IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the   14^th  Day of  September  2022

  Present: -  Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                    CC.307/2015

Firosh Khan                                                :         Complainant

S/o Abdul Kareem

Kavintazhikam Veedu

South of  Vellappil Mukku

Aakkolil Cherry

Mayyanad Village.

[By Adv.Umayanalloor K.Ramachandran Nair& Adv.K.Jayan]

V/s

1.        Shahabudeen                                 :         Opposite parties

Shahna Nivas

Umayanalloor P.O

Vadakkumkara Kizhakke Cherriyil

Thazhuthala Village.

2.           NithinSha

S/o Shahabudeen

Shahna Nivas

Umayanalloor P.O

Vadakkumkara Kizhakke Cherriyil

Thazhuthala Village.

[By Adv.Shaji Divakaran]

FINAL  ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

          This is a case based on a complaint filed against two opposite parties U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:- 

          The complainant started construction of a house building having 2200 sq.ft in 10 cents of  property in Survey No.148/3/1/1 of Mayyanad Village.  The construction of the 1^st floor was partially completed while so the 2^nd opposite party agreed to complete the construction of the entire house building including the 1^st floor for which he entered into an agreement with the complainant. The complainant originally decided to complete the construction of the building by himself for which he had already constructed wooden articles such as kattila, window etc for the said building.  As the 2^nd opposite party has undertaken the construction of the building the complainant handed over the above wooden articles for using the same in the construction.  On 08.02.2015 which opposite party (not specified which opposite party) entered into an agreement and executed a document claiming to be an agreement.  The terms  of the said documents has been accepted by both sides.  As per the terms of the agreement the opposite party agreed to construct 1^st floor consisting of 930 sq.ft @ 1100 per sq.ft. He has also agreed to complete the construction work of the 1^st floor  yet to be constructed such as construction of  cupboard, laying tiles, painting works, back steps, hand rail for two stairs, laying bathroom tiles and bathroom fittings, room plastering, sun shade tile work, interlock work, balcony work, compound wall and gate.  By agreeing to complete the above construction work opposite parties obtained Rs.21,50,000/- from the complainant.  But as per the terms of the agreement the opposite parties failed to complete the construction.  As the complainant has already fixed the date of house warming,  the complainant asked the opposite parties to complete the construction work before  the date fixed for housewarming,  but they failed to do so.  As the opposite parties have failed to carry out the construction work stated in the agreement in a time bound manner the complainant was constrained to conduct the house warming and the opposite party agreed to conduct the work after house warming.  However even after house warming ceremony the complainant requested the opposite parties to complete the construction but they failed to do so.  Therefore the complainant was constrained to complete the construction work by entrusting the same one to Santo Mason.  As requested by the complainant the opposite party has issued a chart including the work not carried out by him.  Several works shown in the chart has not been completed by the opposite party.  Later the complainant caused to depute Blue Star Company to evaluate the work and to make a valuation of the same.  They have reported that the opposite party has carried out the construction work worth Rs.16,00,000/- only.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the remaining Rs.5,50,000/- from the opposite parties.  On 14.09.2015 the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the opposite party(not specified which opposite party).  But the opposite party has not sent any reply nor returned the amount.  Hence the complaint.

          The opposite parties No.1&2 resisted the complaint by filing a detailed joint version raising the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant and opposite parties would not come within the purview of the definition of consumer and service provider.  Hence this Forum is not having any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.    The 2^nd opposite party is unnecessary party in the case since he is having no connection what so ever with the case.

 The complainant is a Civil Police Officer.  The 1^st opposite party was a gulf employee and after returning from gulf country he has been engaged in the construction work on contract basis.  While so the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party through  a person who is acquainted with the complainant and requested the 1^st opposite party to construct a house building having 2390 sq. ft.   The complainant has already constructed the basement of the residential building and the 1^st  opposite party has been asked to construct remaining portion of the ground floor for which the opposite parties agreed Rs.900/- per sq.ft and Rs.1700/- per sq.ft for the construction of the 1^st floor.  The complainant and his wife told the opposite party that no written agreement is necessary as the opposite party is having previous acquaintance with them.  As per the above understanding the 1^st opposite party undertaken the construction work and proceeded with the construction.  The complainant altogether paid Rs.7,00,000/- only  on several occasions and told the opposite party that the remaining amount will be paid loan amount and also asked to proceed with the construction by spending the amount from out of the pocket of the 1^st opposite party.  As the complainant is a native and having prior acquaintance with the opposite party he borrowed the amount from his friends and also taken the amount out of  the amount collected from his gulf employment and also by purchasing construction material on credit and completed the construction work.  Whenever the opposite party demanded to execute a written agreement regarding the construction the opposite party and his wife evaded.  The subsequent conduct of the complainant would reveal that the non execution of the agreement was with a view to cheat the opposite party.

