By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant had availed service of opposite party for telephone connection at his residence. Complainant was regularly paying the bills. While so, opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.1785/- dated, 07-02-04 which according to complainant is excess. He paid this bill under protest and also lodged a complaint before Accounts Officer (TR) BSNL., Malappuram on 23-02-04 and 27-02-04. He also requested to furnish call-wise details for the period 01-12-2003 to 31-01-2004. Thereafter opposite parties issued bill for Rs.3962/- dated, 07-4-04 which was again excess according to complainant. He alleges that the amount quoted in the bill is much more than the use of telephone by complainant and his family. Again several complaints were preferred to Senior Accounts Officer on 20-4-04 and 20-5-04. The Senior Accounts officer failed to supply call wise details stating that there was technical error. Opposite parties did not attend to the grievances of the complainant, nor did they withdraw the excessive bills. Opposite parties arbitrarily disconnected the telephone connection without proper notice and without settling the complaints lodged by the complainant. Hence this complaint praying for a declaration to cancel the bills of Rs.1,785/- and Rs.3,962/- dated, 07-02-04 and 07-4-04 respectively and for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> 2. Opposite parties have filed a joint version denying that complainant is not a consumer and that this forum lacks jurisdiction to try this complaint. It is submitted that Section 7B of Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 expressly bars the jurisdiction of this Forum. That Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide order in General Manager Vs. C.D.R.F. 2000(2)KLT 195 held that Telephone complaints cannot be adjudicated by Consumer Forum. Later Hon'ble High Court vide order in General Manager Vs. Krishnan 2003(1)KLT 817 held that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate Telecom disputes, even though there is a specific provision under Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act. That this particular order of Kerala High Court is challenged by BSNL vide SLP No.18409/03 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per interim order dated, 29-11-04 the operation of the said decision is stayed. That complainant is not having the phone connection while he filed the complaint or at present. The complainant has not paid rentals. If the line remain disconnected for more than six months, the line would be dismantled, and the connection would be provided to another. As such at present the said number is provided to another person and the complainant herein has not prayed for re-connection. It is submitted without prejudice<br /> <br /> to the dispute regarding jurisdiction that the out going calls of the complainant's telephone was disconnected on 22-5-05 for non-payment of bill dated, 07-4-04 for Rs.3,962/-. The complainant had issued few letters to the department which were properly attended and replied. Intimation of disconnection was given twice over phone. Though complainant was having facility of incoming for next 15 days after disconnection of outgoing calls, on 22-5-05 due to non-payment of the above bill amount the opposite parties were forced to disconnect the service as envisaged by law. The technical error was only for providing detailed bill. The same has no relevance to the metering of calls and all equipments and meters were intact and had no defect. The fortnightly readings were available and this shows clear use of telephone. There was no faults found during routine check up and the bills issued are proper and legal. The complainant does not require reconnection and his intention is only to avoid payment willfully and fraudulently. Complainant is liable to pay the bill. There is no deficiency in service and complaint is only to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A12 marked on the side of complainant. Counter affidavit was filed jointly by both opposite parties. No documents marked on the side of opposite parties.<br /> Points that arise for consideration:- <br /> (i) Whether complainant is a consumer? <br /> (ii) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint? <br /> (iii) Whether opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? <br /> (iv) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 4. Point (i):-<br /> Opposite party denies complainant to be a consumer contending that there is no consumer relationship between complainant and opposite parties. We do not find any merit in this contention since complainant had telephone connection provided by opposite parties. Even though the telephone service has been disconnected at present complainant challenges the disconnection as illegal and also disputes the bills issued during the subsistence of connection. For these reasons we hold the dispute is a Consumer dispute and complainant is a consumer.