of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party demanded for more tiles and accordingly additional tiles worth of `16,030 purchased and the same supplied vide invoice NO.499 dt.29.5.08. the site Engineer engaged by the complainant to supervise the construcitn work of the house had observed reveal defects, quality issues, irregular sizing, improper glazing, web like striping on the roof tiles supplied and laid by the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party instead of delivering the agreed 1^st quality tiles had supplied inferior 2^nd quality roof tiles intentionally breaching the assurance. The goods supplied were not corresponding to the samples shown or answering to description given by 1^st opposite party. The complainant was shocked to see the way in which the employees designated by the 1^st opposite party carried out the laying work and it was defacing the very look of the house. Probably due to irregular sizes of the tiles water seeped into the concrete slabs and walls resulting in to irreparable damage to the interior false  ceilings’ of the house. Supplying of inferior quality  2^nd grade roof tiles in irregular sizes and quality compounded with improper and unprofessional laying have caused severe damage to the  aesthetics of the building apart from causing water sweeping and financial damages to the  complainant. Though matter was reported to 1^st opposite party they had ignored and gone back from their commitment. A letter was sent on 24.7.08 to rectify the defects. Thereafter  Mr.Unni, the Managing Director of 1^st opposite party visited the site with his staff Ramesh and after inspection conceded that due to shortage in supplies they were forced to deliver some  second quality tiles to the complainant and  also had admitted that there was manufacturing defects in the tiles supplied. He has further admitted that the laying work done by his workers  was not professionally done and had firmly agreed to replace all the defective tiles and relay  the whole thing in a most professional way. But they have not done anything towards resolving this issue. The entire roof tiles supplied and laid by the 1^st opposite party be removed and new quality oriented roof tiles are laid using the service of qualified and experienced worker. An estimated amount of `40,000 is needed to remove the work of debris. Complainant has paid `1, 62,380 for roof tiles and `19,360 for laying charge. There is an obvious failure on the part of the 1^st opposite party in discharging promised service. Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegations of the complainant. 1^st opposite arty contended as follows: 1^st opposite party is only a dealer of glazed  clay roof tiles manufactured and marketed by the 2^nd opposite party under the brand name  Coloroof. The complaint is filed not by the original complainant. There is no defect in goods or deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. There is no privity of contract. Complainant suppressed material facts. The complainant has not complied with the specific instructions for fixing the tiles. This opposite party did not make any guarantee. The literature handed over to prospective purchasers is published by manufacture. Complainant purchased secondary roofing tiles intended mainly for decorative purposes. Unlike the regular size colooroof Tiles, the mini tiles are not primarily intended for weather proofing or protection, but has only aesthetic value. Crazing is general phenomena and the same will have impact on the quality and the lift of the product. Shade variation are inherent in all fired clay products, and hence before fixing the tiles they will have to be laid out in the desired pattern to make sure that they give the acceptable blend of colour and also it has to be made sure that the tiles are acceptable to the satisfaction of the customer. The company will bear no liability after the tiles are fixed. The complainant alleges defects and deficiency in service regarding the mini tiles alone, and it is seen that he has no complaints regarding the regular coloroof tiles purchased for the main roofing. The complainant had placed order for coloroof red brown tiles 1798 numbers, redges 125 pieces, and mini tiles (central Taylor tiles) 2043 Numbers and mini redges 50 numbers. Opposite party had duly intimated 2^nd opposite party and required them to supply the requisite quantity of the said tiles directly to the complainant himself as is the regular procedure. The complainant had duly taken delivery of the tiles from the factory premises of 2^nd opposite party and got the same transported to the construction site at their cost by arranging a common carrier. It is specifically stipulated in the quotation itself that transport costs and unloading has to be bone by the purchaser. The complainant had taken delivery of the tiles without raising any objections whatsoever on 14.5.08 and 29.5.08. The responsibility of this opposite party ceases at the point of complainant took delivery of the tiles. This opposite party has not undertaken any tile laying work. It is false saying that this opposite party offered the laying work if the tiles for an amount of `19360. It is also false that an amount of `1, 46,350 was paid to this opposite party. The workers were engaged by this opposite party and the laying work were done through this opposite party is also false. The claim for damage is unsustainable. There is no truth in the compliant. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          2^nd opposite party filed version separately. The contentions set up by 2^nd opposite party in brief are as follows: the 2^nd opposite party  never contacted by the complainant or 1^st opposite party before making purchase of tiles alleged by the complainant. 1^st opposite party purchased ‘coloroof Taylor pattern’ tiles from this opposite party. The 1^st  opposite party did not purchase “Elabana” tiles from this opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is not aware of the transaction between  1^st opposite party and complainant. The pleading itself shows that all the transaction had been with 1st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party was never contacted at any stage. The 2^nd opposite party manufactured “Elabana” concrete roof tiles from its factory at Bangalore and coloroof glazed clay roof tiles in the factory at Faroke, Calicut by ceramic glazing in its factory at Calicut. The allegation that the complainant placed order for first quality glazed coloured roof tiles ‘elabana’ is not correct. Elabana is concrete tiles manufactured from Bangalore and colorroof is glazed clay roof tiles manufactured from Faroke. The complaint itself shows that the tiles alleged are coloroof Taylor pattern. Since the transaction is between complainant and 1^st opposite party this opposite party is not aware of the details and terms of transaction. There is no contract between complainant and 2^nd opposite arty. If any defect has been occurred while laying the tiles this opposite party cannot be held liable. The material supplied by this opposite party shall contain its trade mark and other features and its identifications. The documents produced do not reveal the nature, description or quality of tiles purchased by the complainant. The complainant shall prove that the tiles purchased by him are genuine tiles manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. No seconds of coloroof Taylor pattern tiles were supplied to any dealer and there was any shortage in the supply. This opposite party is no way related in the dispute raised in the complaint and is not liable for the relief. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite

     parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

          The evidence consist of oral testimony of PW1,PW2, PW3,DW1,DW2 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant and Ets.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite parties.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Complainant’s case is that he placed order to 1^st opposite party for ‘Elbana’ coloured tiles for his newly built house. Opposite party made offer for these roof tiles for an amount of `1, 44,172. Opposite party has also offered the laying work of the tiles for an amount of `19,860. As per invoice No.487 dt.14.5.08, the first opposite arty delivered the tiles at work site in Thalassery. The goods supplied by 1^st opposite party were not corresponding to the samples shown. It was inferior second quality roof tile as against assurance. The employees of 1^st opposite party carried out the laying work in such a way defacing the very look of the house. Due to irregular size of the tiles water sweeped in to the concrete slabs resulting in to irreparably damaged the interior false ceiling. Supply of inferior quality tiles and improper laying have caused sever damage to the aesthetics of the building.

          1^st opposite party contended that complainant placed order for 1798 members coloroof red brown tiles, ridges 125 pieces, 2043 mini tiles and mini ridges 50 numbers. 1^st opposite party had only intimated  2^nd opposite party and required  them to supply the requisite  quantity of the said tiles from the factory premises of 2^nd opposite party and got the same transported to the construction site at their cost by arranging a common  carrier. Further contention of opposite party is that complainant has not complied with the specific instructions for fixing the tiles. 1^st opposite party has not given any guarantee. 1^st opposite party contended further that complainant purchased secondary roofing tiles intended mainly for decorative purposes. 1^st opposite party has the averment that it is specifically stipulated in the quotation that transport costs and unloading has to be borne by the purchaser. The complainant took delivery of the tiles without any objection. The responsibility of 1^st opposite party ceases with taking delivery of tiles by the complainant.

          The case of 2^nd opposite party is that 1sty opposite party purchased ‘coloroof Taylor pattern’ tiles from 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party did not purchase ‘Elabana’ tiles from 2^nd opposite party and they were not aware of the transaction between 1^st opposite party and complainant. The materials supplied by 2^nd opposite party contained its trade mark and other features and for identifications. The documents produced do not reveal the nature, description or quality of the tiles. No seconds of coloroof Taylor pattern of tiles were supplied to any dealer.

          PW1, the power of Attorney holder of complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with the pleadings. PW1 stated in proof affidavit in  lieu of chief examination that he has given orders to 1^st opposite party for the  coloroof Taylor pattern tiles of 2^nd opposite party on 28.6.07. Ext.A1 is the sale bill dated 14.5.08 issued by color Homes, the first opposite party for `1, 44,150 out of which the net value of roofing tiles Red corwn costs 65857 and Mini Tiles for `58614 Ext.A2 is another sale bill dated 29.5.08 issued by 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant for  `14,580 out of which the cost of coloroof tiles Red Brown comes to `13,975. These two bills prove that complainant purchased roof tiles from 1^st opposite party. Complainant continued to state that he went to the establishment of 1^st opposite party and saw the samples shown and heard the detailed explanation. Moreover, he has also seen pictures shown in TV monitor. It is on the basis of this entire complainant placed the order. He further stated that on the assurance by1st opposite party that his own men would come and do the laying work, the laying work also entrusted to 1^st opposite party. Thus 1st opposite party estimated the number of tiles and order for tiles given as per the direction of 1^st opposite party. On 28.6.07 complainant gave `50000 as advance 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party delivered tiles to complainant worth of `1, 46,150 on 14.5.08 as per the invoice No.487. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 14.5.08 which shows complainant has paid `1, 46,150. Moreover, complainant also stated that an amount of `19,360 also had been paid as laying charge. Complainant also adduced evidence that on 29.5.08 1^st opposite party also delivered tiles worth `16,030 since there was shortage of tiles.

