Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/45/2015

India Cements Capital Ltd, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.SampathKumar & Associates & R.Ramani

11 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI  ... MEMBER

 

C.C. No.45 of 2015

 

                                                    

                                   Orders pronounced on: 11.02.2022

            

 

India Cements Capital Limited,

having its Registered Office

     at Dhun Building,

827, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002,

rep. by its President

& CEO Mr.K.Suresh                             ... Complainant

 

Vs.

 

The New India Assurance

     Company Limited,

Chennai Claims Hub,

Macmillan House, 2^nd Floor, B Block,

21, Pattulos Road,

Chennai 600 002,

rep. by its Deputy General Manager.      ...Opposite Party

 

             Counsel for Complainant : M/s.Sampathkumar

                                             & Associates.

             Counsel for Opposite Parties :Mr.S.R.Sundar

 

 

          This complaint came up for final hearing on 28.12.2021 and, after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. - President.

             The complainant herein/Insured seeks to pass an Award, directing the Opposite Party/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakh with interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment in full with a sum of Rs.5 lakh as compensation for their unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and to pay the costs of the Complaint.

 

             2.  The case of the complainant, as projected in the complaint, runs in brief as follows:-

             The complainant is carrying on Foreign Exchange business primarily amongst other fields in Air Ticketing, travel related services and share broking.   In order to protect itself against any loss due to dishonesty etc. by the employees, the complainant had taken Fidelity Guarantee Policy (hereinafter referred to as FGP) for a period from 09.10.2010 to 08.10.2011, vide Policy No.710904/46/10/13/00000120, by paying a premium of Rs.16,854/- inclusive of Service Tax and Stamp Duty to the Opposite Party.  The said Policy covers loss due to infidelity of 128 employees on unnamed basis for a Guarantee amount of Rs.20,00,000/-.  There were no sub-limits of cover under the Policy for any one employee or accident. 

The complainant has been availing  FGP since 2008 from various Insurance Companies ‘without any limit’ for Any One Accident (in short AOA), but only for overall sum under each Policy, except the first Policy during 2008-2009 with National Insurance, which mentioned Anyone Incident limit at Rs.5 lakh.  Since the complainant desired to have insurance without limit per incident during subsequent policies including that of the Opposite Party, they were issued without such limit in the Policy, although the Broker M/s.First Insurance World appeared to have been submitting with a clerical error the original 2007 Proposal Slip (not signed by the complainant) itself every time by merely correcting the dates to different Insurance Companies, without deleting the sub-limit per incident.  The Broker had brought this clerical error to the attention of the Opposite Party and got the policy for Rs.20 Lakh without any sub-limit. The complainant did not sign any such Proposal nor was required to do so by the Opposite Party which had issued the Policy knowing that the Proposal Slip of the Broker contained a mistake and had agreed to issue the Policy without sub-limit per incident.  According to the Complainant, the present Policy issued for Rs.20 lakh was without any sub-limit per incident, hence, the contract of insurance binds the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party and the same cannot be altered or modified thereafter.  

             On 10.06.2011, the Chief Executive of the Complainant Mr.K.P.Premnath had made a surprise visit to the Kolkata Branch based on a tip from the computer system and noticed misappropriation of Rs.36.73 Lakh.  He found that the Branch in-charge Mr.Manashendranath Ray purchased foreign exchange on 09.06.2011 from two money changers to the tune of Rs.29 lakh and, along with available balance of foreign exchange stock, he made a transaction of US $ 81000 (purported to be sold to 27 passengers of US $ 3000 each under fictitious documents and bills) with one Mr.Subhranshu Gosh of a Travel Agency by name ELAR Travels Pvt. Ltd., which is an entity barred to deal with any transaction by the Complainant.  It was found that the said Branch In-charge handed over the currency to Mr.Subhranshu Ghosh without obtaining any signature or acknowledgement. When questioned, the Branch In-charge stated that Mr.Subhranshu Ghosh promised to pay by Demand Drafts immediately after the sale, but thereafter, he requested one month time to settle the amount. Mr.K.P.Premnath accompanied the Branch in-charge and met Mr.Subhranshu Ghosh, who promised to clear the balance within a month.   On probing further about both Mr.Subhranshu Ghosh and Mr.Manashendranath Ray, it came to light that there was a dispute on the quantum of amount as Mr.Ghosh informed him that he owed only Rs.3 lakh and not Rs.36.73 lakh, whereas, Mr.Manashendranath Ray said that Mr.Ghosh owed the entire amount of Rs.36.73 lakh, which revealed that they were hand in glove.  The Branch In-charge misconducted himself in feeding the authority with wrong information, thereby, committed criminal act of infidelity causing monetary loss to the complainant. Hence, a claim was made with the Insurance Company.  The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company presented a preliminary report on 05.01.2012 opining that the claim was for a trading loss.  The complainant strongly objected to the same with the Opposite Party by pointing out various discrepancies in the Surveyor’s Report, whereupon, the Surveyor had conceded that it was not a trading loss.