          The 1^st opposite party demanded to pay the balance amount after the house warming ceremony and complainant and his family shifted to the newly constructed residence.  Thereupon the complainant, his wife and gundas picked up quarrel with 1^st opposite party and tress passed into the residence of the 1^st opposite party and committed atrocities for which the 1^st opposite party lodged a complaint as CMP.3027/2015 before the JFMC II, Kollam and that complaint is pending on the file of the Magistrate Court.  While so the opposite party received a copy of the complaint and notice in this case.  On his subsequent enquiry the 1^st opposite party came to know that the complainant has produced a document claiming that the 1^st opposite party put his signature a document styled as agreement.  But the said document is false and fabricated one.   The 1^st opposite party never entered into any such agreement with the complainant. 

As the 1^st opposite party has filed a criminal complaint against the complainant and his wife the complainant has filed the present complaint by forging and fabricating documents for which the 1^st opposite party has lodged a petition before the JFMC V(temporary) and CMP 468/16 and Magistrate Court has taken the complaint into file and on the basis of that complaint, Kollam West Police has conducted investigation.  The documents produced by the complainant in this case are false and forged documents for which Kollam West Police has registered Crime No.169/16 against the complainant alleging offence punishable U/s 464,465 and 468 IPC and investigation is in progress in that crime.  Scientific opinion  regarding the genuiness of the case is necessary.

The complainant has not stated the value of the work done by the 1^st opposite party.  All the allegations leveled against the opposite parties in connection with house warming ceremony is false.  The allegation that Santo Mason has completed the construction work is incorrect.  The 1^st opposite party has stored the materials necessary for completing construction for bath room such as tiles etc at the residence under construction at his own cost.  The complainant  was convinced regarding the construction work stated in the chart by the 1^st opposite party.  But the complainant has produced a false and fabricated chart deliberately with a view to refrain from payment of the construction cost.  There is no need to take valuation by deputing Blue Star construction company.  The documents produced by the complainant is false and fabricated one and the allegation of the complainant is false and baseless and against commonsense.  The complainant has directed the 1^st opposite party that he did not complete the construction work of the bathroom and certain rooms as the accessories necessary for the said construction work would be brought from gulf country and only after getting those materials and accessories  the 1^st opposite party need be proceed with the construction and therefore the 1^st opposite party could not complete the construction work for which the 1^st opposite parties are not responsible at all.  The opposite parties after sending the lawyer notice the complainant met with certain mediators and also informed the 1^st opposite party that he requires some time to pay the balance amount for which he sent a lawyer notice and also demanded to give time for payment, that is the reason why the opposite party has not sent any reply to the lawyer notice of  the complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite parties.  But there is inordinate delay on the side of the complainant in settling the matter by paying the balance amount to the 1^st opposite party.  The cause of action  alleged is  incorrect.  The 1^st opposite party is entitled to get Rs.23,23,200/- from the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.  The amount sought for in the complaint from the opposite party is not liable to be paid by the opposite party as it has been claimed without any basis.  The opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with their costs.

          In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any written agreement executed between the complainant and opposite parties before starting the construction work?
2. What is the total area of construction carried out by the 1^st opposite party in the ground floor and 1^st floor of the building?
3. What is the rate agreed between the parties for the remaining construction of ground floor  and new construction of the 1^st floor?
4. Whether Ext.A1 agreement relied on by the complainant is a forged and fabricated document as contented by the opposite parties?
5. What is the quantum of amount paid to the opposite parties towards the construction work undertaken by the opposite parties?
6. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2?
7. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from opposite parties as prayed for?
8. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 to 4 and Ext.A1 to A11 documents.  The opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence, but got marked Ext.D1 to D3 documents.  Ext.C1, C2 to C5 series were also got marked in this case.  Both sides have filed notes of argument.  Heard both sides.