<br /> 5. Point (ii):-<br /> Opposite party has disputed the jurisdiction of this Forum to try this complaint contending that as per Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act all telecom disputes can be decided only by arbitration. According to opposite party the decision reported in KLT 2003(1) 817 General Manager, Telecom Vs. Krishnan by which it was held that, the remedy under Sec.3 of Consumer Protection Act is in addition to that provided under Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated, 29-11-04 in SLP No.18409/03. Copy of the order dated, 29-11-04 was produced in another case. It reads as under:-<br /> “Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following<br /> ORDER<br /> Delay condoned<br /> Leave granted<br /> Stay of the operation of the impugned order”<br /> Counsel for opposite party submitted that due to the operation of the stay order this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any matters regarding Telephone complaints. With all respects to the Apex Court and higher judiciary we proceed to discuss our view regarding the question of jurisdiction as disputed by opposite party. We do not agree with the counsel for opposite party for the reason that the stay if any is applicable only to the order that is appealed against. We consider that what is stayed in SLP No.18409/03 on 29-11-04 is the execution of the ultimate direction in that case and the law declared is certainly binding on us till it is held as overruled. In the order dated, 29-11-04 in SLP 18409/03 there was no discussion or finding as to the position of law. A perusal of the order shows that it is an interim order passed till the disposal of the case. We also brought to the notice of counsel for opposite party that cases involving BSNL (Telephone matters) are being decided by Hon'ble National Commission as is evident from the various decisions reported in the consumer journals. District Forum being subordinate to the National Commission is bound to follow the decisions of the Apex Commission also. For these reasons we find it difficult to accept the arguments of the counsel for opposite party. A further submission was made by the counsel for opposite party that the cases against Telecom., BSNL can be kept in abeyance before this Forum till the final disposal of SLP No.18409/03 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I.A.107/07 was filed by opposite party to stop all further proceedings in this case till the disposal of SLP No.18409/03 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. We thought it better to consider this petition along with the main complaint. Consumer Protection Act provides a time limit of 90 days to dispose a case. Although this time limit is not mandatory; to keep the cases pending indefinitely would be doing injustice to the complainants. Especially Consumer Forum being an authority which allows parties to appear and litigate in person without the help of lawyers; it would cause much hardships to them if the cases are kept pending indefinitely. With all respects to the Apex Court and humbly submitting ourselves to the rule of 'Stare decisis' we are of the view that when a position of law is declared it is binding until it is discussed and overruled. We hold that the rule laid in General Manager, Telecom., BSNL. Vs. Krishnan 2003 (1)KLT 817 (F.B.) is still in force and therefore this Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint. The point found in favour of complainant and I.A.107/07 is disposed off accordingly.<br /> 6. Point(iii):-<br /> It is the say of complainant that he availed the services of opposite parties for a telephone connection at his residence on 03-3-2000. The metered calls of this telephone were in the range of 278 to 985 calls. While so, sudden spurt was seen in the bill dated, 07-02-04, Ext.A8 is this bill for Rs.1,785/-, in which the metered calls are 1494 calls. As soon as the complainant received this bill he lodged a complaint to opposite parties stating that the bill is excess and not in conformity with the use of telephone. Ext.A12 is this letter/complaint dated, 22-02-04 issued by complainant to Accounts Officer, Malappuram. In Ext.A12 complainant states as under:-<br /> “..........Further from the installation date 3-3-2000 till 30-11-2003, the call charges were in the range from Rs.234/- to Rs.962/-. The sudden spurt in the call charges may kindly be scrutinized and my call charges in the bill may be revised.”