BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No: 07/2011 Filed on 12..01..2011
Dated: 31..07..2013
Complainant:
Jayaprakash. K., S/o Late Shri. N. Kesavan, Flat No: FF9/220 P.T. Chacko Nagar, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.
(By Adv. Sakthidharan Nair)
Opposite party:
The Kerala State Housing Board, represented by the Secretary, Santhi Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.
(By Adv. Meena C.R)
This O.P having been reheard on 20..07..2013, the Forum on 31..07..2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant was an erstwhile Executive Engineer of the opposite party, Kerala State Housing Board represented by its Secretary, superannuated on 31/05/2003 and apartment No. FF9-220 in the housing scheme called P.T Chacko Nagar Housing Accommodation Scheme, Ulloor was allotted to him vide letter dated 08/03/1993 and the agreement dated 21/04/1993 executed between the complainant and the opposite party, that as per the terms of the agreement the cost of the land and the price of the flat constructed was tentatively fixed at Rs. 4,14,667/- which was payable in monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 3,456/- per each installment over a period of 10 years from the month of April 1993, that the interest portion amounting to Rs. 1,98,608/- was payable in 36 monthly installments at Rs. 5,517/- over a period of three years after the payment of the principal portion (ie from April 2003 to March 2006), that the complainant had been remitting the aforesaid amount by way of recovery from his salary as well as lumpsum payment, that while so complainant on 04/03/2003 requested the opposite party to adjust the outstanding balance amount due to the 1st opposite party towards full and final settlement of the price of the flat from the DCRG due to him in the light of his retirement on superannuation on 31/05/2003, that accordingly the Regional Engineer of the opposite party informed the complainant that a sum of Rs. 57,061/- and Rs. 1,98,530/- due towards the balance payment of the additional land value and interest portion of the cost of the flat which the complainant consented to adjust from the retirement benefit and also informed him that he was not liable for payment of interest for the amount after 31/05/2003 on account of the belated computation of DCRG, that on 18/01/2005 the opposite party informed the complainant that a sum of Rs. 2,74,738/- had been adjusted from the pensionary benefits of the complainant as the dues towards the hire purchase of the said flat, that thereafter the opposite party again collected additional amount from the complainant towards so called compensation for LAR cases, thus opposite party had collected more amount towards principal and interest than due from the complainant, that inspite of the full payment of the amount by the complainant the opposite party did not execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant, that thereafter complainant received a letter dated 25/05/2009 from the opposite party demanding him to remit Rs. 1,14,515/- as additional amounts, that the said demand is illegal and wrong, that on request of the complainant, opposite party gave a revised statement of accounts demanding Rs. 1,03,698/- on account of difference in cost, interest, LAR balance and miscellaneous, that the said demand has been made on the basis of the wrong calculaion of the area of the land shared by the flat allotted to the complainant, that the area of the land shared by the flat as certified by the competent authority ADO / RE is 75.13m2, but the opposite party wrongly calculated the area as 120.83m2, thus the demand letter dated 25/05/2009 for Rs. 1,14,515/- issued by the opposite party is illegal and without any basis, that though the possession of the apartment was delivered, the opposite party is deliberately delaying the execution and register of the sale deed without any justifiable reasons, which is a clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to set aside the demand dated 25/05/2009 for additional amount of Rs. 1,14,515/-, to direct opposite party to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the apartment No. FF9-220 in favour of the complainant and refund the excess amount collected from him along with compensation and cost.
