Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/140/2015

M/s.Thgarangan Traders, Rep by its Proprietor P.K.Angamuthu Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Regional Manager, and 2 Others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.D.Sivakumaran,

20 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:  Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH :    PRESIDENT

                                THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL:      MEMBER

 

C.C. No. 140 of 2015

Thursday, the 20^th day of October 2022

 

M/s. Tharagan Traders

Rep. by its Proprietor

P.K. Angamuthu Babu

New No.2/1092, Old No.29/1

Murugampalayam Road

Parappalayam- Mangalam Road

Tirupur – 641 606.                                          .. Complainant

 

- Vs –

 

1.  National Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its Regional Manager

Tiruchy Road

Coimbatore.

 

2.  National Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its Divisional Manager

No.18, Kumaran Road

Court Street

Tirupur- 641 601.

 

3.  National Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its Branch Manager

No.18, Kumaran Road

Court Street

Tirupur- 641 601... Opposite Parties

   

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant       :  M/s. T. Ravikumar

 

    Counsel for the Opposite parties      :  M/s. N. Premalatha

 

                                         

This complaint came before us for hearing on 19.07.2022 and on hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

                This complaint has been filed as against the opposite party, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to direct the opposite party to settle the balance of the Claim, namely, Rs.74,95,144/- [Rs.91,31,100 – Rs.16,45,956], along with the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the compensation by way of damages for deficiency of service, delay, mental agony etc., with costs. 

 

             2.     The case of the complainant is that they are engaged in the business of manufacture and export of hosiery garments.  The complainant has installed hosiery stitching machines of about 80 state and other necessary modern accessories, for manufacturing garments for global and international market.  The factory, godown and the administrative office are situated at Door No.29/1, Murugampalayam Road, Tiruppur, in his own property measuring a total extent of about 48 cents of land, in a 4 storey building and the built up area of each floor is about 7500 sq.ft., out.  The building is installed with latest electrical appliances and also latest safety measures, with proper tripping facilities.  The Accessories Store and the Packaging Division are situated on the ground floor.  On the 1^st floor, the stitching machines are installed and as such the entire 1^st floor is used for production.  The administrative office, the conference room, the display area where a wide range of products are displayed to the buyers and other miscellaneous facilities, are situated on the 2^nd floor of the building.  The printing on the hosiery garments are done in the 3^rd floor.  There is a small make shift sample room on the top floor.   While so, on 29.05.2012, at about 11.00 pm., fire and fumes were noticed on the 2^nd floor of the complainant’s premises.  Immediately, fire brigade was summoned and they arrived promptly and started extinguishing the fire.  However, the fire got completely extinguished, only after an unrelenting battle for about three hours.  In the meantime, the electrical installations, stitching machines, furniture & fixtures, electrical fittings, the stock etc., were completely damaged, beyond repair. The structure of the building was also completely damaged.  Since the complainant had taken a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy with the 3^rd respondent, covering the period from 24.10.2011 to midnight of 23.10.2012, they intimated about the fire accident to the 3^rd opposite party, on the very next day.  Immediately, one Insurance Surveyor Mr.Raju of Arasu Associates, was deputed for inspection of the site.  On inspection, the Surveyor issued the claim form to the complainant and also sought for certain records to be submitted along with the claim form.  The complainant made arrangements to prepare separate annexure containing a detailed statement of damages under various heads, to be enclosed along with the claim form.  A complaint was also lodged with the jurisdiction police, namely, Mangalam Police Station and an FIR in Cr. No.290/2012 dated 06.06.2012 was registered.  In the meantime, another insurance surveyor, M/s. Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., appointed by the opposite parties, visited the premises of the complainant and demanded various details like individual technical report for the damaged machineries, report regarding the non viability for repair of machineries and various details on every item of damage.  The complainant was also asked to keep the damaged salvage materials of the stock in safe custody, to be weighed by the insurance company.  Accordingly, the complainant engaged the services of Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers and other technical personnel, equipped in their respective fields, to get separate reports about the various aspects of the valuation. Those personnel inspected and after thorough scrutiny, assessed the value of damages.   Such valuation papers were prepared as reports, in respect of each item of damage and those reports were annexed to the claim form.  The details of the claim made by the complainant are as    follows :-

  

