Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, praying to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.99,544/- under the policy dated 04-07-07, to pay interest from the date of accident i.e. 03-05-08 and subsequent interest till realization @12%p.a. as per I.R.D.A. Rules i.e.Rs.43,334/- to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.   

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant was doing chillies commission business at A.M.C., Guntur, and has been paying yearly premium to the 1^st opposite party for standard fire and special perils policy and took the policy from the opposite party on 04-07-07 for the risk assured amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards assurance of 423 bags of chillies kept in his plot No.107 A.  The said policy is valid upto the midnight of 03-07-08.  On the midnight of 03-05-08 423 bags of chillies of different varieties were on the plot form of the complainant firm belonging to different farmers of Guntur District.  On 03-05-08 in the early hours a major fire accident was occurred in the A.M.C. yard and a total of 2,51,746 bags were gutted in the fire accident and all the electronic media and print media have highlighted the said fire accident and also loss caused to the farmers who brought chilly bags to the market yard and also loss caused to the owners of the shops and the Government have also issued a G.O. bearing G.O.R.T.No.609, Agricultural and Cooperative Depot dated 21-05-08 fixing the rate @ Rs.1200/- per bag of 40 kgs and Rs.3,000/- per quintal without differentiating red and white chillies.  The complainant submitted fire claim form to the 1^st opposite party on 25-08-08.  The opposite party insurance company paid part payment of Rs.3,50,456/- on 27-04-10 to the complainant and postponing the final claim of remaining payment.  The complainant has submitted the stock particulars and also addressed a letter dated 28-01-09 to the 1^st opposite party.  In letter No.190/2008 the Selection Grade Secretary of Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, has confirmed the stock on the plot form of the complainant, that was gutted in the fire accident.  The complainant has been repeatedly roaming around the office of 1^st opposite party for settlement of claim amount.  However the opposite parties have not settled the remaining claim amount inspite of the demands made by the complainant.  The complaint also got issued a notice to both opposite parties 26-09-11 and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties kept quite and did not give any reply.  Hence the complainant suffered mental agony.  Hence the complaint.                 

3.      The 1^st opposite party field its version and the same was adopted by the 2^nd opposite party. The version of 1^st opposite party in brief is as follows : 

          Most of the allegations mentioned in the complaint are incorrect and false and the complaint is not maintainable under Law.  The complainant has taken the standard fire and special perils policy for his class-II construction building situated in A.M.C., Guntur for Rs.1,80,000/- and on stocks of chillies for Rs.4,50,000/- valid from  04-07-07 to 03-07-08.  The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties.  This opposite party assessed the loss caused to the building and the chillies stock and paid the same through a cheque bearing No.022033 dated 27-04-10 for Rs.3,50,456/-.  The complainant received the same after duly signing the settlement intimation voucher in full and final settlement of its claim.  It is true that a fire accident occurred on the night of 03-05-2008 in A.M.C., Guntur and several claims are made by the commission agents both for their structure/building and also the stock of chillies held by them.  But none of the commission agents submitted the required/relevant documents for settlement of claims for one reason or other.  Ultimately, the District Administration involved in the procedure of settlement of claims and several meetings are conducted.  At a joint review meeting held on 22-09-09 by the District Collector, Guntur, with the insurance authorities, commission agents, the then Chairman of A.M.C., Guntur and marketing officials, evolved the procedure for settlement of claims.  After considering various factors and views exchanged by the insurance companies and commission agents, the District Collector instructed the commission agents to submit the following documents to the insurance authorities for settlement of claims for which the insurance authorities are also agreed. 

List of documents to be submitted by the commission agents: 

1. policy copy/copies
2. claims form duly completed
3. copy of partnership deed in case of partnership
4. copies of VAT and CST registration certificates if any
5. Yard license copy pertaining to the plot (Form -8) and certificate issued by A.M.C., regarding damage to the shed.
6. Estimation for the reconstruction of burnt shed along with plan
7. Stock statement showing arrivals and dispatches of chilles stocks pertaining to various farmers from  23-04-08 to 03-05-08 or copy of stock registered for the above period. 
8. Copy of tak pattis/sales invoices for the above period.