             In the meanwhile, the period of policy itself ended on 08.10.2011. While so, after the term of Policy was over, the Opposite Party, with a mala fide intention and without the knowledge or consent of the complainant, is alleged to have issued an endorsement on 21.02.2012, in that, the Insurance Policy was sought to be modified as AOA (Any One Accident) : AOY (Any One Year) for 5 Lakh : 20 Lakh, thereby, after occurrence of the loss, expiry of the period and pending claim, the Opposite Party unilaterally attempted to change the terms of the Policy to suit its advantage, which is not legally permissible.  The said act is nothing but gross unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. As such, the said endorsement is neither valid in law nor binding upon the complainant.

             When flaws in the report, dated 05.01.2012, were pointed out, the Surveyor Mr.Subrata Bose, in collusion with the Opposite Party, issued a fresh report dated 29.11.2012, in which, although he had conceded that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.36,55,373/-, which was payable, but based on the illegal/unilateral endorsement, dated 21.02.2012, had restricted the assessment to Rs.5 lakh instead of Rs.20 Lakh that was payable as per the terms of the Policy.  By an E-mail, dated 06.12.2012, the Opposite Party offered a settlement for Rs.5 Lakh which was absolutely unreasonable. However, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to settle the Policy Amount of Rs.20 Lakh, to which, it was lawfully entitled to, but in vain.  While liability is admitted for the claim, there being a dispute only regarding quantum, the complainant invoked the arbitration clause and appointed Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Advocate as the Arbitrator, by letter, dated 28.02.2014, hoping to pursue an expeditious remedy for enforcing his lawful claim, but, the Opposite Party did not care to respond.

             While so, the Opposite Party, by letter dated 28.05.2014, rejected the claim under clause No.8 of the Policy which provides thus:

               “The policy shall be null and void in the event of misrepresentation, misdescription or nondisclosure of any material particular or if any claim be fraudulent means or device be used by the insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy.”

The act of the Opposite Party in invoking the aforesaid clause is absolutely arbitrary, as it has no application at all to the facts of the case.  Hence, the complainant has come up with the present Complaint on the ground that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, and sought for grant of the relief, as prayed for.

 

             3. The Opposite Party resisted the Complaint by filing a Version, wherein, among other things, it is stated as follows:-

             The present case involves intrinsic evidence to be examined with regard to sustainability of the claim and hence, it can be adjudicated only in a regular trial by the civil court, since cumbersome examination of documents and accounts is involved.  At any rate, FGP was taken by the Complainant from the Opposite Party for the period between 09.10.2010 and 08.10.2011, covering 128 employees on unnamed basis with the proposal for Rs.5 Lakh towards AOA and Rs.20 Lakhs towards AOY.  There is a sub-limit cover of Rs.5 Lakh for Anyone Incident under the Policy as per the Proposal submitted by the complainant for issuance of the Policy. It is denied that the complainant wanted insurance without limit for the accident through the floater policies including that of the Opposite Party and they were issued with such Policy.  The statement that the complainant’s Broker M/s.First Insurance World had submitted the Proposal Slip by correcting the date of insurance without deleting the sub-limit is incorrect. After giving mandate to the broker to act on his behalf, to say that the Proposal was not signed by the complainant cannot be correct.  Such statement is made only to mislead the Commission.