Sl.No.	Description	Amt. Claimed Rs.
1	Building (DC-3)	10,20,000.00
2	Machineries (DC-4)	30,36,525.00
3	Furniture and Fittings (DC-6)	13,45,400.00
4	Electrical and Fittings (DC-8)	11,38,410.00
5	Stocks (DC-7)	25,12,765.00
6	Checking Expenses (DC-8)	80,000.00
	Total Amount	91,31,100.00

 

     Many documents were destroyed in the fire.  However, by compiling the necessary records like copies of invoices, delivery challans and almost all required documents were furnished, stage by stage, by obtaining them from various sources.  All the materials which were available to substantiate the quantum of damages claimed by the complainant, were submitted to the respondents.  But, the surveyor deputed by the respondents, did not take into consideration all those materials in the correct perspective.   With regard to the claim of compensation for the fabric damaged in the fire, the weight of the salvage materials available were alone taken into account, without considering the actual value of the stock etc. insured and the corresponding details submitted to substantiate the same.  The respondents ought to have considered the fact that the claim of the complainant was nearly for Rs.90,00,000/- and when the value of compensation as determined by them on the basis of the report of the surveyors is less than 1/6^th of the claim, the respondents are duty bound to furnish the details requested by the complainant to convince the respondents about the correctness, genuineness and jurisdiction of the claim of compensation, as claimed by the complainant.  The total loss assessed, as per the computation of the insurance surveyors/ Assessors is as follows :-

        Assessed loss of building damaged              Rs.1,85,026.68 

        Assessed Loss of machinery damaged          Rs.2,76,360.00 

        Assessed Loss for electrical damaged           Rs.4,27,256.00

 

The complainant pointed out the infirmities and the erroneous mode of calculation by the licensed assessors of the respondent, but the respondents maintained an indifferent attitude with some ulterior results.  The complainant came to know that only a sum of Rs.16,45,956/- is likely to be disbursed by the respondents.  Hence, the complainant asked for a copy of the report submitted by the licensed surveyors but even that was not furnished to the complainant.  Only with great difficulty, by making an application under the Rights to Information Act, the complainant was able to get the full report and the mode of valuation of loss assessed by the Insurance Company.   The opposite parties did not have any humanity approach to consider the plight of a businessman, who had suffered a huge loss and who has to make a livelihood for his future and also for the sake of the work force of more than 50 persons working under the complainant.  Against the claim made by the complainant, a sum of Rs.16,45,956/- has been unilaterally deposited into the bank account of the complainant, by electronic transfer and coaxed the complainant to accept the same as full and final settlement.  Aggrieved by the indifferent attitude and the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint, alleging deficiency of service, for the relief stated supra.

             3.  Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties have filed a version stating that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The service from the opposite parties was availed by the complainant for commercial purpose.  The main activity of the concern is to export garments to foreign countries and executing them by purchasing raw materials of yarn and giving them to various factories for job work.  Therefore, the complainant will not come under the definition of the term ‘Consumer’ in as much as they availed the services provided by the opposite parties, for commercial purpose.  The claim cannot be sustained since the complaint is barred by limitation, in view of the condition under Clause 6(ii) of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, which states as follows :-

             “In no case, whatsoever shall the company be liable for any loss or damage after the expiry of 12 months from the happening of the loss or damage unless the claim is the subject of pending action or arbitration; it being expressly agreed and declared that if the company shall disclaim liability for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of the disclaimer have been made the subject matter of the suit in a Court of Law, then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder.”

 