2. Opposite party entered appearance and filed its version contending interalia that as per clause 6 of the agreement executed by the complainant with the Board, the tentative cost of the flat is Rs. 4,14,667/- that shall be payable in 120 monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 3,456/- from the month of April 1993, the first installment shall be payable on 10/4/1993 and succeeding installments being payable on or before the 10th day of each and every succeeding month till 10/3/2003, that the interest portion amounting to Rs. 1,98,608/- shall be payable in 36 monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 5,517/-, after the payment of principal portion, the first of which installment shall be payable on or before 10th day of April 2003 and the succeeding installment being payale on or before 10th day of every month till the month of March 2006, that complainant had remitted the tentative cost of Rs. 4,14,767/- by March 2003, that as and when the LAR amounts were paid by the Board, the proportionate share of compensation were calculated and intimated to all the allottees of the scheme including the complainant, that complainant had remitted Rs. 7,910/- only, that thereafter opposite party had issued demand notices, that as per the request of the complainant on 4/3/2003 the complainant was informed the balance of the proportionate share of LAR payments made by the Board as on 7/7/2001 and the interest portion of the tentative cost, that the proportionate LAR share calculated as Rs. 57,061/- and interest Rs. 1,98,530/- on 30/4/2003, that thereafter as intimated by the complainant the total dues as on 31/5/2003 was calculated and recovered from the DCRG, that on 18/1/2005 the complainant was informed that Rs. 2,74,738/- has been adjusted from the pensionary benefits due to him towards interest portion of hire purchase account of the flat and LAR due as on 12/6/2003, that thereafter on 12/06/2003 Board deposited LAR claims on 2/7/2003 and demanded the proportionate share from the allottees including the complainant, that on 16/07/2007 the Board finalized the scheme account including payments made up to 7/9/2005, that all the allottees of the scheme were intimated the final cost, that 181 out of the 196 allottees including 21 of 24 FF9 type have remitted it already, that only 3 including the complainant has to remit the final cost of FF9 type flat, that complainant was intimated vide letter dated 25/09/2009 by the opposite party to remit Rs. 1,14,515/- towards the final cost of the flat with proportionate LAR amounts, that the demand is legal, the land area share for FF9 type flats were calculated as 75.13m2 before finalizing the scheme account, that on final measurement the land share is 120.83m2, that all the tentative demand notice was prepared and given by taking land area as 75.13m2, that delay in executing the sale deed is due to the non remittance of final cost and additional land value as demanded by the Board, that complainant has not remitted any amount till date from the date of finalisation of the scheme account, that the Board issued sale deed to all those allottees who remitted the final dues, that the sale deed in respect of the flat No. FF9-220 will be issued after remitting the final dues and the demand notice dated 25/05/2009 is legal and as per condition of the agreement executed by the complainant with the Board, Board has not realised any amount in excess from the complainant and complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether complainant is entitled to get the demand notice dated 25/05/2009 for Rs. 1,14,515/- cancelled?
Whether complainant is entitled to get the sale deed registered?
Whether opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to any other reliefs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P19. In rebuttal, the Junior Superintendent of the opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D9.
4. Points (i) to (v): There is no point in dispute that the price of the flat No. FF9-220 was fixed tentatively at Rs. 4,14,667/- which was payable in monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 3,456/- per each installment for a period of 10 years from April 1993 to March 2003. There is no point in dispute that the interest portion amounting to Rs. 1,98,608/- was payable in 36 monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 5,517/- which was payable from April 2003 to March 2006. There is no point in dispute that complainant paid the monthly installment towards the principal amount and additional land value by way of recovery / deduction from his monthly salary and lumpsum payment. Admittedly, before his superannuation on 31/05/2003 complainant requested the opposite party to adjust the balance outstanding dues from his DCRG and informed the opposite party that he was not liable to pay interest thereafter. The first point to be considered herein is whether complainant had paid full price of the flat as per the terms of the agreement. Complainant has produced Exts. P1 to P19. Ext. P1 is the copy of the agreement. The price and terms of repayment are dealt by clause 6 of the agreement executed by the complainant with the Board. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 04/03/2003 addressed to the opposite party by the complainant intimating the former that he was going on superannuation on 31/05/2003 and requested the former to adjust the outstanding dues in the DCRG. Ext. P3 is the letter dated 30/04/2003 issued by the opposite party to the complainant informing latter that the balance amount as on 30/04/2003 was Rs. 57,061/- towards additional land value and Rs. 1,98,530/- towards the interest portion of the tentative cost of flat No. FF9-220. Thus as per Ext. P3 the total outstanding dues as on 30/04/2003 was Rs. 2,55,591/- (Rs. 57061 + Rs. 198530). Ext. P4 is the letter dated 18/01/2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant stating that a sum of Rs. 2,74,738/- was adjusted from the pensionary benefits. As per Ext.P4, according to complainant instead of claiming Rs. 57,061/- towards additional land value as stated in Ext. P3, opposite party had taken Rs. 69,807/- towards additional land value. Further it was pointed out by the complainant that opposite party had also charged Rs. 6,295/- towards proportionate share of additional land value. Thus there is discrepancy in the amount claimed by the opposite party towards additional land value as per Exts. P3 & P4. Ext. P5 is the letter dated 25/05/2009 issued by opposite party to the complainant stating that the Board has decided to issue a saledeed and has finalised the cost of flats and additional land value and an amount of Rs. 1,14,515/- is due from the complainant towards the difference in tentative and final cost and proportionate share of LAR as on 30/06/2009. Ext. P6 is the statement of additional land value accounts dated 30/07/2003 issued by the opposite party to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that area of the flat as 75.13m2, rate of additional land value as approved by the Board is Rs. 267.75/m2 and amount of additional land value due from the allottee is Rs. 20,116/-. Ext. P7 is the letter dated 09/06/2009 addressed by the complainant to opposite party. As per Ext. P7 complainant raised objection to Ext. P5 demand letter issued by the opposite party and sought split up details from the opposite party. Ext. P8 is the letter dated 14/08/2003 issued by the complainant stating that he is not liable for payment of interest after 31/05/2003, the date of retirement on superannuation. Ext. P9 is the copy of the letter dated 19/08/2009 issued by complainant to opposite party pointing out the anomaly in calculating the common area of land shared by FF9 type flat owners and other type of flat owners. Ext. P10 is the copy of the letter dated 20/10/2009 issued by the complainant to the opposite party requesting the latter to send a reply in regard to Ext. P9 anomaly in the calculation of common area of land shared by FF9 type flat owners. Ext. P11 is the copy of the Advocate notice dated 01/11/2010 issued by complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P12 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party to Ext. P11 notice. Ext. P13 is the letter dated 30/09/1996 from the opposite party to the complainant stating that the area of the flat as 75.13m2. Ext. P14 is the copy of the letter dated 11/04/1997 issued by opposite party to complainant stating the area of the flat as 75.13m2. Ext. P15 is the letter from the opposite party to complainant stating the area of the flat as 75.13m2. Ext. P16 is the letter dated 30/03/2000 issued by the opposite party stating the area of the flat as 75.13m2. Ext. P17 is the letter dated 27/12/2005 issued by opposite party to complainant stating the area of the flat as certified by the ADO / RE is 75.13m2. Ext. P18 is the copy of the saledeed dated 10/09/2009 executed by the opposite party infavour of one Smt. Sathi Sasidharan. As per Ext. P18 the cost collected includes the cost of proportionate share in the whole scheme area of land in which the building situate, and in the open spaces, parking areas and roads within the scheme. Ext. P19 is the copy of the notification dated 27th May 2000. The stand of the opposite party is