KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OP.72/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12.3.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER A.Johnson, : COMPLAINANT Valliyavilagam House, Vallavilai, Kollamkode, Kanyakumari District, Tamilnadu. (By Adv.I.Sowfiuar) Vs. The Divisional Manager, : OPPOSITE PARTY Oriental Insurance Company, Rohini Buildings, Thakaraparampu, Thiruvananthapuram – 23. (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant filed under Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: the complainant is the owner of the building No.IX, 26-127A and is doing fish processing business in the said building and premises by the name and style Matha Fish Merchants. The said building and machinery etc were insured with the opposite party Oriental Insurance Co., Thiruvananthapuram under Fire policy ‘C’ with additional perils. The building and machinery etc were insured for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. The said policy was issued based on the proposal dated 21.4.99 submitted by the complainant along with fire policy ‘C’ additional perils such as flood, inundation , storm and tempest, particularly sea erosion. The opposite party issued the Fire ‘C’ policy with the additional perils by policy NO C-59/2000. The said policy was renewed by renewal policy and there was such a policy for the period from 21.4.2000 to 20.4.2001. The opposite party issued policy No C–69/01 covering the risks for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- On the night of 7th June, 2000 there was heavy rain, flood and inundation and thereby the insured property was damaged heavily. The Arabian sea became very rough in the coastal area and the sea condition became very violent, giant waves started dashing against the sea coast. Whereby the sea invaded and flooded over towards main land and causing damage to houses and other buildings. Due to the heavy flood inundation on account of sea invasion the insured building and the property of the complainant were totally collapsed and damaged. The complainant intimated the matter to the police and the revenue authorities on 8.6.2000. The complainant submitted the insurance claim before the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs. The opposite party deputed one surveyor who visited the insured premises and collected the details. It was followed by an investigation by the investigator deputed by the opposite party/insurance co. M/s T.S.Ramaswamy and Co. Surveyors conducted the final survey and assessed the loss. The surveyor M/s T.S.Ramaswamy visited the insured premises on 2 occasions and collected the details and had detailed discussions with the complainant. During the discussion with the surveyor it was agreed to settle the insurance claim at Rs.2,97,500/- The complainant requested the insurance Company to effect payment of the said settled amount. But the opposite party issued letter dated 29.3.01 repudiating the insurance claim on the ground that the peril causing damage ie, sea erosion is not covered under the policy of insurance.. It is also stated that the sea erosion as a peril is not included in any of the section of Fire Tariff. The complainant issued another letter dated 18.4.01 stating the true facts and claiming the insurance amount. But the opposite party was not prepared to honour the insurance claim. The action on the part of the opposite party would amount to deficiency. The policy of insurance would cover peril which caused damage and loss to the complainant/insured. Thus, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.5,26,214/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 8.6.2000 with a further claim of compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the loss and injuries suffered by the complainant due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. He also claimed cost of the proceedings. 3. The opposite party filed written version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locustandi to file such a complaint. There is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. Complicated question law and facts are involved in the complaint and the dispute has to be referred to a civil court for adjudication. The complainant availed the policy from the opposite party under the Fire policy . As per the terms of the said policy damages caused by perils of fire, lightening, explosion, implosion, impact of rail, road vehicles or aircraft, riot, strike, malicious terrorist damages are only covered. Typhoon, Haricare, tornado, cyclone or other atmospheric disturbances such as Flood and inundation are totally excluded. The complainant had sought in the proposal form for covering sea erosion. The opposite party made it clear to the complainant that the said peril could not be covered as it was not contemplated under the All India fire Tariffs. The allegation of the complainant that additional perils such as flood, inundation, storm, tempest particularly sea erosion are covered by the policy is not fully correct. The opposite party never contemplated the peril ‘sea erosion’. No premium has been collected for the same sea erosion had not been covered under the policy. The allegation that heavy rain, flood and inundation caused heavy damages to the insured properties is not correct. The further allegation that sea erosion or sea invasion is one of the events within the wider definition of flood and inundation and the said risk is specifically covered under the policy is denied. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.2,97,000/- taking into account the value of the salvage. There was no understanding that the claim would be settled at Rs.2,97,000/-. It is true that the complainant on 29.11.2000 submitted his claim for the said sum of Rs.2,97,000/-. The loss due to the peril of sea erosion is not covered under the policy. No premium has been paid by the complainant or accepted by the opposite party covering the said peril. Sea erosion was included in the proposal form. The complainant was made it clear that such a peril of sea erosion could not be covered. The fire policy ‘C’ issued to the complainant did not cover the peril of sea erosion. Sea erosion peril which was not included in any of the sections of the All India Tariff. Inundation and sea erosion are different under no stretch of imagination can the same be deemed to be as one and the same. As per the policy condition a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be deducted by way of policy excess. The claims in the complaint could not be allowed and the said claims are made to harass and vex the opposite party. The complaint itself is filed as a test case. There was no delay, negligence and lapse on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether the complaint in OP.72/01 is maintainable in law? 2) Whether the dispute involved in the complaint in OP.72/2001 is to be referred for the adjudication of a civil court? 3) Whether the complainant is a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 4) Whether there was any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant? 5) Whether the damage or loss caused to the insured properties are covered under the P1 and P2 policies issued by the opposite party/ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd? 6) What order as to reliefs and costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of P1 to P17 on the side of the complainant and R1 to R7 on the part of the opposite party. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. Both the complainant and the opposite party filed proof affidavit in support of their respective pleadings. 6. Points 1 to 3: There is no dispute that the complainant availed services of the opposite party Oriental Insurance Company for the purpose of insuring the business premises including the building and the machinery. Ext.P1 is the policy of insurance issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant covering the business premises of the complainant. As per the said policy the building and machineries were insured. The period of insurance was from April 2000 to April 2001. It is true that the complainant has been conducting business by name Matha Fish Merchants and in the insured premises the complainant was doing fish processing business. The complainant can be treated as the consumer who availed the services of the opposite party on consideration. 7. It is held by the National Commission in Harisolia Motors vs M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd. and others reported in 2005 (I) CPR (NC) that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. In the present case the policy of insurance covering the risk was taken not for anything directly connected or intended for profit making. In other words, the services hired by the complainant had not been used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. It is the settled position that insurance policy taken by commercial units or establishments cannot be held to be hiring of services for commercial purposes so as to exclude them from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, it can very safely be held that the complainant who availed the services of the opposite party Insurance Company would come under the purview of the definition consumer and the dispute involved in the present case is a consumer dispute. So, the case of the opposite party that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party could not be accepted. Hence we hold that the complainant is a consumer and the dispute involved in the present complaint is a consumer dispute. If that be so, the present complaint is maintainable in law. 8. The opposite party has got a case that the dispute involved in this complaint is to be referred to the adjudication of a civil court. Admittedly the dispute in this complaint is with respect to the repudiation of the insurance claim putforward by the complainant. There is also dispute as to whether the damage or loss caused to the insured building and machineries would cover the risk under the policy. The aforesaid difference or dispute can not considered as one involving complicated questions law and facts. The various judgments rendered by the National commission and the apex court on this subject would make it abundantly clear that the dispute involved in the present case can be adjudicated before the agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, in all respects the dispute involved in the complaint can be entertained by this Commission. 