          From the pleading itself it can be traced out that the ordered quantity of tiles were supplied to complainant in his construction site. 1sty opposite party says that they have intimated 2^nd opposite party to deliver the tiles. That means 1^st opposite arty received the order from complainant. The 1^st opposite arty admitted inversion that the complainant had placed order for coolroof red brown tiles  1798 numbers, ridges 125 pieces, mini tiles (central Taylor tiles) 2043 numbers and mini ridges 50 numbers. According to 1^st opposite arty the intimation to 2^nd opposite party has given up on confirmation of the above said order. 1^st opposite party has further stated in version that “ it is specifically stipulated in the quotation itself that transport costs and unloading has to be bone by the purchaser”. What is the need of this stipulation if the complainant takes delivery himself from the factory premises? That means on the cost of complainant it was agreed to deliver the goods to the construction site. Otherwise the question of stipulation of transport costs, and unloading cost does not arise to be borne by the purchaser. If complainant takes and goes he is not expected have to agree with 1^st opposite party with respect to the cost of transport and unloading. It is not a concern of 1^st opposite party what is the cost of transport and unloading in the case where complainant independently takes delivery from the premises of the factory. If the cost of transport on unloading agreed to be borne by complainant that does mean that the delivery of goods on the spot was done by 1^st opposite party but at the cost of complainant. The contention of 1^st opposite party that his responsibility ceases at the point of complainant took delivery of the tiles to the carrier does not fetch any substance 2^nd opposite party contended that he was never contacted by complainant. The word intimation itself is an indication that there is agreement between 1^st opposite party and complainant.

          The main allegation of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party instead of delivering the agreed 1^st quality tiles had supplied inferior second quality roof tiles So also laying work was carried out badly without any professional skill by the employees of 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party has the case that the tiles were purchased from 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party contended that 1^st opposite party purchased coloroof  Taylor pattern tiles from them. 2^nd opposite party also contended that 2^nd opposite party was never contacted by the complainant. 1^st opposite party contended that  “ The tiles purchased by the complainant were central Taylor Tiles, which are infact secondary roofing tiles intended mainly for decorative purposes”. 2^nd opposite party pleaded that they did not supply inferior quality 2^nd grade roof tiles in irregular size and quality. However 1^st opposite party himself admitted that complainant had placed order for coloroof red brown tiles. It is also admitted that 1^st opposite party had placed orders for the tiles manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. What prompt 1^st opposite arty to give orders is quite clear that it is 1^st opposite party who had delivered the tiles to complainant.