The payments to the affected farmers by the commission agents after the settlement of claims will be closely monitored by the District Administration.      

4.      The above referred documents are the minimum required documents that are necessary for settlement of claims and the insurance companies have to thoroughly go through all these documents and arrive at the actual stock of chilles present at the time of fire accident and assess the loss.  Since the claims are in crores and as the public money is involved, the District Administration and the insurance companies have taken maximum precaution so that bogus claims would not be paid and if the claim is admissible but the stock of chilles belonging to the farmers, the amount should reach the affected farmers.  The insurance companies have paid the compensation amount by way of cheque in the name of commission agent but the said cheque along with the list of farmers effected is sent to the District Collector, Guntur, who in turn see that the amount reached to the effected farmers. So far the claim of the complainant is concerned, it is claimed for both the structure and the stock of chilles gutted in the fire. The opposite parties have appointed surveyor who assessed the loss allegedly caused and he submitted his report.  The surveyor visited the premises where the alleged loss caused and inspected the relevant records, obtained the necessary documents and submitted his report. After going through the relevant file this opposite party observed the procedure of chillies trading at chillies market yard as follows :

        1.  Arrival Register :  As soon as the farmer brings his chillies stock to the market yard, their details such as name, village, number chillie bags brought, name of commission agent, and vehicle no., by which the chilles are brought to the yard will be recorded at the entrance gate itself in the arrival (inward) register. Then the stock will be unloaded at the commission agent’s shop. 

          2.  Amanath Patty       :        When the stock is arrived at the shop of commission agent, he will record the same in a slip called Amanath patty and one copy will be given to the farmer. 

        3.  Stock Register        :        Farmer wise arrivals and dispatches will be properly accounted by the commission agent in a register called stock register and will be endorsed by the Market Committee from time to time. 

        4.  Auction                    :        The auction staff of A.M.C., will conduct open auction at each and every commission agent and will note down the successful transactions in a register called Auction register.

5.  Kata Chitty              :        After finishing of sale by auction..

6.  Tak Patty                :        After finishing of sale and

                                           weighment done…..

7.  Outward (Dispatch) Register : After completion of

                                                            sale….

5.      The complainant has insured 423 bags of chilies belonging to the farmers.  But the inward stocks will be auctioned by commission agents and new stocks will be brought by the farmers and it is fluctuating.  So the question is what is the actual quantum of stock that were there at the shed of the complainant at the time of fire accident and if really there is any stock? 

6.      The complainant submitted letter issued by the Selection Grade Secretary (FAC), Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, stating that an extent of sum insured by the complainant for Rs.4,50,000/- worth of chillies gutted in the fire accident. Basing on the above decision, a certificate was issued by the A.M.C. in which 423 bags of chillies said to be lying at insured’s shop and were gutted in the fire and by saying so he assessed the alleged loss.  But the Surveyor’s observation is based on A.M.C certificate, which was issued basing on the information given by the complainant and not as per their records.  Even they are unable to mention the number of bags that were there at the shed of complainant at the time of accident.  As the policy was obtained by the complainant for Rs.4,50,000/- for the stock of chillies, the A.M.C. issued certificate stating that the stock of chillies worth of Rs.4,50,000/- was gutted in the fire  accident.  Hence, the said certificate has no authenticity and it is not conclusive proof so as arrive the stock position at the time of fire accident.  The Surveyor in his report observed that, The District Collector, Guntur formulated a high level committee to find out the exact quantity of chillies damaged in fire and they submitted their report.  When compared the inward and outward register of A.M.C., none of the day to day entries are tallying with that of high level committee’s report.  Further enquiries reveal that because of peak season, the A.M.C. staff are unable to record properly either the inward or the outward movement of chillies… After going through the entire file, this opposite party observed the following about the stock.  The following discrepancies are noted on comparing the details given in stock register with those of Producer Takapatties and Commission Agent Takapatties. 