Point No.1&2

For avoiding repetition of  discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together.  The specific care of the complainant in the complaint is that the 2^nd opposite party has entered into an agreement with  the complainant agreeing to complete the construction work of the partially completed work of the ground floor and also to construct the 1^st floor having an extent of 930 sq.ft and received an amount of Rs.21.5 lakhs from the complainant. According to the complainant he himself has started construction of the 1^st floor and carried out the following works. Sn sI«nS¯nsâ Xmgs¯ \ne-bpsS \nÀ½mWw ]md-sIm­v  ASn-Øm\w ]mInbpw apI-fn No¦Ãv D]-tbm-Kn¨v `n¯nbpw \nÀ½n¨p apIÄ`mKw tIm¬{Ioäv sNbvXv `mKo-I-ambn Xmgs¯ \ne-bpsS \nÀ½mWw \S¯n hc-sh………. At this stage the complainant entered into an agreement for carrying out the remaining construction including 1^st floor.  The complainant has no case in the complaint that he has expected any  written agreement prior to the starting of the work of the ground floor. 

It is interesting to note that the complainant has no definite case regarding the above aspects.   In the proof affidavit para(3)  the complainant has sworn that when he was thinking of constructing a house building having 2200 sq.ft at his 10 cents of property situated at Mayyanad village, the opposite parties(both op No.1&2) approached the complainant and informed that they are ready to construct the building on contract basis and by agreeing that they would constructed  at a cost of Rs.21,50,000/- and on 08.02.2015 executed Ext.A1 agreement.  But during the beginning of cross examination  PW1 would admit that the initial agreement was with 2^nd opposite party and no written agreement was executed between them. In the light of the above materials on record it is clear that there is no specific pleadings in the complaint or in the proof affidavit before the opposite parties starting construction work, there was no written agreement executed between the parties regarding the nature of construction, materials to be used, cost of construction, area of construction etc.

However according to the complainant the 2^nd opposite party agreed to complete the entire work and received Rs.21,50,000/- on several occasions.  The  complainant has no specific case in his complaint that the 2^nd opposite party has agreed to carry out the entire remaining construction including 1^st floor for Rs.21,50,000/-.  Ext.A4 lawyer notice is the earliest version regarding the disputed construction work wherein it is stated that the complainant has already constructed the skeleton of ground floor consisting of 1200 sq.ft including  the concrete work of the roof slab and thereafter the complainant happened to meet the 2^nd opposite party and entrusted the work at the rate of  Rs.550/- per sq.ft for carrying out the remaining work of ground floor and Rs.1100/- for constructing the 1^st floor including the material costs except the cost of wooden materials which has been supplied by the complainant that by undertaking to carry out the work the 2^nd opposite party has received Rs.21,50,000/- from the complainant and as directed by the 1^st opposite party the 2^nd opposite party executed Ext.A1 agreement dated 08.02.2015.  The area of construction as per Ext.A4 lawyer notice is 1200+830=2020 sq.ft.  But the total  area of construction as per the admission of PW1 during cross examination (page No.3)  is 1200+960=2160 sq.ft.   PW1 would also admit during cross examination that his house building consists of 2200 sq.ft.  Admittedly as per Ext.C3 A expert report which is an undisputed document the plinth area of ground floor is 1315 sq.ft and the plinth area of the 1^st floor is 985.  The commission has also reported in C3A report that the constructed plinth area of ground floor and first floor differs from the plan.  As per the plan the plinth area is only 2151 but the constructed plinth area as per C3 A report is 2300 sq.ft.  Hence there is a difference of 149 sq. in the constructed area.  The complainant has no case that the opposite parties have increased the area of construction without the consent of the complainant by their own choice.  In the circumstances the complainant is liable to pay the construction costs of 2300 sq.ft including the excess area constructed  to the contractor at the rate mutually agreed less the cost of works if any left by the opposite parties.    PW2/CW1 expert has reported in Ext.C2 series Mahazar that the estimated costs of the work not carried out would  come to Rs.5,23,000/-. Points answered accordingly.