          The case of the complainant is that the order placed was based on the 1^st opposite party’s firm assurance of supplying the same quality as approved by the complainant and laying the tiles most professionally that would safe guard against any water seeping issues and also to provide good aesthetic look to the house. Affidavit evidences of complainant also stated laying work was entrusted to 1^st opposite party. But the case of 1^st opposite party is that they have not either directly or through others undertaken the laying work of the complainant. But he has admitted that upon receiving complaint regarding defects in the tiles, they had inspected the construction and it was noticed that the alleged defects were mainly due to poor workmanship and unscientific construction. 1^st opposite party contended that the tiles should have been dry laid before fixing, and the instructions followed properly. Ext.A5 is the notice dated 24.7.08 sent by complainant to opposite party with averment that the tiles supplied are of different sizes, space,  the laying done was totally unprofessional which had caused water  seepage on to the concrete roof apart from showing up a very clumsy out look. He requested to get the matter solved without delay. Complainant pleaded that after getting this letter Ext.A5 the Managing Director of 1ast opposite party visited the site with his staff Mr.Ramesh and after  conceded that due to shortage in supplies they were forced to deliver ‘ some’ second quality tiles to complainant and also had admitted that there has been manufacturing defects in the tiles supplied. But in the cross examination of  1^st opposite party PW1 deposed that “ Ext.A1{]Im-cT hm§nb tile epI#161;v bmsXmcp hn[ Bt£-]-hpT CÃm-¯-Xp-sIm-­mWv A2 {]Im-cT ho­pT tiles hm§n-bXv”. It means the tile that is brought according to the order given by the complainant was defect free. The purchases as per Ext.A2 are only extra tiles for want of more tiles. It is only 270 numbers coloroof tiles Red brown. What is deposed byPW1 in cross examination is that the tiles that were actually ordered which cost more than rupees one lakh Thirty thousand were complaint free. If tiles are defective complainant should prove that it is defective. Answer to a question by1st opposite party in cross examination PW1 deposed “Tiles delivery FSp-¡p-t¼mm-sXmcp hn[ Bt£-]-hpT D­m-bn-cp-¶n-Ã.”. The earlier admission itself proves that the entire tiles purchased as per Ext.A1 is complaint free. PW1 also admitted in cross examination no steps has been taken to prove that there are defects to the tiles. The only reason stated is that opposite party took the entire liability. More over PW1 further deposed “ Tiles laying\v 1^st  opposite partysb tFÂ]n¨p-sh¶p ImWn-¡m³ tcJ-bnÔ. The case of 1^st opposite party is that they have not undertaken the laying work. Then the question rose where is the evidence to show that the laying work has been entrusted to 1^st opposite party. PW1 further deposed thus “ K.S.Vinod ]d-ª-Xnsâ ASn--\-¯n-emWvtiles defectiveBsW¶v ]d-bp-¶-Xv.Work \S-¡p¶ Ah-k-c-¯n K.S.Vinod ImWp-¶p-­m-bn-cp-¶p. At±-lT stream line consortium¯nsâ  Engineer BWv”. He has also admitted that he was present at the time of laying the tiles. But he did not felt there is need to stop the work. The Engineer also has not given any instruction to stop the work then and there. He has not made any attempt to correct the defective laying. He did not even insist for dry laying.

          The specific case of 1^st opposite party is that he has never undertaken the laying work of the tiles, nor have they arranged or engaged any workers. Complainant did not produce any evidence to show that the laying work was entrusted to 1^st opposite party. Moreover he has deposed in cross examination as stated above that there was no document with regard to the entrustment of the work. He could not even produce the account to show that 1^st opposite party was paid by him for the work carryout. PW1 was asked a question whether it was correct to say that `19,360 were given to 1^st opposite party? The answer was that   1^st opposite party¡v t\cn-«Ã tiles laysNbvX hy-n-I#161;mWv sImSp-¯Xv . Then he was added it was given as directed by1st opposite party. But no evidence was adduced  except the interested testimony of PW1 to show that money was paid  either to 1^st opposite party or his  men for the laying work carried out by them. Thus complainant is not able to adduce evidence to prove that the tiles delivered was defective and the laying work was carried out by  1^st opposite party.

          More over, the evidence of Pw1 makes clear that he has no claim  against 1st opposite party. In cross examination he deposed thus: “2^nd opposite party bpambn t\cn«v _an-Ã.-F-Ãm-Im-c-y-§-fpT  1^st opposite party BWv _s¸-«Xv”. When he was asked that he was saying 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer since it was told by 1^st opposite party PW1 answered “ AsX”. He further added relief is sought from 1^st   opposite party only.

It can be seen that, though he has deposed that the entire responsibility to deliver tiles were that of 1^st opposite party so also it is he who bound to carryout the laying work; there is no cogent evidence so as to prove the same, without which, casting of deficiency in service on the shoulders of 1^st opposite arty is not possible. Complainant failed to prove the case set up by him.