i).  It appears that 164 number of mirchi bags seems to be not sold since 01-04-08 and carried forward till 2-04-08 and afterwards and shown as closing balance considering the trend of transactions, this not taken in account. 

ii). Although there was no market on 27-04-08 and no sale transactions occurred on that date purchases shown in the  stock register as if the same are affected.  Hence, these figures are not taken into account. 

iii).  The trend of purchases and sales of the insured indicates that sales of number of bags affected are same as to the number of bags received and done on the same day itself.  So, the difference in purchases and sales in a particular day are same and closing balance is observed as zero. 

iv).  There are no transactions occurred on  20-04-08, but in stock register 840 bags are shown as received by the insured from farmers. 

V).   The producer takpatties and commission agents takpatties are raised simultaneously, but difference are noticed in these sale invoices for the dates 28-04-08 and 29-04-08.  This indicates that the entries in stock register and sale invoices are not in order. 

vi).  The amanat patties submitted by the insured are not having the acknowledgement of the producer and appears to be prepared y the insured for the sake of claim.  Hence, the authenticity of these documents is in doubt. 

vii).  The stock register entries for the purchases are shown higher for 28-04-08 and 29-04-08 compared to the actual sales as per the takpatties when the pattern of purchases and sales for the previous days are equal.

viii).  Considering the above discrepancies and since the entries are not in order in the stock register or in the sales invoices, only the figures of last days transactions i.e.,28-04-08 and 29-04-08 are taken for the assessment of loss giving the benefit of doubt to the insured.  Thus, the number of bags lost in the accident and allowed for the assessment are as under. 

No. of bags purchased on 28-04-08                :       646 bags

Less :  sales                                               :       559 bags

Balance                                                     :         87 bags

No. of bags purchased on 29-04-08                :       432 bags

Less : sales                                                        :       260 bags

Balance                                                     :       172 bags

Total No. of bags allowed as lost/damaged in accident are              87+172 = 259 bags.  Therefore the number of chillies bags allowed for loss of assessment are 259 bags.  Total value of the 338 bags of chillies is 259 X 1200= Rs.3,10,800/-

Assessment of Loss:

1.  On building : 

        Value of the shed 729                          :       Rs.1,09,350-00

        Less :  50% depreciation                      :       Rs.   54,675-00

        Value of the shed at the times of loss    :       Rs.   54,675-00

        Less  :  Salvage                                  :       Rs.     4,675-00

Net loss                                                    :       Rs.   50,000-00

Thus the total loss arrived at on building                :       Rs.50,000-00

On stock                                                    :       Rs.3,10,800-00

Less :  policy excess                                    :       Rs.   10,000-00

Net loss assessed                                               :       Rs.3,50,800-00

The same was paid, after deducting the premium for reinstatement of sum insured as per policy conditions for the balance period, through a cheque bearing No.022033 dated 27-04-10 for Rs.3,50,456/-.  The complainant received the same after duly signing the voucher in full and final settlement of its claim.  It is absolutely false to say that the opposite parties have paid the part payment of Rs.3,50,456/- and they have been postponing for finalizing the claim for the remaining amount and they have not settled the claim so far.  First the complainant has agreed to receive Rs.3,50,456/- in full and final settlement  of its claim under the present policy and duly signed the settlement intimation voucher.  Thereupon, this opposite party prepared the cheque No.022033, dated 27-04-10 for Rs.3,50,456/- and then the complainant signed the claim disbursement voucher.  As submitted above, this opposite party has assessed the loss caused to both the building and the stock of chillies of the complainant and paid the same to the complainant through a cheque.  It is not the case of the complainant that they received the amount under pressure of duress from the opposite parties.  In fact, the opposite parties assessed the loss caused to the building and then arrived that the quantum of stock of chillies present at the time of fire accident are 259 bags and assessed the compensation payable.  So there is no occasion for the opposite parties to make any part payment as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant after satisfying and agreeing about the assessment made by the opposite parties in full satisfaction of its claim, duly signed the settlement intimation voucher and then the opposite parties prepared the cheque and the complainant signed on the claim disbursement voucher, then opposite party paid the amount through the cheque.  It is also false to say that the opposite parties kept quite without giving any reply to the registered notice.  The complainant got issued a registered notice dated 28-10-10 and after receiving the same, this opposite party got issued a reply dated              03-12-10 to the complainant’s counsel.  But again the complainant got issued another notice by suppressing the prior notice, for which also this opposite party issued a reply.  The stock of chillies belonged to farmers which were brought in the shop of the complainant.  So the complainant is not the owner of the said stock gutted in the fire accident.  Hence the farmers to whom the stock of chillies allegedly belonged are necessary and proper parties to the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint is bad for non joineder of necessary parties.  The complainant received Rs.3,50,456/- towards full and final satisfaction of his claim, but only as an after thought, the complainant got issued notice dated 28-10-10 after long lapse of one and half years, suppressing the prior notice for which the opposite party issued reply.  The complainant never approached this opposite party after receiving the amount towards full and final satisfaction of his claim.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