9. These points are answered accordingly. 10. Points 4 and 5:- The complaint submitted P3 proposal form dated 21.4.99 for getting the building and the machineries insured under Fire policy ‘C’ with additional perils. In P3 proposal form the additional perils such as riot, strike & Terrorist actions, Earth quake fire & shock; flood inundation, storm and tempest and sea erosion are included. It is based on P3 proposal form, the opposite party issued P2 fire policy ‘C’ with additional perils. The Ext. P2 policy was in the period from 21.4.99 to 20.4.2000. In Ext.P2 policy schedule it is specifically stated special perils such as earthquake fire & shock; flood(flood & inundation etc) are included under the heading Special Perils. It would also show that additional premium for the special perils was also collected from the complainant. It is to be noted that P3 proposal was not rejected by the opposite party. On the other hand, it is based on P3 proposal P2 fire policy ‘C’ with special perils was issued by the opposite party. In P3 proposal it was specifically included special peril ‘sea erosion’. But that request was not disallowed or rejected by the opposite party.
More over, under the special perils flood (flood & inundation etc) was added. So the case of the opposite party in their written version that no special perils or additional perils were included in the fire policy ‘C’ can not be believed or accepted. Ext.P1 is the renewal policy of P2 for the subsequent year from 21.4.2000 to 20.4.01. In P1 policy also the very same special perils as shown in P2 policy were included. 11. The case of the opposite party insurance company that there is no peril of sea erosion in All India Tariff and so the peril sea erosion is included in P1 and P2 policy cannot be accepted as such. P1 and P2 insurance policy would not give any indication that the said policies were issued based on All India Tariff or the recommendation of All India Tariff committee. There is also nothing on record to show that the complainant/insured was explained about the All India Tariff and the policy was issued based on all India Tariff. On the other hand, the available materials would show that the policy was issued by accepting the P3 proposal submitted by the complainant. There is no ground to support the case of the opposite party that new proposal was called for while issuing P1 policy for the year 2000-01. It is based on P2 policy for the year 1999-2000, the renewal policy namely P1 policy was issued. There is no whisper in P1, P2 policies about the said All India Tariff. 12. The opposite party/Insurance company could not give any explanation for inclusion of etc after the special peril flood and inundation. No where in the written version it is mentioned or explained as to what it means flood etc. It is to be noted that etc is the abbreviation of et-cet-er-a. Usually extra. It means the rest; so on (Oxford dictionary & thesaurus 28th impression 2009). The meaning of the word etcetra is given in new webster’s dictionary of the English language as “A Number of other things or persons unspecified; additional items; and others; and the rest ; and so forth”. At any rate the word etcetra would take in the perils shown under the exclusions (ii) of the fire policy ‘C’. 13. The complainant was under the bonafide belief and understanding that the peril ‘sea erosion’ is included or that sea erosion as shown in P3 proposal is also included in P1 and P2 fire policy ‘C’ along with special perils. The complainant can be justified in taking such a view because of the inclusion of word etcetra after the perils flood and inundation. It is also to be noted that the complainant in the proposal had also given 4 boundaries of the insured premises. Thereby the western boundary of the building was shown as sea. Thus, the opposite party insurance company was well aware of the fact that the insured building is situated on the shore or on the side of the sea. In such a situation opposite party was also well aware of the intention of the complainant/insured to include the peril of sea erosion by the fire ‘C’ policy with special perils. So, the fire policy under the heading special perils flood and inundation etc would lead to the impression that other perils including sea erosion were included by the fire policy ‘C’. The conditions attached to the P1 and P2 policies would not speak about the special perils included in the policy. So, the perils shown in the proposal are to be treated as the perils covered by the fire policy ‘C’ with special perils. 