Point No.3

  The complainant has not averred in the complainant  what was the exact rate of completion of the ground floor of the building.  But the complainant in his chief affidavit(para 3) has sworn that the opposite parties have undertaken to complete the entire work of the double storied building for Rs.21,50,000/-.  As per Ext.A4 series lawyer notice the rate agreed for the construction of 1^st floor is Rs.1100/- per sq.ft.   If that be so the construction cost agreed for the first floor would be 1100x985= Rs.10,83,500/-.  The remaining amount out of the agreed amount of Rs.21,50,000/- would be Rs.10,66,500/- (21,50,000-10,83,500)  for carrying out the remaining construction work of 1315 sq,ft.  Hence the agreed rate per sq.ft would be 10,66,500÷1315=Rs.811.  Hence the admitted statistics itself would indicate that the rate of Rs.550/- per sq.ft for completing the remaining construction work of the ground floor is not correct and also not reasonable.  In the circumstances the contention of the opposite party that the agreed rate for the ground floor was Rs.900/- per  sq.ft is more probable and possible especially when the expert engineer in Ext.C3(A) report has pointed out the value of total  construction would come to Rs.38,90,000/- as per the prevailing market rate as on the date of his visit.  In view of the materials discussed above we come to the conclusion that the case set up by the complainant that the construction cost of the ground floor was Rs.550/- per sq.ft is not believable and convincing at all and the case set up by the opposite parties that the agreed rate was Rs.900/- per sq.ft for carrying out the remaining construction work of the ground floor is more probable.  The point answered accordingly.

Point No.4

Now regarding the genuiness and reliability of Ext.A1 agreement.  As per the averments in the complaint(para 2) the agreement(A1) was executed just before starting the construction work.  PW1 has also sworn in para 3 of the proof affidavit that just before starting the work opposite parties have executed the agreement dated 08.02.2015.  But the materials  available on record would indicate that  the work was started much earlier and  the 2^nd opposite party has handed over the key of the partially completed building to the complainant on 08.02.2015 and on the next day ie on 09.02.2015 house warming ceremony was conducted by the complainant and started to occupy the building.  In the circumstances the genisis of the agreement itself is doubtful.  The rate of construction claimed to have been agreed in Ext.A1 and the amount paid is having no proportion which also casts doubts regarding the genuiness of Ext.A1 agreement.

It is further to be pointed out that the 1^st opposite party has filed Ext.D1 complaint alleging forgery and fabrication of records etc. before the JFCM III Kollam and got forwarded the original of Ext.A1 for Forensic examination through that court and obtained Ext.D3 report dated 30.09.2019 wherein it is stated (in paragraph 2 in 1^st page of the report) that the person who wrote the questioned signature(signature in the disputed A1 agreement) did not write the questioned signature similarly marked and stamped as Q1.  It is further reported in the next paragraph  of Ext.D3 that it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion on the authorship of the questioned signature(found in Ext.A1) in comparison with standard(admitted) signature supplied.  The reasons for arriving at such a conclusion is also stated in detail on the next page of D3 under the heading reasons for the results.  In short  Ext.D3 report also would probabilise the contention of the opposite party that he has not executed and signed any such agreement and it is a fabricated document.  In the circumstances the content of Ext.A1 agreement including the rate of construction claimed to have been agreed between the parties is not reliable and acceptable.

Point No.5 to 7

For convenient sake these 3 points are considered together.  The learned counsel for the complainant by relying on Ext.A2 chart given by the opposite party and Ext.A3 purported report of Blue star construction company has argued that the opposite parties have carried out construction works only to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- and complainant has carried out the remaining works for Rs.5,50,000/- by deputing Santo Mason which is against the terms of the agreement between himself and opposite parties and the complainant has sustained a loss of Rs.5,50,000/- on this count.  On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in the above contention.  Ext.A2 chart would indicate that almost all works were carried out by the opposite parties and the cost of work done as per that chart is Rs.21,30,365/-.  It is true that the complainant would allege that the opposite parties have not carried out the entire work stated in A2 chart.  But what items of works included in the chart which are not done is not pleaded in the complaint or in Ext.A4 notice nor when the complainant was in the witness box as PW1.  Hence we are inclined to accept A2 chart and the cost of work carried out by the opposite parties as Rs.21,30,365/-.  It is further to be pointed out that the 1^st opposite party has stored the materials necessary for completing construction for bath room such as tiles etc at that building under construction at his own cost. The cost of such materials also has to be included as cost of construction met by the opposite parties.