<br /> To support his suspecion of fault in metering and the sudden spurt, complainant has also cited his call charges for the last six months in Ext.A12. Complainant did not receive any reply for his letter nor was his bill revised. So he again send another letter on 27-02-04 which is Ext.A2. In Ext.A2 along with stating his grievance of excess billing, has requested to furnish call wise details of the relevant period at the earliest. It is also contended that on reverse side of every bill it is stated that complaints about excess bill should be made within 15 days time from the date of receipt of bill, and that payment of the bill should be made pending settlement of the dispute. Obeying these instructions complainant paid the bill amount of Rs.1,785/- and preferred Ext.A12 complaint to opposite parties. So the amount in Ext.A8 disputed bill is already paid by complainant even though his grievance remains unsettled. To Ext.A12 letter opposite parties have issued reply on 12-3-04 which is Ext.A1. IN this reply opposite parties stated that the bill issued is proper and correct. That due to some technical reason cal wise details cannot be provided. The relevant portion of Ext.A1 reads as under:-<br /> “Due to some technical reason the detail bill dated, 07-2-04 is not readily available.......... Moreover no fault was reported by exchange authorities, which might have caused false metering during the period. So the bill sent to you is correct.”<br /> 7. The next bill send by opposite parties is dated, 07-4-04 and is the second disputed bill. This bill which is for Rs.3,962/- is Ext.A9. It is the say of complainant that he was shocked to receive this bill since the metered calls was 3174 calls which was highly excessive and not in conformity with the calls made through the telephone. Complainant immediately represented his grievance to second opposite party with a copy to Grievance Cell, BSNL., Malappuram. Ext.A3 is this letter dated, 20-4-04.<br /> Complainant did not receive any reply and he again send another letter regarding the same grievances on 20-5-04 which is Ext.A4. In Ext.A4 complainant has categorically stated that the bills are not in conformity with use of telephone and that he suspects some technical fault and requested again to provide him with call wise details. He has also requested to permit him to pay the bill amount on average basis. Complainant did not receive any reply to his complaints/letters. He then issued a legal notice through his lawyer Ad. P.U.Sivasankaran Nair on 07-4-05 which is Ext.A5. In Ext.A5 apart from reiterating the grievance of excess bill and requests for cal details it is also stated that opposite parties have disconnected the outgoing calls of telephone and that the disconnection is arbitrary and illegal. There was no response from the side of opposite parties to this legal notice also. Therefore a second legal notice urging the very same grounds was issued on 16-5-05 which is Ext.A6. Opposite parties finally cut the silence of ice, and send a reply on 03-6-05 which is Ext.A7. In this reply opposite parties have restated their stand in Ext.A1 reply. It is also stated that the outgoing calls were disconnected for non-payment of Ext.A9 bill for Rs.3,962/-. Admittedly complainant has not paid this second disputed bill. According to complainant on receiving the first excessive bill he obeyed the instructions of opposite parties and preferred the complaint after paying the bill under protests. Since his grievance remained unattended and unresolved and on receiving successive excess bill, he opted to seek remedy without paying the bill amount. His telephone was therefore disconnected. In the original complaint, the reliefs sought are (i) cancellation of disputed bills (ii) to restrain opposite parties from issuing bills after 22-3-05 and (iii) to restore telephone connection. Complainant filed I.A.67/07 to amend the complaint. As per orders in this petition, the complaint was amended and the prayer for restoration of telephone connection was relinquished by complainant. A new relief seeking damages for Rs.50,000/- was incorporated.<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is resisted by opposite parties on the ground that the two disputed bills for Rs.1,785/- and Rs.3,962/- are correct and proper. The evidence tendered through affidavit supported by pleadings is that due to some technical error detail bill could not be provided. It is submitted that the technical error was only for providing detailed bill and that there was no error for the telephone connection. That the technical error has no relevance to the metering of calls and all the equipment and meters are in tact. Fortnightly readings were provided to the complainant and these readings show clear use of telephone. It is contended that the telephone was disconnected only because complainant failed to pay bill for Rs.3,962/- and therefore disconnection was proper and legal.<br /> <br /> 9. The main dispute in this case revolves around the question whether Ext.A8 and Ext.A9 bills are correct and proper.