The complainant has availed Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from Tirupur Divisional Office for the period from 24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012, covering their Building, Plant & Machinery, FFF and Stocks for Rs.8.6 crores.  It is seen from the claim form and other related documents submitted by the complainant on 27.07.2012, that a fire accident had taken place on 29.05.2012, due to which they have sustained loss and had claimed an amount of Rs.91,33,100/- towards the damage of building, machinery, electrical installation, furniture, fittings and stocks.  On receipt of the intimation of loss, the Divisional office, Tirupur deputed one Mr.P.Raju to carry out the preliminary inspection about the fire accident and report to CBRO, who in turn appointed M/s.Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore to survey and report, the alleged loss.  The preliminary survey report was submitted on 25.06.2012 and the final survey report was filed on 29.08.2013.  Based on the preliminary survey report and the final survey report, claim was duly assessed by a qualified surveyor as Rs.16,45,959/-, as damages suffered by the insured, taking into account the extent of property, documents and other related evidences submitted in support of the assessments.  The said amount was sent to the complainant by RPAD on 25.09.2013 towards full and final settlement.  The loss voucher was returned and signed by the complainant but he has struck the phrase “full and final” in the loss voucher and he had written as “partial” in the place of the above phrase.  The 2^nd opposite party was not in a position to release the payment to the complainant, since the loss voucher sent to the complainant was returned with “over writing”.  Therefore, they have sent a fresh voucher to be discharged by the complainant on 05.12.2013 & 24.12.2013, as the payment could not be made against the corrected/ overwritten voucher.  The 2^nd opposite party sent another fresh loss voucher on 29.01.2014, which was received by the complainant and duly discharged on the same day, along with the remark “under protest”.  Based on the loss voucher dated 20.01.2014, the 2^nd opposite party effected the claim amount of Rs.16,44,730/- through ECS payment, to the bank, as per the bank details given by the complainant on 05.02.2014.  Thus, the claim amount assessed by the surveyor has been paid.  But, the complainant sent a letter dated 05.02.2014, to the 2^nd opposite party, allegedly invoking the arbitration clause of the policy and arbitrarily appointing one Mr.S.Jayaraman as an Arbitrator.  But, the 2^nd opposite party denying the arbitrability of the issue in the matter and rejected the proposal for referring the matter to arbitration and the appointment of proposed Arbitrator.  The claim has been settled and paid as duly assessed by a qualified surveyor and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

                4.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit, 54 documents have been filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A54.   On the side of the opposite parties, proof affidavit and 7 documents have been filed by the opposite parties and documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7.

 

        5.    Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is engaged in the manufacture of garments for local and international market.  They own a 4 storey building and the same was insured with the 3^rd opposite party.  The said building is installed with the latest electrical appliances.  The complainant has taken a Standard Fire and Standard Peril policy with the 3^rd opposite party, valid from 24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012 midnight.  On 29.05.2012 at around      11.00 pm, there was a fire accident.  In the accident, the entire building, appliances and all engulfed in the fire.  The opposite parties were informed about the accident.  The very next day, a Surveyor visited the premises and informed the complainant about the required documents to be enclosed with the claim form.  The complainant also lodged a complaint with the jurisdiction police station and a case was registered on 06.06.2012 in Cr.No.290 of 2012.  Many documents got destroyed in the accident.  With great difficulty, the complainant could get few documents.  The complainant has made a claim for Rs.91,31,000/- but only a meagre sum of Rs.16,45,956/- was paid by the opposite parties.  Though the complainant was not willing to receive the said amount, he was forced to send the discharge voucher for Rs.16,44,756/-, only under protest.  The counsel for the complainant further submitted that though the complainant has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator, with regard to the balance amount, the opposite parties were not ready for arbitration.  Hence, the complaint has been filed.  Furthermore, the survey report was not furnished to the complainant.  Had the survey report been furnished, the complainant would have raised his objection at an earlier point of time.  Since it is a fire accident, whatever documents available were only given to the opposite parties.  Under such circumstances, based on the documents furnished by the complainant, the opposite parties ought to have paid the entire claim amount.  Thus, he prayed this Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay the entire claim amount. 

 

                6.  Countering the same, counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant is not a consumer, as defined under Section 2(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The service of the opposite parties was availed by the Complainant for commercial purpose.  The main activity of the complainant is to export garments to foreign countries and to execute them, they provide raw materials of yarn to various factories for job work.  Therefore, the complainant will not fall under the purview of consumer.  Nodoubt, the complainant had availed the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy from Tirupur Divisional Office, covering the period from 24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012 covering their building, P&M, FFF and stocks for Rs.8.6 crores.  The insured had estimated the loss on account of the fire accident, to an extent of Rs.91,33,100/-.  But, the Divisional Office, Tirupur had deputed one Mr.P.Raju to carry out the preliminary survey about the fire accident to CBRO, who in turn appointed M/s. Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore to survey and report.  They have assessed the loss only to a tune of Rs.16,45,959/-.  No doubt the complainant has received the amount only under protest.  The complainant has sent a letter dated 05.02.2014 to the opposite parties, allegedly invoking the arbitration clause of the policy and arbitrarily appointing one Mr.S.Jayaraman to act as an Arbitrator.  The 2^nd opposite party denied the arbitrability of the issue involved in the matter and rejected the same.  The complainant has grossly exaggerated the loss, which is evident from the assessment made by the surveyor.  Hence, absolutely, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Counsel for the opposite parties also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 818 and submitted that the issue involved in this case cannot be decided by the Consumer Commission.