The specific case of the complainant in the complaint as well as in Ext.A4  series lawyer notice and also in the proof affidavit filed by PW1 is that he deputed Blue Star construction company to ascertain the actual state of affairs of the construction carried out by the opposite parties and also value that construction and accordingly they carried out the task and filed Ext.A3 report.  But on perusal of  the said A3 document it is seen that the same would not indicate actual construction carried out till that date but contains the details of requirement  on the premises that the cost of construction is Rs.1750/- per sq,ft.

The cost of construction carried out by the opposite parties are seen estimated in Ext.A3 as follows.

Ground floor Rs.500x1257.84 sq.ft, 1^st floor Rs.1400x893.08 sq.ft and altogether the cost of construction made by the opposite parties is estimated as Rs.18,79,122/- and not Rs.16,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant.

The most vitiating factor in Ext.A3 is that though the complainant would claim that Blue Star construction company is a reputed company, A3 is seen prepared in two sheets of white paper and not in any letter head that too major portion of the content in A3 is typed and the most important facts are written in hand writing.  The round seal seen affixed is not that of Blue Star construction company, but it belongs to Blue Seven Star Construction Pvt.Ltd, Kottiyam.  The name and designation of the person who prepared A3 document is also not specified.  As the opposite parties have vehemently contented that Ext.A3 is a fabricated document and not issued by Blue Star  Construction company,  the complainant ought to have examined the author of A3 document and prove the same without which A3 cannot be accepted in evidence at all.  Even if A3 is admitted in evidence it would not probabilise the case of the complaint that opposite parties have made construction work worth Rs.16,00,000/- only and that the opposite parties have not carried out the work scheduled in Ext.A2 chart.

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party has not sent any reply to Ext.A4 notice  and the  non sending of reply notice would go against the case of the opposite parties.  It is to be pointed out that the opposite party would  content in paragraph 15 of the version that after the receipt of lawyer notice by the opposite party the complainant has deputed several mediators and sought time for payment of remaining amount of the work carried out by the opposite party and also informed the 1^st opposite party that inorder to get time he caused to sent Ext.A4 lawyer notice.  In the circumstances the opposite party has not sent any reply notice.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the above explanation for non sending of reply notice to A4 notice appears to be satisfactory.

The learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently argued that though the complainant would content that he paid Rs.21,50,000/- to the opposite parties he failed to produce sufficient material to substantiate that aspect especially when the opposite parties denied having received that much amount.  Opposite parties would content in their joint written statement that complainant has paid only Rs.7,00,000/- on several occasions and asked to proceed with the construction by utilizing the amount from his own pocket and undertakes to pay the same when he availed loan.  In the circumstances the burden is upon the complainant to prove that he paid Rs.21,50,000/- to the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  But the complainant has not even a specific case regarding the person either the 1^st opposite party or the 2^nd opposite party who received the amount from the complainant.  The complainant has also not substantiated  the fact that he was having sufficient funds to pay the said amount  to the complainant as claimed.  According to the complainant both the opposite parties received Rs.21,50,000/- by agreeing that they  would complete the entire construction work.  The complainant neither in his complaint nor in Ext.A4 notice or in the chief affidavit has specifically stated whether he paid the amount in lump sum or in installment according to the progress of the construction work and the date of payment of the amount.  The complainant being an Additional Sub Inspector of Police there is every chance of obtaining receipt regarding payment of amount or he might have paid the amount either by cheque or by bank transfer.  But he has not produced any such document evidencing the payment of  Rs.21,50,000/- to the opposite parties.