<br /> <br /> 10. It is the definite and consistent case of complainant that Ext.A8 and Ext.A9 bills indicate sudden spurt and that charges are not in conformity with the use of telephone. His testimony has withstood cross-examination and complainant has emphatically deposed that there was no occasion for such excessive use of telephone. The number of letters send to opposite parties prove that he has immediately and repeatedly brought his grievance to the notice of opposite parties. Refuting the allegations, opposite parties vehemently contend that the bills issued are correct and in accordance with the use of telephone. It is urged on behalf of opposite parties that though there was technical error to provide details of bills there was no error for metering of calls. What was the actual error and how far it affected the telephone service is known only to opposite parties. Admittedly there was some error in the system which has prevented opposite parties from furnishing the details of the calls metered. Opposite parties do not have a case that they are not bound to furnish the details. A consumer is definitely entitled to know the details of payment to be made for the services availed by him. The service provider has to be transparent to an extent, so as not to cause suspicion or dissatisfaction to the consumer. The evidence tendered by opposite parties through affidavit in para 9 is as follows:<br /> “The telephone is one of utility and is not a luxury. The necessity depends on circumstances. The opposite parties cannot investigate or find out any family or personal affairs of a person or connected with the person. The use of phone reflects in bills issued. This honourable forum can never come to a conclusion that how much calls were made by him except to honour the bill. The metering equipments and all allied instruments were working good and satisfactorily performing.”<br /> 11. At this juncture, it becomes pertinent to note the instructions of the Government of India issued in the form of Directions vide it's order No.4-59/85-TR dated, 09-4-86. Para 5 of these directions read as under:-<br /> “Disposal of excess metering complaints.<br /> 5. Advance action in case of possibility of an excess billing complaint.<br /> <br /> 5.1 Detailed instructions have been issued separately in regard to watching the meter readings of various subscribers and action to be taken on them.<br /> 5.2 These broadly consist of--<br /> (a) Meter readings being taken every fortnight;<br /> (b) Identifying all subscribers whose current fortnightly readings show a sudden spurt; and <br /> 5.4 In all cases, the meter readings registers must provide for the difference being noted. Somebody should be held personally responsible to identify and report all cases of spurts to the officer-in-charge. Failure in this regard must be taken notice of. If an excess billing complaint reveals a spurt, which had not been reported, suitable educational and disciplinary notice should be taken of the concerned staff.<br /> 5.5 As far as possible all telephone lines showing a sudden spurt should be put on observation. For this purpose immediate steps must be taken to provide suitable observation equipment in all exchanges having STD facilities, so that once a spurt is noticed, the line is actually put on observation. <br /> 5.6 In case of sudden spurts being noticed, a suitable officer should be deputed to inspect the installation as well as to ensure that there was no special occasion, which could have given rise to a genuine spurt.<br /> 6. Investigations of an excess billing complaint<br /> 6.3 The excess billing complaint must be acknowledged immediately on its receipt. This should be done by every officer, who receives the excess billing complaint. It is possible that the subscriber may address the higher authorities than prescribed in accordance with para, 6.1 above. In such cases, such authorities while acknowledging the complaint should indicate that the complaint has been forwarded to the prescribed officer in this regard and to request the subscriber to further contact him only. <br /> 6.4 Once the complaint has been received very prompt action action must be taken to investigate the same. For this purpose the prescribed officers must all for the following details from the officers-in-charge of exchanges concerned:-<br /> <br /> (a) the record of fortnightly reading in respect of preceding bi- monthly periods and for all the available succeeding bi- monthly periods;<br /> (b) am extract of fault card for the disputed period; and <br /> (c) spurt report, action taken on the same and the result thereof. This will include (a) observations in the Exchange and (b) any field investigations if carried out. <br /> 6.7 It is possible that the excess bill exceeds the previous bi- monthly bills by substantial amounts. In such cases, temporary relief to the subscriber by way of issuing a split bill may be justified. As already prescribed a split bill may be issued if the bi-monthly bill for local call charges exceeds double the maximum amount of the previous 6 bi-monthly bills for local call charges. The split bill for local call charges should be limited to the average of local calls billed in the preceding six bi-monthly periods plus 10% thereof and should be issued with a clear statement that this is a purely provisional bill pending further investigation into the excess billing complaint and if after investigation the Department comes to the conclusion that the original bill is justified, the subscriber will have to pay the full bill or as may be determined by the competent authority.”