14. The flood is defined at dictionary.com as a great flowing or over flowing of water, esp. over land not usually sub merged. It is also defined as rise or flowing in all the tide. From the above meanings of flood and flowing in all the tide can also be termed as flood. It is an admitted fact that on the date of peril(7.6.2000) there was heavy rain and wind resulting in formation of high tide and sea water had flowed into the land and the building (insured premises)and caused heavy damage and destruction. 15. The definition of inundation given at dictionary.com is as follows. to flood; cover or over spread with water; deluge. And the word deluge is described as a great flood of water; inundation; flood. It has also got the meaning a drench rain; downpour. So, flood, inundation and deluge are having more or less similar meaning. In other words, they can be treated as synonyms to each other. 16. The word flood is defined in webster’s dictionary as a great flowing or over flowing of water esp. over land not usually sub merged. The synonyms 1) flood, flash flood, deluge, inundation refer to the over flowing of normally dry areas often after heavy rains. Flood is usually applied to the overflow of a great body of water, as, for example, a river, although it may refer to any water which over flows an area; a flood along the river. A FLAH FLLOD is one which comes so suddenly that no preparation can be made against it ; it is usually destructive. 17. The text book on the special perils insurance by M.G.Eagle M.A.(Can tab) F.C.C.I has given the meaning of flood as follows: Meaning of Flood Interpretation of the term “flood” has given rise to many difficulties, but the normal rules must be applied. If the contract contains no definition, it must be read in the sense most favourable to the insured. A commonly-accepted definition of flood is— “an unusually abundant flow of water or quantity of water in a stream or other water channel which rises and overflows land not usually covered with water”. (a) Abnormally high tides in conjunction with high winds may cause the seas to overtop the normal sea-water defences and to flood the land behind. The high winds may themselves merit classification as storm, and losses may be correspondingly difficult to allocate to the dominant effective cause. 18. The aforesaid authority has also referred to flood caused by seas or rivers. It is as follows: 2. Seas or rivers: Apart from flooding caused by excessive rain water, the cover includes flooding by water from the sea and from rivers, canals and reservoirs, and the report must indicate how the premises lie in relation to any such features. 19. The meaning and description of flood given by the said authority would make it clear that high tides are formed as a result of the high winds and heavy rain and it will cause flood by over flowing of the sea or river water to the land thereby causing damage and destruction of the land and building and other properties. In the present case on hand, such a peril had occurred and thereby the insured building was damaged in the said peril. So, the damage caused by sea tides and waves resulting in causing flood and ultimately resulting in damage to the land and the building thereon can be termed as the peril caused by flood. This circumstance would show that the so called erosion or the term sea erosion is nothing but damage caused by flood. 20. The authority on fire insurance claims by Insurance Institute of India has also defined the term flood as follows: 38.Flood is usually defined as “escape”, from its normal confines, of a body of water, due to a rise in its level, or to the breakdown of the barriers retaining it”. The essential ingredient of a flood is the rise of water to an abnormal level. The term ‘inundation’ is synonymous with ‘flood’. 39. Flood could occur in one of these ways:- (a) Overflowing or bursting of the banks of lakes, reservoirs, rivers or other water courses, natural or man-made; (b) bursting of street water mains or overflowing of sewage accompanied by high winds. (c ) Sea water flooding due to abnormally high tides accompanied by high winds. 21. The aforesaid authority would also make it clear that the rise of water level to an abnormal level can be treated as flood and that the term inundation is synonymous with flood. That is why flood and inundation is shown as the peril in P1 and P2 policy. The admitted facts would show that on the date of the peril (7.6.2000). There was abnormal level for the sea water and huge tides were formed and the said tides created flood on the insured premises by overflow of sea water into the land resulting in causing damage to the insured building. The entry of sea water because of the formation of high tides in the sea can be termed as flood. So, the term ‘sea erosion’ is nothing but flood. The damage caused by the so called ‘sea erosion’ is nothing but damage caused by flood and inundation. Thus, in all respects it can very safely be concluded that damage caused to the insured building was as a result of the peril of flood and inundation and that the said peril which caused damage to the insured building is covered under P1 and P2 fire policy ‘C’ with special perils. 