             Insurance Policy is a contract, based on the accepted Proposal and thus, Proposal forms part of the Policy.  All proposals prior to the date of loss submitted to several insurance companies including that of Opposite Party are all with an option of AOA as Rs.5 Lakh and AOY as Rs.20 Lakh.  The stand of the complainant that it was a clerical error is neither admissible nor acceptable, since the mistake or error may not have occurred every year as claimed by the complainant; on the contrary, the Opposite Party, only by mistake, had issued the Policy without noticing the demand in the Proposal and agreed to the terms of the complainant, limiting the AOA as Rs.5 Lakh.

             It is denied that the Broker of the complainant had committed a clerical error and later got the Policy for Rs.20 lakh without sub-limit.  Always, the premium for floater policy will be primarily based on the limit of AOA since the liability of the insurer/opposite party is limited as AOA for any single instance. 

             In the present instance, there was no consensus ad idem, as the Policy was not issued as per the Proposal submitted by the duly authorized person of the complainant.   The mistake of the Opposite Party has been taken as an advantage by the Complainant and hence, the Complainant is objecting to the correction of the Policy.  It is emphatically denied that the contract of Insurance Policy issued was for Rs.20 Lakh without any sub-limit, as claimed by the Complainant.  Furthermore, the summary of transactions, as stated by the Complainant, clearly establishes that it is a commercial activity and the loss will not fall within the scope and cover under the FGP.  Hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the above complaint.  It seems that, in the course of transaction, M/s. ELAR Travels Pvt. Ltd. agreed upon for a settlement of deferred terms.  The Policy issued to the  Complainant  by  the Opposite Party covers the infidelity of their employees alone and not the trade loss or fraudulent acts of third parties.  The Complainant stated that M/s.ELAR Travels Pvt. Ltd. had agreed to settle the amount and cheques were collected from them which, after deposit, came to be returned by the Bank for the reason ‘insufficient funds’.  The complainant also filed a criminal complaint against the said Travel Agent, who failed to honour the cheques issued by them, before appropriate court and the same is pending consideration.  But, all those facts were not properly disclosed by the Complainant to the Opposite party.  Since the transaction with the Travel Agent is of a business nature and the policy issued to the complainant does not cover such trading/business losses, the complaint has to be dismissed in limini. 

 

             4.  To substantiate the case, the complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A42.  On the side of the Opposite Party, Proof Affidavit has been filed and Exs.B1 to B7 have been marked.

 

             5. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the act of the Opposite Party in rejecting the claim covered by the Insurance Policy and acting upon the subsequent endorsement, dated 21.02.2012,  which was an unilateral act suiting the advantage of the Opposite Party and a pure afterthought, exhibits not only gross deficiency in their service but also reflects unfair trade practice.   According to him, the Opposite Party has intentionally omitted to mention the Policy Sum insured as Rs.20 Lakh, thereby, they steeply deviated from the original offer and also, purposely caused delay in processing the claim just to express their refusal for payment despite admitting the liability, as such, once again, deficiency in service is self-evident.  It is vehemently argued that sub-limit was there only in the Proposal slip initiated by the Broker and not in the concluded contract viz., Insurance  Policy and that being so, the latter only should prevail over the Proposal.  In fact, the question of sub-limit was not initially discussed at all, at the time of appointing the Surveyor nor at the time of issuing the Preliminary Survey Report, but, subsequently brought in to find ways and means to reduce the liability of the Opposite Party with the help of the Surveyor appointed by them.  Therefore, Final Binding Document being the Policy Bond, what is stated therein should be honoured by the Opposite Party.  When the ultimate Policy was issued with the limit of Rs.20 lakh, which was a conscious act by waiving the information contained in the Proposal Slip, the present contention of the Opposite Party in stating that by mistake, the policy was issued can never be sustained. Inasmuch as the complainant has sufficiently established that their employee/Branch In-charge Mr.Manashendranath Ray used the Travel Agent to defraud the complainant, infidelity is clearly established and hence, this is not a case of trade or business loss.  Mere statement that the criminal act by a third party/Travel Agent is not covered by the Policy has no relevance to the context here, since the claim made is against the dishonesty of an employee of the complainant, which is well covered by the Policy.  According to the learned counsel, the acts and attitude of the Insurer/Opposite Party viz., delay in processing the claim, offering settlement less than the policy amount, refusing to comply with the arbitration clause and ultimate denial of the entire liability, clearly reflect the element of deficiency in service. Unilateral alteration of the Policy through an endorsement by the Insurer, that too, after a loss and after expiry of the Policy, beyond any iota of doubt, indicates that their action was only to suit their own advantage. Thus, there being absolute justification in the claim of the complainant, their prayer deserves acceptance, learned counsel pleaded.