that as per the request of the complainant on 04/03/2003 he was informed the balance of the proportionate share of LAR payments made by the Board as on 07/07/2001 and the interest portion of the tentative cost, that the proportionate LAR share calculated as Rs. 57,061/- and interest as Rs. 1,98,530/- on 30/04/2003, that it has also been admitted by the opposite party that on 18/01/2005 the complainant was informed that Rs. 2,74,738/- has been adjusted from the pensionary benefits due to him towards interest portion of hire purchase account of the flat and LAR due as on 12/06/2003. According to opposite party before finalizing the scheme account, the land area share for FF9 type flats were calculated as 75.13m2, but on final measurement and the approved lay out plan the land share is 120.83m2. According to opposite party all the tentative demand notices were prepared and given by taking land area as 75.13m2 and additional demand notice dated 25/02/2009 for Rs. 1,14,515/- was issued by the opposite party on the basis of land area share as 120.83m2 as per approved lay out. According to opposite party the land area of each type of flats is calculated on the basis of the usage of land area construction of the particular block and its surrounding land for the use of the particular block. Here the land used for FF9 type flat is covered by scheme road on one side and out of scheme area on the other side. The open space in this area according to opposite party is not shareable to other type of flats, that the whole area here is used by the FF9 type owners. Opposite party has led evidence by way of proof affidavit and Exts. D1 to D9. Ext. D1 is marked subject to objection by the complainant that the said payment details does not bear signature or seal of the opposite party. Ext. D2 is the copy of the service details of Shri. K. Jayaprakash, Executive Engineer (Retired), Kerala State Housing Board issued by the opposite party. Ext. D3 is the copy of the revised statement of accounts issued to the complainant by opposite party. Ext. D5 is the duplicate of approved sketch which was marked subject to objection by the complainant that the said sketch does not bear seal or signature of the opposite party. Ext. D6 series are copies of notices issued to complainant by opposite party. Ext. D7 is the copy of the resolution of the Board meeting dated 19/07/2007. Ext. D8 is the copy of the decision of some of the schemes the Board meeting finalised the cost. Ext. D9(a) is the copy of the detailed closing statement dated 21/05/2009 prepared by the opposite party which was marked subject to objection by the complainant that the said statement does not bear seal and signature. Ext. D9(b) is the copy of the detailed closing statement dated 01/01/1999. The very case of the complainant is that Ext. P5 demand notice dated 25/05/2009 is illegal and against the facts of the case. According to complainant the said demand notice was issued by opposite party on the basis of land area share as 120.83m2, but the land area share for FF9 type flats were calculated as 75.13m2. Opposite party demanded Rs. 1,14,515/- alleging that the amount is due towards the difference in tentative and final cost and proportionate share of LAR as on 30/06/2009. According to opposite party on final settlement the land area was changed and hence Ext. P5 demand notice was legal. Admittedly, before finalising the scheme land area share for FF9 type of flats were calculated as 75.13m2. If there was any change of the land area as alleged by opposite party from 75.13m2 to 120.83m2 the onus is on the opposite party to substantiate the same by submitting the measurement details. There is no material on record to corroborate the stand of the opposite party in regard to the change of the land area shared by FF9 from 75.13m2 to 120.83m2. It is pertinent to point out that the area shared by FF9 type flat as per Exts. P13 to Ext. P16 along with Ext. D6 series of demand notices is 75.13m2. Ext. P6 letter dated 30/07/2003 and Ext. P17 letter dated 24/12/2005 would prove that the land area shared by FF9 type flats as certified by the Regional Engineer of the opposite party is 75.13m2. It is further to be pointed out that it is the Regional Engineer, who is the competent authority to issue such a certificate. Further we cannot afford to overlook the averment in para 8 of the version which reads as under:
"With regard to the para No. 6 of the complaint, it is submitted that even though the LAR cases were not settled and without getting Decree Satisfaction Certificates, on 16/07/2007 the Board finalized the scheme account including payments made up to 7/09/2005."