22. The storm is defined in Oxford advanced Learners dictionary as very bad weather with strong winds and rain, and often thunder and lightening. 23. The various dictionaries have defined the term storm and tempest as “a violent commotion in the atmosphere generally wide spread and destructive; a tempest “ a violent disturbance of the atmosphere that thunder or strong wind or heavy fall of rain”. In the present case on hand there was also strong wind and rain and it was followed by formation of high tides resulting in entry of sea water to the insured premises causing heavy damage to the insured building. Admittedly, the peril of storm is also covered P1 and P2 policy. So, it can very safely be concluded that the peril which caused damage to the insured building was covered under P1 and P2 policy. The opposite party Insurance Co. cannot be justified in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the complainant. The action on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the insurance claim would amount to deficiency in service. 24. Ext.P5 is the claim form dated 8.6.2000 submitted by the complainant/insured. In P5 claim it was stated that due to heavy rain and wind the buildings etc washed away by the sea water on the night of 7.6.2000. Thus, the complainant informed the damage to the insured building on the very next day of the peril. The opposite party insurance Company deputed an approved insurance surveyor for conducting preliminary survey to the flood claim. Thereby Mr.M.Muraleedharan Nair was deputed to conduct the preliminary survey. Ext.P17 is copy of the preliminary survey report submitted by the insurance surveyor Mr.M.Muraleedharan Nair. It is dated 12.6. 2000. In the preliminary survey report the surveyor has categorically reported that on 7.6.2000 there was torential rain and wind blowing at a speed between 50KPM to 60KPH in that area. It is further reported that rain and wind became furious and wind started blowing at a great speed around 1 in the night causing heavy damages to the building and the fish and containers. It is also stated that on the date of visit (8.6.2000) also there was having heavy rain and wind. Due to heavy rain and wind the building has been completely damaged leaving only one side wall and office room as skeleton. P17 preliminary survey report would speak about the peril which occurred on 7.6.2000 night and the damage caused to the insured building. The preliminary survey report would show that the said peril was covered by the policy. 25. The opposite party insurance company had also deputed an investigator B.Prasobhkumar for conducting investigation regarding the claim made by the complainant. Ext.P16 is investigators report dated 14.7.2000. In P16 investigation report it is categorically reported that there occurred flood on the date of the peril and the insured building was taken away by the flood. The said report would make it clear that the insured building owned by the complainant was damaged in the flood. It is also reported about the enquiry conducted by the investigator. 26. Ext.R7 is the final survey report submitted by T.S.Ramaswamy &Co.. R7 survey report would show that the final surveyor conducted local inspection and he also reported that there was heavy rain and wind on the date of the peril and the sea condition became very rough and the coastal area was taken away by the aggressive sea waves. He termed the aforesaid cause as ‘sea erosion’. But the final surveyor has also admitted the fact regarding the heavy erosion and strong wind on the date of the peril and there was flood by entry sea water to the land where the insured building was located. An important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the finding of the final surveyor that the loss/damage is occured due to a special peril specifically covered as an additional peril on the fire policy ‘C’ issued to the insured. In Ext.R7 final survey report it is specifically reported that the insurance claim will come under the special peril risk covered by the policy. 27. After getting the preliminary survey report, the investigation report and the final report opposite party/Insurance Co. issued R6 repudiation letter dated 29.3.01. It is stated in R6 repudiation letter that the claim preferred by the complainant is repudiated on the basis of the survey report and investigation report. On a perusal of the survey reports and the investigation report would not give any reason or ground to repudiate insurance claim preferred by the complainant. On the other hand, the survey reports and the investigation report would support the claim made by the complainant. The aforesaid reports categorically stated that the insurance claim made by the complainant is covered by the special peril or risk under the policy. So, the repudiation letter issued by the opposite party can be treated as one issued without any basis or substance. The mere fact that sea erosion