 

        6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party would first submit that the Policy in question does not cover any trade loss such as dishonesty or fraud committed by any of the clients of the insured.  According to him, the transaction between the complainant and their client/Travel Agent is of normal trade transaction and in that process, there was dishonour of cheque.  In that regard, the complainant had also initiated criminal action under the Negotiable Instruments Act which confirms that the transaction is of normal trade in nature and that the loss is a trade loss, which is not insurable at all.  Since the loss claimed by the complainant is not covered by the Policy in question, the claim was rightly rejected by the Opposite Party.

        Next, it is submitted that the basis of the Insurance Policy being “Accepted Proposal”, the same only provides for AOA as Rs.5 Lakh and AOY as Rs.20 Lakh.  While so, the inadvertent mistake committed by the Opposite Party while issuing the Policy was rectified only based on the Proposal, accepted and acted upon by two sides, by making necessary endorsement when it has come to their knowledge, of course, after the loss, since Proposal forms part of the Policy, hence, the act of making endorsement by the Opposite Party is a bona fide one without any malice.  Further, when the Proposal was admittedly signed by the mandated broker, who acted as Agent to his Principal/complainant, the present stand of the Complainant that the Proposal was not signed by them is highly ill-conceived. 

        It is submitted further that initially, on good faith, the Opposite Party processed the claim and offered Rs.5 Lakh, as assessed by the Surveyor, however, subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the Opposite Party that it was a trade loss for which criminal case came to be filed by the complainant against their defaulting agent, whose cheque got bounced and returned dishonoured.  Since it came to surface that the complainant suppressed material facts & particulars and not even initiated any domestic enquiry against the employee, who is said to have committed misappropriation as alleged by the complainant, the above offer already made came to be withdrawn by invoking Clause No.8 of the Policy.  Hence, there being perfect justification for the act of the Opposite Party, the claim of the complainant is liable to be rejected in toto.

 

        7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side, having regard to the materials available on record.   In the light of the same, the following two questions arise for consideration:-

   a) When FGP (Fidelity Guarantee Policy) covers only the loss resulted due to the fraud or dishonesty of the employees of the insured, whether the complainant/insured is endeavoring to distend the scope of the Policy so as to make good the loss suffered by them due to the act of a third party/Travel Agent, against whom there is no insurance coverage at all?

   b) If the loss is attributable to the employee of the complainant/insured, whether the complainant is entitled for Rs.20 Lakh as AOY, without any sub-limit?

 

        8. Coming to the first question, from the materials, we could see that, when the Policy was taken by the complainant, the coverage is only against the loss resulted due to their employees’ acts of dishonesty, fraud, etc.  It is the case of the Complainant that their employee at the Kolkatta Branch – Mr.Manashendranath Ray/Branch in charge, in connivance with ELAR Travels, caused a monetary loss by misappropriating Rs.36.73 lakhs.   Thus, according to them, the monetary loss was due to the dishonest act of their employee, thereby, FGP coverage is attracted.  On the contrary, the stand taken by the Opposite Party is that even though, based on good faith, they were initially agreeable to pay Rs.5 Lakh as AOA, since the complainant did not initiate any domestic enquiry against the employee, who is said to have indulged in fraud, by deriving a clear inference that the loss had occurred at the hands of the third party/Travel Agent, they invoked Clause-8 of the Policy condition to reject the claim in toto. 

       Having regard to the above pivotal contrary contentions, it is necessary at this juncture to first examine as to whether the loss was due to the misconduct on the part of the complainant’s employee or not, since as per the FGP, the insurer/Opposite Party will indemnify the insured against direct pecuniary losses sustained though acts of fraud or dishonesty by the employee in the course of employment.