Ext. P17 is the notice dated 24/12/2005 also shows that the area of the flat as certified by the ADO / RE is 75.13m2. The burden is on the part of the opposite party to prove with cogent and clinching evidence that there was change in the land area shared by FF9 type flats from 75.13m2 to 120.83m2. Complainant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 2008 (2) CPR 41 in Kerala State Housing Board Vs. P.V. Balasubramnoniam dealing with similar issue. In this case, the person who has measured the FF9 type of flat has not been examined nor has any documentary evidence produced to show how that final measurement if any made is correct. Further there is no evidence before us to show that what was the enhanced compensation awarded by the Court towards land value in respect of FF9 type flat area. From the evidence available on record especially Exts. P13 to P17 and Ext.D6 series we can only proceed on the basis that the area of the flat as certified by the ADO / RE is only 75.13m2. If that be so, the Ext. P5 demand notice dated 25/05/2009 for Rs. 1,14,515/-on the basis of change in the land area share from 75.13m2 to 120.83m2 is devoid of merits which deserves to be cancelled. Hence complainant is entitled to get the said Ext. P5 notice cancelled. Complainant has contended that opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant. By virtue of Ext. P3 opposite party claimed Rs. 57,061/- towards additional land value and Rs. 1,98,530/- towards interest as on 30/04/2003 thereby the total amount as per Ext. P3 would become to Rs. 2,55,591/-. In the version, the opposite party has calculated Rs. 57,061/- towards proportionate LAR share and Rs. 1,98,530/- towards interest as on 30/4/2003. As per Ext. P4 letter dated 18/01/2005 issued by opposite party it is stated that an amount of Rs. 2,74,738/- is dues as on (31/05/2003) and the said amount has been adjusted from the pensionary benefits due to the officer. It has been submitted by the complainant that opposite party has not furnished any material to substantiate the difference of the land value of Rs. 57,061/- as per Ext. P3 and land value of Rs. 69,807/- as under item 'c' in Ext. P4. Further it is submitted by the complainant that opposite party has never furnished details of LAR cases, award etc for the amount of Rs. 6,295/- adjusted under item 'd' in Ext. P4 towards proportionate share of additional land value. According to complainant, opposite party demanded an amount of Rs. 4,437/- towards additional land value as on 24/12/2005 and the payment of the same was admitted by opposite party by virtue of Ext. D6(n). As per Ext. D3 an amount of Rs. 11,861/- was adjusted from the pensionary benefit of the complainant on 26/06/2009. Thus according to complainant evidently by Ext. P4, Ext. D3 and by Ext.D6(n) opposite party had received a sum of Rs. 2,91,036/- from the complainant while as per Ext. P3 complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,55,591/-. Further as per Ext. P6 dated 30/07/2003 opposite party claimed an amount of Rs. 20,116/- towards additional land value, while on 24/12/2005 as per Ext.D6(n) opposite party claimed an amount of Rs. 4,437/-. According to complainant, complainant was liable to pay Rs. 2,55,591/- plus Rs. 24,553/- which comes to Rs. 2,80,144/-. Evidently by Ext. P4, Ext.D6 & Ext. D3 opposite party has received Rs. 2,91,036/- thereby the very case of the complainant is that opposite party has received an excess amount of Rs. 10,892/- = (Rs. 2,91,036/- - Rs. 2,80,144/-) opposite party has not furnished any material to contradict the same. It has come in evidence that opposite party has recovered more amount to the tune of Rs. 10,892/- than due from the complainant and even after collecting excess amount from the complainant, opposite party has been delaying the execution and registration of the saledeed. Opposite party never furnished sufficient documents showing the reason for claiming or recovering more amount than due from the complainant. The settled position is that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of documents which would be helpful in doing justice in the case to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind abstract doctrine of burden of proof. The fact could be proved by producing document maintained by possessor. So the inference possible from the fact of withholding or non-production of relevant records maintained by the opposite party is that the stand of the opposite party that the land area is shown as 120.83m2 tentatively is not true and is also unacceptable. It could be seen from the materials available on record that complainant had remitted more than the land value for land area of flat as certified bythe ADO / RE of 75.13m2. Opposite party has not furnished cogent evidence to substantiate that land area of the said flat is 120.83m2. No material is produced by the opposite party to show that land value as finalised is on the basis of enhanced land value awarded by the Court. Further the land value was fixed on the basis that the area is 120.83m2 and infact the area is 75.13m2. Inview of the evidence available on record we find the land value finalised by the Board cannot be accepted. Further opposite party has not produced any document to show that there was charges for service and also amenities if any provide to the complainant. Inview of the above we are of the opinion that opposite party is not entitled to demand the amount of Rs. 1,14,515/- as per Ext. P5 on the ground that area of the land shared by FF9-220 flat allotted to him is only 75.13m2. As opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs. 10,892/- from the complainant, complainant is entitled for refund of the same from the opposite party. Opposite party has delayed the execution of saledeed in respect to the flat allotted to the complainant even after recovered excess amount from the complainant. The action of the opposite party would definitely amount to deficiency in service for which complainant is entitled to get a compensation which we fix at Rs. 10,000/-.