The complainant would rely on Ext.A6 to A11 documents to substantiate the case that he was having sufficient amount to pay Rs.21,50,000/- to the opposite parties.  But it is brought out during cross examination of PW1 that as per Ext.A6 pass book he availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- during the end of 2014(on 18.11.2014).  But the very same pass book would indicate that on 30.09.2015 he repaid Rs.16,39,740/- towards the said loan.  Even according to PW1 Ext.A6 pass book would not indicate the payment of the amount to the opposite parties.  It is further to be pointed out that as per Ext.A7 document on the date of availing the above loan itself he  paid Rs.2,00,690/- at the Muthoot Finance as re-payment of loan.  It is also brought out in evidence that on 18.11.2014 he paid Rs.1,25,998/-  in the  gold loan scheme at the KSFE, Kottiyam branch and on the same day he repaid Rs.4,00,025/- as repayment of loan to the Police Society.   Ext.A11 post office savings pass book also would not indicate that the complainant was having sufficient funds to pay Rs.21,50,000/- to any of the opposite parties.  It is clear from Ext.A6 to A11 documents that the complainant has repaid loan to the tune of Rs.26,87,043/- during the relevant period.  The above document would not indicate any single payment to the opposite party from the loan availed by the complainant from the bank or Co-operative Societies or from any other sources.

In view of the materials discussed above it is clear that there is absolutely no satisfactory material to indicate that the complainant has paid Rs.21,50,000/- either to the 1^st opposite party or to the 2^nd opposite party to both of them jointly during the relevant period of construction as claimed by the complainant. 

The learned counsel for the opposite party by relying on the  averments in paragraph 6 of the complaint as well as in the affidavit has argued that the complainant himself would admit that by spending Rs.1,00,000/- remaining works were completed and therefore there is no merit in contenting that the opposite parties have left substantial work of the construction of the double storied building.  In paragraph 6 of the complaint it is averred that lÀPn-I£n Krl{]-th-i\ NS-§p-IÄ¡v tijw FXnÀI-£n-Isf kao-]n¨v ]e-X-hW Sn IcmÀ ]Wn-IÄ ]qÀ¯oI-cn¡-W-sa¶mh-i-y-s¸-«n«pw Bb-Xn-\v FXnÀI-£n-IÄ X¿m-dm-ImsX Ccp-¶n-«p-Å-Xp-am-Wv.  XpSÀ¶v lÀPn-I£n Hcp e£-t¯mfw cq] apS¡n kmtâ F¶ I¸Wn tain-cnsb sIm­v Sn ]Wn lÀPn-I£n ]qÀ¯oIcn¨n-«p-Å-Xp-am-Wv.  Towards the end of paragraph No.4 in the proof affidavit also the complainant has reiterated the fact that he has completed the work by deputing Santo Mason by spending Rs.1,00,000/-.  In view of  Ext.A2 chart it is clear that the 1^st opposite party has effected construction work to the tune of Rs.21,30,365/- and certain materials for fully constructing the bathrooms are also kept at that building.  In the light of the above materials on record we find no  merit in the case alleged in the complaint that the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.5,50,000/- being the excess amount obtained by the opposite parties from the complainant.

On evaluating the entire materials available on record we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  We find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.  Point s answered accordingly.

Point No.8

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the    14^th  day of  September  2022.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya rani:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1    :           Firozkhan

PW2/CW1       :K.Raveendran Nair

PW3    :           Riyas.S

PW4    :           Sajith(Santo)

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext A1:           Attested Copy of  Contract agreement

Ext A2:           Attested copy of statement from opposite parties

Ext.A3:           Expected requirements.

Ext.A4 series:  Postal receipts and lawyer notice.

Ext.A5            :           Acknowledgment card.

Ext.A6            :           Loan pass book.

Ext.A7            :           Cash receipt dated 18.11.2014 from Muthoot Financiers Ltd.

Ext.A8            :           Gold loan receipt from KSFE, Kottiyam Branch.

Ext.A9            :           Receipts from Kollam District Police Dept. Employees Co-op Society Ltd. Dated

05.01.2015(4 No’s)

Ext.A10          : Receipt dated 27.05.2015 from The Mayyanad Regional Co operative Bank Ltd.

Ext.A11          : Post Office SB A/c pass book.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for the opposite party:-

Ext.D1            :           Copy of complaint before Judicial First Class Majistrate Court-II, Kollam.

Ext.D2            :           Judgment  dated 03.06.2015 from High Court.

Ext.D3            :           FSL Report

Ext.C1 :           Expert  Report dated 18.11.2016.

Ext.C2 series:  Mahazar and photographs.

Ext.C3 series: Acknowledgement card(Copy)

Ext.C3(A):      Expert report dated 12.07.2018 and photographs.

Ext.C4 series   :  Copy of acknowledgement cards.

Ext.C5 series   : Commission report and Mahazar