        9.  To get an answer to this issue, it would be of much relevance to look into the Survey Report, dated 29.11.2012, given by Mr.Subrata Bose, who was appointed by the Opposite Party/Insurance Company.  The ultimate finding/assessment recorded by him, after exhaustive discussion on the allegations, acts of misconduct, investigation, etc., is quoted below:-

                “ From the above statement and circumstances of the case it may be said that the Insured sustained monetary loss by reason of act of fraud/dishonesty of the accused person – Mr.Manashendranath Ray who was the then Branch in charge at Kolkata.  This executive was entrusted with various powers/authorities to discharge his duties and by acting beyond his authority and in connivance with other person had misused his powers to defraud the employer and misappropriated certain amount as per the records available.  The present loss thus comes under the purview of the present policy issued to the Insured. “

The above said Survey Report, which came to be presented by the Surveyor appointed by none else than the Opposite Party, although objected by the Complainant having regard to sub-limit, is quite categoric and emphatic that the monetary loss in question was a result of the fraud committed by an employee of the insured and beyond that, the ultimate finding is very specific that the loss comes under the purview of the Policy as well.  The said findings/conclusion arrived at by the Surveyor are not disputed or objected by the Opposite Party.  Interestingly, the Surveyor, in the course of discussion, after observing as follows,

                     “During the course of investigation we requested the Insured to confirm whether the accused employee was suspended from his service or not and to provide the detail amount(s) that would be payable to him.  We also requested to confirm about any security deposit that had been collected from Mr.Manash prior to the incident.’

would record thus,

          “It was reported that the particular employee was suspended from the services and no security deposit had been taken from him.

          The Insured later on furnished the suspension letter issued to Mr.Manash dated 18.06.11.”

When the above findings and conclusion emerging from the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party make it crystal clear that the loss was due to the fraud committed by the employee of the insured and further, action was taken by the insured against such employee by suspending him, we have no hesitation to hold that the loss has resulted due to the fraud committed by the employee of the insured and such loss is well covered by the Policy in question.  As such, the Opposite Party is legally obliged to honour the contract/Policy. Accordingly, the first question is answered in favour of the complainant.

 

       10. Coming to the second question, it is the case of the Complainant that the Insurance Policy was issued without any sub-limit, while so, without the knowledge or consent of the complainant, the Opposite Party, by endorsement dated 21.02.2012, modified it as AOA:AOY for Rs.5 Lakh : Rs.20 Lakh, and as such, the said unilateral act amounts to unfair trade practice.  It is also the case of the complainant that, when the Proposal was submitted through the Broker M/s.First Insurance World, they committed a clerical error by presenting it without deleting the sub-limit per incident, therefore, the complainant cannot be held liable for the same. If that is so, the complainant ought to have impleaded the Broker as a party, in which scenario alone, one would be in a position to find out as to whether it was a bona fide error committed by the Broker or was it a conscious act. In other words, in the absence of such necessary party, the complainant is estopped from now alleging malice against the Opposite Party for bringing in the endorsement particularly when such endorsement is, even according to the complainant, based upon the Proposal submitted by the Broker mandated by them, admittedly, with sub-limit. Since the endorsement did not amount to any material alteration as it is completely within the framework of the accepted Proposal, we fail to see any substance in the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, when the Policy itself stemmed from the accepted Proposal subsequent to consensus ad idem, any alteration or endorsement effected in the Policy would be bona fide so long it stands in clear line with the Proposal.  In other words, only if the endorsement made in a policy contradicts the original Proposal reached after consensus ad idem, the same would render the Policy null and void.   That not being the case here, when the very Proposal was admittedly submitted with sub-limit, the correction made therein accordingly by the Opposite Party cannot be found fault with.  Accordingly, the second question is answered against the complainant.

 

             11. In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part on the ground that the loss suffered by the complainant is covered by the FGP (Fidelity Guarantee Policy), since the said loss was due to the dishonesty/fraud committed by their employee, however, the claim of the Complainant that they are entitled to Rs.20 Lakh as AOY without any sub-limit is rejected and consequently, a direction is issued to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only)  on AOA basis to the complainant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default, to pay interest thereon @ 7.5% p.a from the date of complaint till the date of payment, with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.