In the rsult, complaint is allowed. Ext. P5 demand notice dated 25/5/2009 for Rs. 1,14,515/- issued by opposite party to the complainant is cancelled. Opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs. 10,892/- to the complainant. Opposite party shall execute and register the saledeed in respect of the apartment No. FF9-220 in favour of complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of July, 2013.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
PRESIDENT.
R. SATHI,
MEMBER.
LIJU B NAIR,
ad. MEMBER.
C.C.No: 07/2011
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Deed agreement for sale dated 21/04/1993
P2 : Letter dated 04/03/2003 issued from complainant to the opposite party
P3 : Letter dated 30/04/2003 No.E7/FF9-220/PTCN issued to the complainant by the opposite party
P4 : Letter dated 18/1/2005 No. AdII(a)9055/02 issued to the complainant by the opposite party
P5 : Letter dated 25/05/2009 No.E2/FF9-220/PTCN issued to the complainant by the Executive Engineer, KSHB.
P6 : Letter No. E7/FF9/220/PTCN dated 30/07/2003 issued by the Administrative Officer, KSHB.
P7 : Letter dated 09/06/2009 issued from the complainant to the opposite party
P8 : Letter dated 14/08/2003 No. Ad2(a) 9055/2002 issued to the complainant by the opposite party
P9 series : Letter dated 19/08/2009 issued by the complainant to the Secretary, KSHB.
P9(a) : Postal receipt
P10 : Letter dated 20/10/2009 from Jayaprakash. K to the Secretary, KSHB.
P10(a) : Postal receipt
P11 : Advocate notice dated 01/11/2010
P12 : Reply letter dated 05/01/2011 No. E2/FF9- 220/PTCN issued to the complainant by the opposite party
P13 : Letter dated 30/09/1996 No. E7/FF9-220/PTCN issued to the complainant by opposite party
P14 : Letter dated 11/04/1997 No.E7/FF9-220/PTCN issued to the complainant by opposite party
P15 : Letter dated 13/10/1998 No.E7/FF9-220/PTCN issued to the complainant by opposite party.
P16 : Letter dated 30/03/2000 No:E7/FF9-22-/PTCN issued to the complainant by opposite party
P17 : Letter dated 24/12/2005 No.E7/FF9-22-/PTCN issued to the complainant by opposite party
P18 : Copy of the sale deed dated 10/09/2009
P19 : Copy of Kerala Gazette notifcation dated 27/05/2000
II. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : K. Jayaprakash
III. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of payment details for an amount of Rs. 17479029/-
D2 : Copy of letter dated 16/06/2012 No.AII(A) 9055/2002 issued to the Executive Engineer, Division No. II KSHB.,Thiruvananthapuram.
D3 : Copy of revised statement of accounts for Rs. 103698 issued by Executive Engineer, KSHB.
D4 & D5 : Duplicate of approved sketch
D6 series
(D6(a) to (D6(n) : Copies olf notices issued to complainant by opposite party
D7 : Copy of the resolution of the Board Meeting dated 19/07/2007
D8 series : Copy of the decision of some of the schemes the Board Meeting finalised the cost
D9 (a) : Copy of the detailed closing statement dated 21/05/2009 prepared by the opposite party
D9 (b) : Copy of the detailed closing statement dated 01/01/1999.
IV. Opposite party's witness:
DW1 : G. Kunjumon
PRESIDENT