7.      Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions. 

 8.    On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-10 are marked.  On behalf of opposite parties Exs.B-1 to B-10 are marked. 

9.      Now the points that arise for consideration are

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to? 

10.    POINT NO. 1:  The case of the complainant is that he is doing chillies business in Agricultural Marked Committee, Guntur in Plot No.  107 A, that complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy on 04-07-2007 from opposite party’s company for the risk assured amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards 423 bags of chillies kept in his plot belonging to the farmers, that during subsistence of policy on the mid night of 03-05-08 there was fire accident in which 423 bags of chillies of different varieties kept in his plot were gutted, Government have issued G.O.R.T. 609 dated 21-05-2008 fixing the rate of 40 kgs bag of chillies @ Rs.1200/- and Rs.3,000/- per quintal without differentiating red and white chillies, the complainant made a claim to 1^st opposite party on 25-08-08 and that the 1^st opposite party paid part payment of Rs.3,50,456/- on 27-04-10 to the complainant and have not finalized the remaining claim amount inspite of repeated demands made by complainant and that finally complainant got issued notice dated 26-09-11, the opposite parties have received the said notice on 29-09-11 and kept quite and that thereby the complainant suffered mental agony, thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

11.    The case of opposite parties is that they have settled the claim of complainant and paid Rs.3,50,456/- through a cheque dated              27-04-10 to the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim, that after receiving the said amount the complainant has not made any demand.  The complainant got issued a notice dated 28-10-10 for which the opposite parties have got issued reply dated 03-12-10, suppressing the said fact of issuing notice dated 28-10-10, complainant finally got issued notice dated 26-09-11 after a long lapse of one and half year after receiving the amount from the opposite parties as an after thought and that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. 

12.    The allegation of the opposite parties is that the farmers to whom the stocks of chillies belonged are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings and the complaint is bad for non joined of necessary parties.  The complainant is the insured and the opposite party’s company is the insurer.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has obtained policy for the stocks of chillies kept in his shop belonging to the farmers.   Therefore, the farmers are not necessary and proper parties and that the complaint is not bad for non joinder of necessary parties.   Accordingly this point is answered.

13.    POINT NO. 2:-   It is not in dispute that the complainant is doing chillies business in the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur in plot No. 107A.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant has obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for his Class–II construction building situated in A.M.C.Guntur, for Rs.1,80,000/- and stocks of chillies for Rs.4,50,000/- and that during the subsistence of the said policy, fire accident occurred during the night of 03-05-08 in A.M.C. Guntur, in which the shop of complainant and the stocks of chillies kept in it were also gutted in the fire accident.  Complainant alleged that there are 423 bags of chillies are available in his shop at the time of fire accident and that they were gutted in the fire accident, that as per the order of the Government in G.O.R.T. No. 609 dated 21-05-08 the rate of 40 kgs bags of chillies was fixed @ Rs.1200/-and that the opposite parties have paid Rs.3,50,456/- through a cheque dated 27-04-10 towards part payment of his claim and have been postponing the settlement of the remaining claim amount inspite of his demands.  The burden lies on the complainant to prove that there were 423 bags of chillies are available in his shop and that they were gutted in the fire accident.  While admitting the alleged fire accident the opposite parties have contended that they have settled the claim of the complainant towards full and final satisfaction but not as a part satisfaction. 

14.   The opposite parties have contended that several claims are made by the commission agents including the complainant for their building and also for the stocks of chillies held by them, but none of the commission agents submitted the required documents for settlement of their claims for one reason or the other.  Ultimately the District Administration involved in the settlement of claims and conducted several meetings and at the joint review meeting held by District Collector, Guntur on 22-09-09 with the insurance authorities, commission agents, Chairman of A.M.C. and marketing officials and considering various factors and views exchanged by the insurance company and commission agents the District Collector instructed the commission agents to submit certain documents to the insurance authorities for settlement of claim. 

15.    Complainant filed Ex.A-4 copy of Chillies stock register. The said stock register Ex.A-4 shows the stock balance of chillies till 29-04-08 only. Ex.A-4 does not contain the available stock balance in the shop of the complainant as on the date of fire accident.  However Ex.A-4 is only a self serving document. Ex.A-5 is the letter dated 28-01-09 addressed by the Selection Grade Secretary (FAC), A.M.C. Guntur to the Branch Manager of opposite party at Guntur, informing the extent of the sum insured by complainant as Rs.4,50,000/- for the stocks of chillies and the total bags gutted in the fire accident as 2,51,746.  But the said letter Ex.A-5 does not contain the available stocks of chilli bags in the shop of the complainant at the time of fire accident. 

16.   Subsequent to the fire accident, the opposite party company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss sustained by the complainant in the fire accident and to submit his report.  The said Surveyor submitted his report dated 14-11-09, marked as Ex.B-10. The Surveyor in his report Ex.B-10 mentioned as follows : 

After the occurrence of fire, a high level committee has been formed by the District Collector, Guntur, to find out the exact quantity of chillies damaged by fire.  The high level committee submitted its report to the Collector, indicating the quantities of daily arrivals and dispatches of chillies from 01-04-08 to 03-05-08 at the yard.  When the entries of inward and outward registered are examined with that of the report prepared by the high level committee, it has been observed that none of the day to day entries of inward and outward registered are tallying with that of high level committee’s report.  Because of peak season, the A.M.C. staff are unable to record properly either the inward or the outward movement of chillies.  This was identified after cross verifying the list of farmers stock that are supposed to be lying at the time of fire accident with the list of farmers recorded in the inward register issued by the A.M.C. It is noticed that almost 80% of the farmers stocks available with the commission agents are not recorded in the A.M.C. register.  In the month of January, 2008 i.e. three months before the fire accident, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have constituted a committee to study and report the functioning of Mirchi yard at Guntur.  The said committee submitted its report and as per the report of the committee there are so many lapses noticed by the committee and one such major lapse is lacuna in recording the arrivals and dispatches from the A.M.C.  The text of the report of the said committee is as follows :

“Arrivals register  :  The names of the growers and their complete addresses are not properly recorded. The names of the commission agents are also not properly recorded.  It was observed that most of the growers are not coming to the market yard with their produce for sale.  Due to improper maintenance of arrivals register, it is difficult to find out to whom actual payment of sale proceeds are made.  Further it is submitted that this will also give insecurity to the farmers during unforeseen calamities happened in the Market Yard.  There is no proper verification on the arrivals noted at unloaded places.  As per the above report it also gets clear that the ingates and outgates are not being properly maintained and there is no control on the movement of vehicles coming and going.  In the above conditions the authenticity of inward and outward registers are very much doubtful and therefore considering these registers as basis for arriving the stock position of different commission agents at the time of fire accident is not justifiable. 