    

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT.

•       Date            Description of Documents

Ex.A1       30.09.2008   Fidelity Guard Insurance Proposal

Ex.A2       Oct. 2008     National Insurance Company Ltd.

                                            Policy Copy (2008-2009)

Ex.A3                          Mail copy sent to insured from First Insurance World

Ex.A4                          National Insurance–Tidel Park–Sum Insured Option

Ex.A5       28.10.2010   First Insurance World – Proposal Slip (2009-2010)

Ex.A6       26.10.2009   Fidelity Guarantee – Policy Schedule (2009-2010)

Ex.A7       06.10.2010   First Insurance World – Proposal Slip (2010-2011)

Ex.A8       14.10.2010   New India Assurance Co Ltd Policy Copy (2010-11)

Ex.A9       09.10.2010   New India Assurance Co Ltd. Endorsement

                                            Copy (2010-11)

Ex.A10     25.08.2011   First Insurance World – Proposal Slip (2011-12) –

                                            Fidelity Guarantee – Floater

Ex.A11     25.08.2011   National Insurance Company Ltd. – Policy

                                                      Copy (2011-2012)

Ex.A12     24.08.2011   National Insurance Company Limited –

                                            Endorsement Copy (2011-2012)

Ex.A13     24.08.2011   National Insurance Company Limited –

                                            Endorsement Copy (2011-12)

Ex.A14     29.08.2011   Mail copy sent to Insured from First Insurance

                                            World Broking Service P. Ltd.

Ex.A15     23.08.2012   First Insurance World – Proposal Slip (2012-13)

Ex.A16     23.08.2012   National Insurance Co Ltd. – Policy Copy (2012-13)

Ex.A17     21.08.2013   First Insurance World – Proposal Slip (2013-14)

Ex.A18     21.08.2013   National Insurance Co Ltd – Policy Copy (2013-14)

Ex.A19     24.08.2013   National Insurance Co Ltd – Endorsement

                                            Copy  (2013-2014)

Ex.A20     24.08.2013   National Insurance Co Ltd. – Endorsement

                                            Copy (2013-14)

Ex.A21     06.08.2014   First Insurance World – Proposal Slip (2014-15)

Ex.A22     24.08.2014   National Insurance Co Ltd – Policy Copy (2014-15)

Ex.A23     24.08.2014   National Insurance Co Ltd – Endorsement

                                            Copy (2014-2015)

Ex.A24     24.08.2014   National Insurance Co Ltd – Endorsement

                                            Copy (2014-2015)

Ex.A25                        National Insurance Co Ltd – Endorsement

                                            Copy (2014-2015)

Ex.A26     01.10.2009   Letter from complainant to First Insurance World

                                            Broking Services P. Ltd, Chennai 37.

Ex.A27     22.06.2011   FIR No.10119 – Shakespeare Sarani PS, Kolkatta -17.

Ex.A28     05.01.2012   Preliminary Survey Report of CA Subrata Bose

Ex.A29     23.01.2012   Letter from First Insurance World to Opposite Party

Ex.A30     29.11.2012   Survey Report of C.A.Subrata Bose

Ex.A31     06.12.2012   E-mail from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A.32    09.01.2013   Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A33     28.01.2013   Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A34     28.01.2013   Legal Opinion of M/s.Nageswaran & Narichania

Ex.A35     26.02.2013   Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant

Ex.A36     04.03.2013   Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A37     28.02.2014   Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A38     10.03.2014   Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant

Ex.A39     25.03.2014   Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A40     28.05.2014   Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant

Ex.A41     26.06.2014   Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

Ex.A42     10.07.2014   Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

•       Date            Description of Documents

Ex.B1                          Dishnoured Cheques with Bank Endorsement

Ex.B2       06.10.2010   Proposal Slip

Ex.B3       09.10.2010   Endorsement Document

Ex.B4       14.10.2010   Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy

Ex.B5       29.11.2012   Survey Report

Ex.B6                          Criminal Complaint Copy

Ex.B7       10.04.2014   Notice from Advocate, Kolkata

 

 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

 

Index   :  Yes  /  No.     

 

ISM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Feb/2022