 

        7.  Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. 

               

            8.  In view of the submission made by the counsel for the complainant, the following two questions arise for consideration :-

1) Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

2.  

 

                9.  A very reading of the complaint would show that the complainant is running an Industry in a large scale.  It is evident from the records that the main activity of the complainant is to export garments to foreign countries, executing the work by giving them to various factories for job work, on providing raw materials of yarn. Under Section 2(q) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the word “Trade” is defined as,

“ a trader in relation to any goods means a person who  sells or distributes any goods for sale and includes the manufacturer thereof, and where such goods are sold or distributed in package form, includes the packer thereof.” 

The complainant is a manufacturer and exporter of the hosiery garments.  Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is a ‘Trader’ for gain, falling under the exclusion as provided under the definition of a Consumer under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act.  Therefore, the complainant is a Trader, carrying on his business for commercial purpose.  Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot be construed as a Consumer.  With regard to the merits of the case, we find that according to the complainant the loss assessed was to a tune of Rs.91,31,000/-.  It is the further submission of the complainant that though the opposite parties had asked for necessary documents, they were in a position to provide the documents that were salvaged in the fire accident.  Whereas, according to the opposite parties, the Surveyor appointed by them, meticulously assessed the loss and has come to the correct conclusion that the loss caused in the fire accident was Rs.16,44,730/-. 

 

                10.  Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is disputed question of facts.  When there are disputed question of facts, this Court cannot come to a justifiable conclusion by merely accepting the plea of the parties.  The proper forum to decide the issue is only a Civil Court, where the parties can adduce oral evidence by affording opportunity of cross-examination to other side.   In this regard, it would be appropriate to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 818.  In paragraph 31, it is observed as follows :-

                “ 31.  This is not a case where the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the appellant arbitrarily or on unjustifiable grounds.  This is a case where the claim of the appellant has been admitted, to the extent of the loss as assessed by the Surveyor.  In cases of this nature the jurisdiction of the special forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited.  Perhaps if the appellant had gone to the civil court, they could have even summoned the Surveyor and cross examined him on every minute detail.  But in a complaint before the Consumer Forum, a consumer cannot succeed unless he establishes deficiency in service on the part of the service provider.”

        This judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.  Hence, the proper forum to decide this case is the Civil Court.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

        11.  Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                        R.SUBBIAH

       MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex. A1       30.05.2012       Letter from the complainant to the

                                        3^rd respondent

       

Ex.A2        30.05.2012       List of requirements as given by Insurance

Surveyors – Arasu Associates

 

Ex.A3        13.06.2012       Letter by complainant to 3^rd respondent

praying for extension of time to submit

claim form

 

Ex.A4        27.07.2012       Letter by complainant to 3^rd respondent

along with claim form and 9 enclosures

including copies of policy and FIR

 

Ex.A5        03.08.2012       Letter from Insurance surveyor – Rank

Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to complainant requesting further details.

 

Ex.A6        06.08.2012       Reply to the above with enclosures

 

Ex.A7        09.08.2012       Letter from Insurance surveyor – Rank

Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to complainant requesting further details.

 

Ex.A8        10.08.2012       Letter by complainant to Rank Surveyors

 Pvt. Ltd.

 

Ex.A9        27.08.2012       Letter from Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to

complainant asking for further details.

 

Ex.A10      04.09.2012                       -  do  -

 

Ex.A11      06.09.2012       Reply by complainant to the letter

dt.04.09.2012

 

Ex.A12      04.10.2012       Letter from Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to

Complainant

Ex.A13      15.10.2012       Letter from complainant to Rank Surveyors

 Pvt. Ltd., along with enclosures (13 Nos.)

 

Ex.A14      21.11.2012       Letter from complainant to Rank Surveyors

 Pvt. Ltd., along with enclosures (10 Nos.)

 

Ex.A15      28.12.2012       Letter from 2^nd respondent to complainant

 

Ex.A16      30.12.2012       Letter from complainant to Rank Surveyors

                                        Pvt. Ltd.