The said report of the Surveyor Ex.B-10 reveals that the registers at A.M.C. are not maintained properly, and that therefore, the registers of the A.M.C. cannot be taken as basis for arriving the stock position of different commission agents at the time of commission agents.  As already stated above Ex.A-5 letter addressed by the A.M.C. does not reveal the available stock of chilly bags in the shop of the complainant at the time of fire accident. After going through the entire file, the opposite party observed some discrepancies and assessed the total number of bags damaged in the accident in the shop of the complainant as 259 bags and valued the same @ Rs.3,10,800/- and also assessed the net loss of the building as Rs.50,000/- and assessed the total net loss to Rs.3,50,800/- towards full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant.  The contention of the opposite parties is that they have paid the said sum towards full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant, but where as the allegation of the complainant is that they have received the said sum from the opposite parties towards part payment of their claim. 

17.    During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in Ex.B-3 settlement intimation voucher the word “partial” was struck off by the opposite parties subsequent to the acceptance and signature of the complainant therein. The said allegation of the complainant did not find place in the complaint or in their affidavit. The learned counsel has come forward with this allegation only during the course of argument. A perusal of Ex.B-3 settlement intimation voucher together with Ex.A-10 copy of settlement intimation voucher reveals that the word “partial” was not struck off at the time of accepting the same by the complainant.  Even though the word “partial” was not struck off in Ex.B-3 at the time of accepting the same by the complainant, it does not mean that the settlement was made towards partial satisfaction, since the word “full” was also not struck off at the time of acceptance.  Further at the earliest point the complainant got issued notice dated 28-10-10 under Ex.B-5 to the opposite parties.  In Ex.B-5 the complainant mentioned that the opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainant.  It does not contain that they have received the amount from the opposite parties towards part satisfaction.  The opposite parties have also issued reply to Ex.B-5 letter of complainant under Ex.B-6 letter dated 03-12-10. In Ex.B-6 reply notice the opposite parties have informed the complainant that they have already settled the claim of the complainant on 27-04-10 for Rs.3,50,456/- through a cheque dated 27-04-10 after obtaining settlement intimation voucher duly signed by the complainant and the said cheque was sent to the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur, on 28-04-10 and that their enquiry reveals that the said cheque was already realized by the complainant on 11-05-10.  Without mentioning about the earlier notice Ex.B-5 and about the reply Ex.B-6 by the opposite parties the complainant got issued notice dated 26-09-11 after a long lapse of more than sixteen months stating that 2^nd opposite party issued cheque for Rs.3,50,456/- dated 27-04-10 towards partial satisfaction and demanded to settle the remaining claim.  The complainant has also not mentioned in his complaint or in his affidavit about the issuance of Ex.B-5 and reply Ex.B-6.  Thus for the reasons best known to the complainant, he has suppressed the fact of issuance of Ex.B-5 and about Ex.B-6 reply from opposite parties.  In view of said conduct of the complainant, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has accepted and signed in Ex.B-3 settlement voucher towards full and final settlement of his claim. 

18.   During the course of arguments in support of their case the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on a decision reported in

2008(4) CPR 96 (SC), Supreme Court of India, in a case, between National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Nipha Exports Pvt.Ltd., where in it was held that -

“Where insurance claim was settled and received by insured, in absence of any evidence that discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from complainant fraudulently or by exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like or  coercive bargaining, consumer complaint would not lie”.  

        It is not the case of the complainant as seen from the notice dated 28-10-10 (Ex.B-5) or from the notice dated 26-09-11 (Ex.A-7) as well as the averments and affidavit of the complainant that opposite party obtained settlement intimation voucher Ex.B-3 fraudulently or by exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like or coercive bargaining. Therefore in view of the abnormal delay in issuing Ex.A-7 notice suppressing the fact of issuing the earlier notice Ex.B-5 and reply Ex.B-6 by the opposite parties, and in view of the foregoing discussion, it leads us to draw an inference that the complainant took the amount of Rs.3,50,456/- through a cheque dated 27-04-10 towards full satisfaction of the claim.   

19.    Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Accordingly this point is answered.   

20.    POINT NO. 3:-  In view of the findings on point No.2, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

21.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  But in the circumstances of the case each party shall bear their own costs.    

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 13^th day of August, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

For Opposite Parties  :

PRESIDENT