is not included as a peril in the All India Fire Tariff can not be taken as a ground to repudiate the insurance claim. On the other hand, the materials on record would show that the terms sea erosion is nothing but flood occurred due to the entry of sea water resulting from the heavy rain and storm which occurred on the date of the peril. The opposite party insurance Co. cannot be justified in issuing R6 repudiation letter dated 29.3.01. Ext.P11 certificate dated 16.6.2000 issued by Sub Inspector of Police, Kollamcode police station and Ext.P12 certificate issued by the RDO, Elavancode Taluk would show that the insured building owned by the complainant was damaged due to heavy rain and wind which occurred on 7.6.2000. Thus, the materials on record would strengthen the case of the complainant that the insured building was damaged on the night of 7.6.2000 and the insured building was damaged on account of the heavy rain and wind followed by flood by the entry of sea water due to the formation of high tides and waves in the sea. The documentary evidence available on record is sufficient to come to a just and proper conclusion that the insured building owned by the complainant was damaged in the peril covered by P1 and P2 fire policy ‘C’ with special perils. We have no hesitation to hold that the opposite party was deficient in rendering services to the complainant/ insured and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Insurance Co. by repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the complainant/insured. 28. At the first instance complainant submitted the claim for Rs.6,00,000/- and subsequently at the time of the assessment of the loss by the final surveyor, the complainant agreed for settlement of his claim at Rs.2,97,000/- Ext.P4 is copy of the letter dated 29.11.2000 submitted by the complainant/insured to the opposite party/insurance company agreeing to settle the claim for Rs.2,97,000/- Ext.R7 final report would also make it clear that the complainant expressed his readiness and willingness for settlement of his insurance claim for Rs.2,97,000/-. The surveyor has also assessed the loss at Rs.2,97,000/-. The complainant/insured is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint in OP.72/01. 29. The Opposite party has got a case that the policy excess of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be deducted from the said sum of Rs. 2,97,000/-. Ext. R5 fire policy ‘C’ with special perils would not give any indication regarding the deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of policy excess. There is no such provision in R5 or P1 or P2 fire policy ‘C’ with special perils. So, the aforesaid case of the opposite party Insurance company regarding policy excess can not be accepted . The insurance claim due to the complainant/ insured is fixed at Rs.2,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization with a cost of Rs.2000/- The points re answered accordingly. 30. Point No.6:- See decreetal portion . In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite party/Insurance company is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- as the insurance claim amount due to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization and cost of Rs.2000/-. SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps OP.NO. 17/2002 APPENDIX Complainants Exibits:- P1 – The policy of insurance issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant P 2 – The policy of insurance issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant P 3 – Proposal form P 4– Copy of the Letter dtd.29.11.2000 from the complainant to the Oriental Insurance Co. P 5 – The copy of the claim form dated 8.6.2000 P 6 – Copy of the letter dtd.15.7.2000from M/s Ramaswamy & Co. to the complainant P 7 – Copy of the letter dated 29.3.01 by the opposite party to the complainant P 8 – Copy of the letter dated 18.4.01 from the complainant to the Divisional Manager P 9 – Copy of the letter dtd.6.5.01 from the Advocate to the complainant P 10 – Copy of the complaint filed before the SI of Kollemcode Police station by the complainant, in Tamil and its translation into English P 11 –Copy of the certificate issued by the SI of Police, Kollamcode police Station dated 16.6.2000 P 12 – Copy of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Vilavancode in Tamil and its translation into English P 13 - Copy of the estimate prepared by K.L.Clement, licensed Surveyor dtd. 24.6.2000 P 14 - Copy of the cash bill dtd.6.8.2000 from Raji’s agency P 15 - Copy of the Quotation prepared by Sri.Christu Das P 16 - Copy of the investigation report dtd. 14.7.2000 P 17 - Copy of the preliminary survey report dated 12.6.2000 Opposite parties Exibits:- R1 - Part III-section 10 Special perils R 2 - Fire Insurance proposal form. R 3 - Lawyers notice dated 6.5.01 R 4 -letter dtd.18.4.01 from A.Johnson to The Divisional Manager R5 – Policy schedule R6- Letter dtd.29.3.01 from the oriental Insurance Co. to the complainant SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER | 