<br /> Thus on receiving a complaint of excess billing opposite parties have to follow the above instructions and take necessary action for settling the dispute. There is absolutely no evidence adduced on behalf of opposite parties that they conducted investigation into the complaint as per the above directions. Telephone bills are issued bi-monthly. Ext.A8 is issued for the period 01-12-03 to 31-01-04. Complainant preferred a complaint son after receiving this bill. Even then opposite parties have not cared to put the line on observation. No steps were taken to monitor the details of calls. If such steps were taken the second complaint of excess bill could have been avoided. Ext.A11 is the consolidated list of details of bills from 11-6-2000 to 07-02-05. This is a document prepared by complainant for easy reference of the charges of bills of this Telephone for five years after installation. Ext.A11 shows that there is a sudden spurt in the calling pattern from 07-02-04. Hon'ble National Commission has taken the view in 2002 (1) CPR 84 (NC) Telecom Department Hashiapur Punjab Vs. Kamaljit Kaur, that the above directions issued by Department are not mere guidelines, and they have to be followed on receiving a complaint of excess billing. It was urged on behalf of opposite parties that since the complainant has deposed that his second son is studying for engineering in Madras, the increase in calling pattern could have occurred due to calls made at the time of admission. This was controverted by the complainant and stated that no such necessity arose for him since admission was arranged by him directly. These are only only surmises which cannot be accepted at all; especially when there has been total failure on the part of opposite parties to follow the department directions and even to promptly reply to the complaints lodged before them. In view of the fact that there was sudden spurt in the calls, and that this complaint was not resolved by following departmental instructions even after bringing it to the notice of opposite parties; deficiency in service is obvious. Complainant has established and proved the case in his favour. The Hon'ble Apex Commission has held in General Manager, BSNL Vs. P.D.Khanduri 2005 NCJ 6 NC decided on 29-11-04 that the disregard to follow departmental instructions amounts to deficiency in service. From the above discussions we hold that opposite parties deficient in service and that Ext.A8 and A9 bills are not correct and proper and therefore liable to be set aside.<br /> 12. Point (iv):-<br /> The reliefs sought by the complainant are (i) cancellation of Ext.A8 and Ext.A9 bills (ii) to restrain opposite parties from issuing any further bills from 22-3-05 ie., the date of disconnection (iii) and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The first prayer is already found in favour of the complainant and is only to be allowed. Complainant has paid Ext.A8 bill for Rs.1,785/-. According to him all bills except the amount of Rs.3,962/- raised in Ext.A9 bill has been paid. As per Ext.A7 reply the telephone was disconnected due to non-payment of this amount. No evidence is tendered by opposite parties that any other specific amount is in arrears. Admittedly telephone has been disconnected and complainant does not want restoration of the service. So the relief claimed to restrain opposite parties from issuing any further bill from 22-3-05 is proper and reasonable. On cancellation of Ext.A8 and Ext.A9 bills, complainant is liable to pay the charges for the actual calls made. Complainant has no case that his telephone was dead or not in use during the relevant period. Without furnishing call wise details it is difficult to chalk out the error in the bills. It is also settled position that average basis cannot be adopted for fixing charges in telephone bills. The submission on the part of opposite parties is that since call wise details are not available, there is no other way, but to honour the bills. We cannot appreciate this submission by counsel for opposite parties for the simple reason, that if call wise details are deliberately suppressed by opposite parties, the complainant will have to pay the defective bills and be left without any remedy. According to us, issuing a revised bill on the basis of highest telephone bill (charges) during the last six months period plus 10% of the charges of the disputed bill would be reasonable charges. Hon'ble National commission in U.P. Pandy & other vs. Satnam Singh Chawla 1986-2002 NC & SC on Consumer Cases Part IV 6633(NS) decided on 08-01-02 adopted such method to be reasonable and justifiable.