          PW2 in his chief examination stated that “ebn§v h#161;v1st opposite partybpsS Bfp-I-fmWv sNbvXXv F¶m-Wv]-d-ª-Xv. ebn§v  h#161;v \S-¡p-t¼mRm³ kq¸shkv sNbvXn-«n-Ã. ebn§v h#161;v {]mho-W-y-ap-ff BfmtWm sN¿-XXv F¶-dn-bnÔ . Hence his knowledge that the work was carryout by 1^st opposite party is only   hearsay. Any how he has deposed two things that tiles were defective and opposite party told that arrangement would be done to replace the defective tiles. In the cross examination he has answered that “Materials supplied was not uniform in size F¶Xp am{X-amWv A3bn Nq­n-¡m-Wn¨ tFI defect’. He further stated that “se sN¿p¶ Ah-km-\-Zn-h-kT  workers s\ Rm³ I­n-«p-­v. AhtcmSv Rm³ kT-km-cn-¨n-«p­v. Worker  ]dªp tPmen H¶mT FXr-I-£n-bmWv sN¿p-¶-sX¶v. 1^st opposite party  BWv te sNbvXXv F¶-Xn\p tcJ-I-sfm-¶pT I­n-«n-Ã. Fsâ km¶n-²-y-¯n -¯p-h¶  representative 1^st opposite partybpambn  t^mWn-eqsS kT-km-cn-¨n-cp-¶p. . Representatives sâ t]c-dn-bn-Ã.  . Worker DsS t]cpT Adn-bn-Ã. Rm³ ]d-ª-Xnsâ ASn--\-¯n-emWv  1^st opposite partyBWv  lay sNbvX-Xv-F¶p a\-en-em-b-Xv.. It is clear that some body told PW2 that the work was carried out by 1^st opposite party. He did not have direct knowledge that the work was done by 1^st opposite party. PW2 then deposed “ Decorative tiles sâ Imc-yT F\n¡v apgp-h-\m-b-dn-bn-Ã. Glazing tiles water resistant BWv. .Roof tiles kndm-an¡v sS¡vt\m-fPn {]Im-c-amWv manufacture sN¿p-¶Xv F¶p ]d-ªm F\n-¡-dn-bn-Ã. Roof tiles sâ  manufacturing s\Ip-dn¨v F\n-¡-dn-bn-Ã.. Roof tiles  plus or minus 5 to 6% size variation D­m-Ip-sa-¶pT AA-bXp AXnsâ inherent defect BsW-¶pT ]d-ªm \ntj-[n-¡m-\m-hnÔ. It is true that he is an expert but regarding the process of manufacturer he cannot say anything authoritatively. He cannot also deny 5 to 6% size variation. PW2 further deposed “ roof tiles lay sN¿p-¶-Xn\p F{X kT-Jy \ÂIn-sbt¶m B#161;mWv \ÂIn-b-sX-t¶m- F-\n¡v t\cn-«-dn-bn-Ã. Fsâ ip]m-bpsS ASn--\-¯-n-eà                            payment \S-X-vXnbXv. t\cn«v  settle sNbvX-Xm-Wv. t\cn«v B#161;vsIm-Sp-¯p-F-¶-dn-bnÔ. It is also clear that PW2 has no direct knowledge of anything connect with the payment and to another question he answered “ A\-ym-b-¡m-csâ Rm³ tFsp¯p F¶p-]-d-bp¶  work kT-_-ambn tcJ-I-sfm-¶p-an-Ã. F\n¡v  payment \ÂIn-b-Xn\p tcJ-bp-­v. AXp lmP-cm-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-X-S-an-Ã. A\-ym-b-¡m-csâ  hoSv supervise sNbvXn«nsÃ-¶pT A\-ym-b-¡m-câ Bh-i-y-{]-Im-cT sXfnhv sImSp-¡p-I-bm-sW-¶pT ]d-ªm icn-bÃ. No such payment receipt or any other document to show that he has been supervising the work of complainant has not produced. It would have been useful if it is produced to be sure that PW2 was actually supervising the work of complainant. The reliability of his words has its own effect on such evidence. At least he could have produce documents to prove that he was an employee of stream Line Consortium.

          Complainant cross examined DW1 elaborately but nothing has brought out to strengthen the case set up by complainant. It is difficult to rely upon the evidence PW2 as authoritative to arrive at a concrete conclusion on the specific issues that involved in the case so as to establish deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. Taking into account the totality of evidence on record we may state that while determining the dispute we do not have sufficient material in order find either deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                        Sd/-                    Sd/-             Sd/-

                   President              Member         Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 & A2.Cash bills dt.14.5.08 and29.5.08 issued by OP

A3. Statement of facts given by Streamline consortium Engineering consultants.

A4.Copy of Power of Attorney

A5.Copy of the letter dt.24.7.08  sent to OP  

A6. Photographs

A7.CD

A8.Brochure issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Brochure/literature pu8blished by 2^nd OP

B2.Invoice dt.14.5.08 issued by Monier Roofing Pvt. Ltd. to OP

B3.Copy of the letter dt.7.8.08 sent to complainant’s P.A. Holder

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.C.M.Padmanabhan

PW2.K.S.Binod

PW3.Sunil Sebastian

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.P.T.Sreedevan Unni

DW2.M.Rajesh

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                         Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.