 

Ex.A17      10.01.2013       E-mail from complainant to Rank Surveyors

                                        Pvt. Ltd.

 

Ex.A18      20.02.2013       Minutes of Meeting between complainant

and respondents.

 

Ex.A19      21.02.2013       E-mail from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A20      23.02.2013       E-mail from complainant to Rank Surveyors

                                        Pvt. Ltd.

 

Ex.A21      25.02.2013       E-mail from 2^nd Respondent to complainant

 

Ex.A22      28.02.2013       Letter from complainant to Rank Surveyors

                                        Pvt. Ltd., along with enclosures

 

Ex.A23      27.03.2013       Letter from Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to

complainant requesting further particulars.

 

Ex.A24      15.04.2013       E-mail reply by complainant

 

Ex.A25      16.04.2013       E-mail from 2^nd Respondent to complainant

 

Ex.A26      17.04.2013       E-mail from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A27      22.04.2013       Letter from complainant to Rank Surveyors

                                        Pvt. Ltd., with enclosures

 

Ex.A28      03.05.2013       Letter from 2^nd respondent to Rank

Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., (copy marked to complainant)

 

Ex.A29      21.06.2013       Letter from complainant to Rank Surveyors

                                        Pvt. Ltd., with enclosures (Ref.No.024/13-14)

 

Ex.A30      21.06.2013       Letter from complainant to Rank Surveyors

                                        Pvt. Ltd.,with enclosures(Ref.No.025/13-14)

 

Ex.A31      18.07.2013       E-mail from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A32      18.07.2013       Letter from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A33      20.07.2013       E-mail from complainant to Bank of Baroda

 

Ex.A34      24.07.2013       Letter from complainant to M/s.Rank

Surveyors Pvt. Ltd.,

 

Ex.A35      27.07.2013       E-mail from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A36      06.08.2013       E-mail from complainant to M/s.Rank

Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., & 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A37      06.08.2013       E-mail from complainant to M/s.Rank

Surveyors Pvt. Ltd.

 

Ex.A38      10.08.2013       E-mail from complainant to M/s.Rank

Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., & 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A39      29.08.2013       Letter from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

and M/s.Rank Surveyors Pvt. Ltd.

 

Ex.A40      04.09.2013       Letter from 2^nd respondent to the

Complainant along with a detailed survey

report furnished in reply to the application under RTI Act.

 

Ex.A41      18.09.2013       Letter from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A42      20.09.2013       E-mail from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A43      25.09.2013       E-mail from complainant to 2^nd Respondent

 

Ex.A44      25.09.2013       Letter from 2^nd respondent to the

Complainant requesting full and final settlement by accepting Rs.16,44,730/-.

 

Ex.A45      26.09.2013       E-mail from Complainant acknowledging

part satisfaction of the claim namely Rs.16,44,730/-.

 

Ex.A46      19.10.2013       Letter under RTI Act by complainant

requesting information from 2^nd respondent

 

Ex.A47      23.10.2013       Reply by the 2^nd respondent declining the

Request

 

Ex.A48      06.11.2013       Letter under RTI Act by complainant

to 2^nd respondent

 

Ex.A49      22.11.2013       Reply by 2^nd respondent

 

Ex.A50      20.12.2013       Letter under RTI Act by complainant to 2^nd

Respondent requesting certified copies

 

Ex.A51      22.01.2014       Letter from 2^nd respondent to Complainant

 

Ex.A52      05.02.2014       Letter from complainant to 2^nd respondent

requesting arbitration

 

Ex.A53      05.03.2014       Letter from 2^nd respondent declining the

Request

 

Ex.A54      08.04.2014       E-mail from complainant to Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex. B1                               Policy & Terms and Conditions

 

Ex.B2        25.06.2012       Preliminary Survey Report

 

Ex.B3        29.08.2013       Final Survey Report

 

Ex.B4        26.09.2013       Discharge Voucher

 

Ex.B5        05.12.2013       Letter of Opposite Party

 

Ex.B6        29.01.2014       Discharge Voucher

 

Ex.B7        05.02.2014       Acknowledgement of Complainant

 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                         R.SUBBIAH

       MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October /2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.140 of 2015

HON’BLE  JUSTICE

THIRU R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

 

        Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

 

 

MEMBER                      PRESIDENT              

20.10.2022                20.10.2022