<br /> 13. Next we have to consider as to the quantification of compensation. The claim of Rs.50,000/- by complainant in our opinion is high and inflated. The deficiency meted out by the complain ant has to be definitely compensated. It dismays us that even after repeated letters and legal notices opposite parties have failed to issue prompt and proper reply. Counsel for opposite party contended that opposite parties had issued a reply on 26-02-05. In the affidavit filed by opposite parties on 23-4-08 in I.A.112/08 which was an application filed by complainant to produce call wise details, opposite parties have attempted to state that they send a reply on 26-02-05. Apart from this nebulous affirmation there is no whisper about such a reply in the version or in the counter affidavit filed on 01-02-08. There is no document tendered to support this contention. Further complainant has categorically denied this in cross examination. For these reasons, the contention of opposite parties that they replied on 26-02-05 is totally false and unacceptable. It is crystal clear that there is gross deficiency on the part of opposite parties to respond and attend to the grievance addressed by the complainant herein. His request to permit him to pay bills on average basis was not heeded to by opposite parties. Such insensitive attitude on the part of agencies like opposite parties which render monopoly services dissuades the credibility of the system. The common man is left helpless and hapless. Consumers seldom come forward to voice for their rights fearing the time and money consumed for the cumbersome process of litigation. Redressal of one consumer complaint like the present one, should not only be a remedy to the complainant but also serve as a message to service providers to improve their quality of service. We are of the considered view, that an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation for deficiency would serve justice to the complainant. We also quantify a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and hardships undergone by him.<br /> 14. In the result, we allow the complaint and order the following:-<br /> (i) Ext.A8 bill dated, 07-02-04 for Rs.1,785/- and Ext.A9 bill dated, 07-4-04 for Rs.3,962/- are cancelled. <br /> (ii) Opposite parties are directed to issue revised bills for the above period on the basis of the highest telephone bill (call charges) during the last six months period prior to 07-02-04 plus 10% of the charges of Ext.A8 and A9 bills respectively. Any amount paid in excess by the complainant after adjustment shall be refunded to him. <br /> (iii) opposite parties are restrained from issuing any further bills on this telephone connection after 22-3-05. <br /> (iv) Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) as compensation for deficiency and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards mental agony and hardships together with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) being costs of this litigation.<br /> (v) The time limit for compliance of this order is fixed as one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this 20th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1<br /> PW1 : K. Subramanian, Complainant.<br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A12<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the reply letter No.BSNL/MRX/TRA/<br /> EMC/CHBR2890680/ dated, 12/3/04 by 2nd opposite <br /> party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the request dated, 27-02-04 from <br /> complainant to 2nd opposite party.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the request dated, 20-4-04 from<br /> complainant to 2nd opposite party.<br /> Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the request dated, 20-5-04 from<br /> complainant to 1st opposite party.<br /> Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 07-4-05 by<br /> Complainant's counsel to opposite parties.<br /> Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 16-5-05 by<br /> Complainant's counsel to opposite parties.<br /> Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the reply notice by 1st opposite party<br /> to complainant's counsel.<br /> Ext.A8 : Photo copy of the disputed bill for Rs.1785/- <br /> dated 07-02-04 issued by 2nd opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A9 : Photo copy of the disputed bill for Rs.3,962/0-<br /> dated 07-4-04 issued by 2nd opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A10 : Bill for Rs.790/- dated, 11-10-02 from 01-8-02<br /> to 30-9-02 issued by 2nd opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A11 : Photo copy of the details of telephone bill charges <br /> from 03-3-200 to 31-01-05 in favour of complainant.<br /> Ext.A12 : Request dated, 23-02-04 from complainant to <br /> 2nd opposite party.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />