Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/689

Gurvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Pal

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                                     CC No. 689 of 30.09.2014

                                                                                        Decided on : 18.11.2015

Gurwinder Singh son of Shri Ranjit Singh, resident of House No. 65, Village Gaunsgarh, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

                                                                                         … Complainant

                                             Versus

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, having its registered office at ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi , Mumbai-400 025, through its Principal Officer.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, having its Branch Office Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Principal Officer.
3. Sunil Kumar, agent, ICICI Lombard General Insurance, having its Branch Office Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana (Mobile No. 98760-76244).
4. Ishan, Investigator/employee of ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Ambala Cantt. (Mobile No. 097299-70225).
5. Mr. Venus, Surveyor, ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Jalandhar (Mobile No. 99157-39748).
6. M/s. Raga Motors, G.T. Road, Jalandhar, through its proprietor/partner/incharge.

                                                                            … Opposite Parties

 

Complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. G.K. Dhir, President,

                   Sh. S.P. Garg, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajiv Abhi, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   OP3 and OP4 ex-parte.

 

•  

 

(Per G.K. Dhir, President)

 

1. Complainant, Gurwinder Singh filed  complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by claiming that he is the registered owner of Mahindra SUV Scorpio Car bearing Registration No. PB-10DV-8205. Opposite Party No. 3 represented himself to be the agent of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and that is why comprehensive insurance policy of the said car was got done by complainant from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for the period from 27.5.2014 till midnight of 26.5.2015. Yearly premium of Rs. 20,561 was computed and the same was paid for insuring the vehicle for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Insurance policy cover note bearing No. PS11269174 dated 27.5.2014 was issued for insuring the car in question. That car met with an accident on G.T. Road, Phagwara on 8.8.2014, when the same was being driven by driver, Sh. Gurinder Singh s/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh, r/o village Mangli Khas, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.  That driver of the complainant was holding a valid driving licence issued by Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles, Ludhiana.  Validity of that driving licence was upto 11.4.2025.  One Gurdev Singh s/o Sh. Assa Singh, r/o village Bahadurke, Distt. Ludhiana (a relative of the complainant) was sitting alongwith Gurinder Singh (driver) in the front seat of the car. This car was going from Bahadurke, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana to Jalandhar, when after crossing Phagwara, suddenly rain started and rear tyre of the car got punctured.  The car was parked by driver on the left side of the road for replacing the tyre, but suddenly a school bus bearing Registration No. PB-08N-3512 came from backside.  At that time, this bus was driven by Surjit Singh s/o Gurdial Singh rashly and negligently due to which the same struck in the car, as a result of which the car was badly damaged. Highway Patrol Police came at the spot and driver of the car, Sh. Gurinder Singh telephonically informed the Authorised Service Centre of Mahindra Car i.e. OP6 and in turn OP6 sent a Recovery Van at the spot for towing the damaged car.  Thereafter, driver of the complainant’s car alongwith Gurdev Singh went to Police Station, Phagwara, where a compromise was arrived at  between the parties in the Police Station on 8.8.2014. On 9.8.2014, complainant along with his driver Gurinder Singh reached the Service Centre of M/s. Raga Motors, Jalandhar (OP No. 6) and informed the officials of said service centre that the damaged car has been fully insured with opposite parties No. 1 and 2.  Then, officials of OP6 called the surveyor of the insurance company and Mr. Venus (surveyor) came to the Service Centre at Jalandhar.   After completing requisite formalities and snapping photographs of damaged car, the driver of the car in question handed over the requisite documents to the surveyor as demanded by him. Driver of the car in question was assured by the surveyor that either the said damaged car will be got repaired or the complete amount of the insurance policy of Rs. 7,00,000/- will be paid. After a few days, a telephonic call was received by complainant from OP4 for supplying information that car of the complainant has been declared as ‘total loss’ by OP6 and they have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,09,931.01 N.P.  It was informed that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 will issue cheque of the said amount to the complainant.  It was disclosed to the complainant that the cheque will be ready for collection after two days, but complainant expressed is inability to collect the said cheque because he was out of station on a business trip.  Then, OP4 asked the complainant to send his driver for collecting the cheque on behalf of the complainant. Accordingly, on 27.8.2014, complainant sent his driver, Gurinder Singh to collect the said cheque from OP4.  Thereafter, OP4 misrepresented the driver of the complainant and brought him in the court complex, where some documents were got prepared  on pretext that those are the acknowledgement receipt of the said cheque. On such misrepresentation, driver of the complainant put his signatures on the alleged document. After signing the documents, when driver of the complainant demanded said cheque, then OP4 delayed the delivery of the cheque due to non-completion of certain technical formalities.  Direction was issued to the driver of the complainant to collect the cheque within 2/3 days from the office of OP2. OP4 took said documents with him. Driver of the complainant is illiterate.  When complainant visited office of OP2 after 2/3 days, then he was shocked to know that OP4 had got signed affidavit from the driver of the complainant by misrepresentation and concealment of facts by alleging that driver of the complainant purchased the car in question from the complainant  and that the driver himself has been paying the instalments of the car. Even the documents were got signed as if the complainant has no concern or connection with the insurance claim. Officials of the insurance company refused to hand over the said cheque of insurance claim on pretext that complainant has sold the car in question to driver, Gurinder Singh.  The damaged car lying in Service Station of OP6.  Claim is not disbursed to complainant because of a fraud played by the O.Ps in connivance with each other. Transfer of the vehicle in question never got entered in the records of the Transport Authority, Ludhiana. Affidavit from the driver got signed by misrepresenting the facts. Opposite Parties fraudulently and in criminal conspiracy disowned and repudiated their obligations to pay the claimed amount. Even opposite parties did not tender the copy of the alleged report of surveyor Mr. Venus (OP5) alongwith photographs of the aforesaid car. Complainant claims to be suffering huge losses in his transport business. The Authorised Service Centre of OP6 claiming an amount of Rs. 300/- per day as parking charges of the damaged car. Rs. 5,00,000/- claimed as compensation on account of mental agony, pain and harassment as well as due to business losses. Insurance claim of Rs. 7,00,000/- sought in addition to the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and other charges.
2. In written statement submitted by opposite parties No. 1 and 2, it is pleaded inter alia as if complainant is not a consumer because he has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question as the same already stood sold in favour of Sh. Gurinder Singh s/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh r/o village Mangli Khas, Tehsil and District Ludhiana as per his duly sworn affidavit before Notary  Public dated 27.8.2014.  That affidavit was submitted to investigator Sh. Ishant Kharbanda.  Registration certificate and insurance policy was not transferred till the date of loss. After the sale of the vehicle in question, the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. After the receipt of the claim, the same was duly registered, entertained and processed by the opposite parties.  It is further claimed that Sh. Rajesh Grover, Insurance Surveyor, Consultant Engineer, Loss Assessor and Valuer was appointed as surveyor for assessing the loss and he after inspecting the vehicle submitted report dated 12.10.2014. OP5 was appointed as investigator to investigate the own damage claim of the vehicle in question. That OP5 made thorough investigation and took in possession the documents including the affidavit of Sh. Gurinder Singh abovesaid. OP5 prepared report dated 23.8.2014 and submitted the same with observations that at the time of accident car in question was possessed by abovesaid Gurinder Singh and claim of accident is genuine.  It was further observed that insured had no interest in the claim and all the formalities have been completed by the actual owner, Sh. Gurinder Singh.  Insurable interest of complainant in the vehicle in question was missing after sale of the vehicle about 1 ½ years prior to the accident.  Further observations were recorded in that report to the effect that no report had been lodged with police authorities and no TP loss due to accident took place. As per the affidavit of Gurinder Singh, above said he was plying the car in question on 8.8.2014 after its purchase about 1 ½ years ago.  After the receipt of the survey report of Sh. Rakesh Grover dated 12.10.2014 and of OP5 dated 23.8.2014 and scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file, officials of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 repudiated the claim as no claim vide letter dated 26.11.2014 because complainant was having no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of the loss of vehicle.  Complicated questions of law and facts are involved due to which elaborate evidence is required and as such, the matter has to be decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction.  Besides, it is claimed that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint because he has concealed the material facts qua sale of the vehicle to Gurinder Singh s/o Jaswinder Singh about 1 ½ years ago. Complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties because O.Ps no. 3 to 6 are neither necessary nor proper parties. Gurinder Singh, the subsequent purchaser has not been impleaded as party.  The allegations of criminal conspiracy, dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment have been specifically levelled due to which elaborate evidence is required. Complainant is not a consumer because the vehicle alleged to be plied for transport business for earning huge profits.  It is further claimed that complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. Complete policy along with terms and conditions of the policy had already been handed over to the concerned at the time of issue of the policy. If those would not have been supplied, the complainant would have demanded the same from opposite parties, but despite that no request or demand has been made till date. It is claimed that after repudiation of the claim of complainant, he has concocted a false story in connivance with Gurinder Singh.  No relative of the complainant was sitting in the car and the same was not badly damaged as alleged. That Sh. Rakesh Grover, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed, but OP5 was not appointed as Surveyor. No assurance ever given by the surveyor as alleged. Each and every other averment of the complaint has been denied by claiming that investigator never informed the complainant that vehicle has been declared as of total loss. Complainant never visited opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and nor sent any reminders.  Claim of complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 26.11.2014 on the ground that complainant has got no insurable interest after sale of the vehicle.
3. Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 are ex-parte in this case, whereas complaint against OP5 and OP6 was dismissed as withdrawn after sufferance of a statement dated 28.11.2014 by counsel for the complainant.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1 along with documents  Ex. C1 and Ex. C-2 and then closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Meenu Sharma, Legal Manager along with that of Ishant Kharbanda (OP4) as Ex. RB and of surveyor Sh. Rakesh Grover Ex. RC and the documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R16 and then closed the evidence.
6. Written arguments submitted by counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as well as by complainant. Oral arguments were heard and records gone through.
7. Bone of contention remains as to whether the vehicle in question stood already sold to Gurinder Singh s/o Jaswinder Singh r/o village Mangli Khas, Tehsil and District Ludhiana prior to the date of accident namely 8.8.2014 or not? Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that affidavit Ex. R6 was procured by the officials of the insurance company by misrepresentation and as such, on strength of this affidavit alone, it cannot be inferred that actually sale of the vehicle in question had taken place. That submission stoutly opposed by Sh. Rajiv Abhi, Adv. Representing insurance company by claiming that for proof of misrepresentation, Gurinder Singh should have been called by complainant. Application for calling Gurinder Singh as witness was filed by the complainant but the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.2015 passed by this Forum. So, no fault can be found in complainant in not producing Gurinder Singh. Non-examination of Gurinder Singh is not fatal because even if proof of misrepresentation not adduced, despite that the factual and legal position itself establishes that sale on basis of affidavit Ex.R6 is not legally tenable.
8. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase, agreement, of an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. Affidavit Ex.R6 aims at projecting as if Scorpio Mahindra Vehicle No. PB10DV8205 of Model 2010 had been purchased by Gurinder Singh abovesaid from present complainant about 1 ½ years ago with liability of payment of loan instalments. Except Ex. R6 and statement Ex. R7 of Gurinder Singh recorded by the police, there is no other material produced by any of the parties to establish that actually this sale had taken place. No affidavit of complainant, Gurwinder Singh has been brought on the record to show that he in fact had sold the vehicle in question to abovesaid Gurinder Singh. Being so, self serving affidavit of Gurinder Singh cannot be taken in consideration for holding that actually complainant (t he registered owner of the vehicle in question) has sold the same. As and when transaction of sale and purchase of a vehicle takes place, then either an agreement signed by both the parties required to be executed or affidavits of seller and buyer both needs be brought in existence and thereafter, transfer of the ownership should be got reflected in the records of the Motor Vehicle Licencing Authority/Transport  Officer. No agreement of sale alleged to be executed between complainant and Gurinder Singh and nor affidavit alleged to be executed by complainant in favour of Gurinder Singh and as such, in view of the fact that in certificate of registration Ex. C-1 or Ex. R-8, complainant still shown to be recorded as registered owner, there is no escape from the conclusion that actual sale of the vehicle had not taken place.
9. As affidavit Ex. R-6 is not an agreement of lease or of hypothecation of the vehicle in question and nor the same is an agreement in pursuance of which possession delivered by complainant to Gurinder Singh and as such, in view of Section 2(30) of t he Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, complainant being registered owner legally to be taken as the owner of the vehicle in question, even on the date of accident namely 8.8.2014. In Ex. C-1 or Ex. R-8 (certificate of registration of the vehicle in question) date of manufacture of the vehicle in question bearing registration No. PB10DB8205 is mentioned as April, 2012 and as such, this vehicle in fact is of model 2012. However, in affidavit Ex. R-6, it is mentioned as if the vehicle purchased by Gurinder Singh is of model 2010. In view of this, it is obvious that due description of the model even has not been given in affidavit Ex. R-6. Even if affidavit Ex. R-6 may be showing that Gurinder Singh was in possession of the vehicle on the date of accident namely 8.8.2014, despite that the said possession was not got under an agreement of hypothecation or of hire purchase or of any other type of agreement.  Being so, possession of Gurinder Singh reflected through Ex. R-6 is not of any of the categories stipulated by Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of that also, complainant being the registered owner to be taken as the owner of vehicle in question because of provisions of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, provides the procedure for transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle from one person to another. Report of transfer in the prescribed form alongwith documents has to be submitted before the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and thereafter issue of notice of no objection of transfer from the concerned, the transfer can take place provided the prescribed fee  for such transfer also is paid. That procedure in matter of transfer of vehicle in question not alleged to be followed and as such, on strength of affidavit Ex.R6 alone, it cannot be inferred that actually sale of the vehicle in question had taken place from complainant to Gurinder Singh. In case, the transfer of vehicle not reported by the transferor or transferee to registering authority, then they can be made liable to pay penalty as per Section 50(3) read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  When such is the procedure provided by the Motor Vehicles Act, then non-following of the same will entail consequences to the effect as if sale actually had not taken place. So, Ex. R6, Ex. R7 or reports Ex. R-2 and  Ex. R5 of the surveyor alone cannot be formed the basis for holding that actually complainant was not the owner on the date of accident in question. 
11. Ex. R-15, the insurance cover note of the vehicle in question further establishes that this vehicle was insured in the name of Gurwinder Singh, complainant for period from 27.5.2014 to midnight of 26.5.2015. If really, the vehicle in question would have been sold by complainant to Gurinder Singh 1 ½ years prior to the submission of affidavit Ex. R6 of dated 27.8.2014, then name of purchaser Gurinder Singh would have been reflected in insurance cover note Ex. R-15. That is not the position and as such, the same also establishes as if sale of the vehicle projected through affidavit Ex. R6 either is not a genuine sale or the same alleged for escaping liability by insurance company. In view of this, complainant being registered owner of the vehicle in question, on the date of accident could not have been denied the insurance claim just because of the fact that he was not having  insurable interest on that date.  So, repudiation of the claim through letter Ex. R1 is quite illegal and unjustified. Rather, complainant being registered owner was having insurable interest on the day of accident and the submission of claim form Ex. R3.
12. In case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shaik Dawood, II(2013) CPJ 401 (NC), it was found that respondent was having no insurable interest on the day of accident because he did not inform the insurance company about transfer of ownership of vehicle within 14 days and nor he got the contract of insurance novated. So, claim of transferee was repudiated/rejected because of non-submission of report of transfer. However, in the case before us complainant is able to prove by his evidence through affidavit Ex.CW1 and the other circumstances pointed above that he was insured qua the vehicle in question as registered owner even on the date of accident and as such, non-submission of report of transfer by Gurinder Singh (alleged purchaser) itself establishes that complainant being registered owner is entitled to the compensation amount. In para No. 8 of the above cited case itself it has been laid down “unless the aforesaid procedure of transfer of vehicle is followed and complied, the transferee has no insurable interest.” Being so, Gurinder Singh, the alleged transferee has no insurable interest in this case, but complainant being registered owner has insurable interest. No material has been produced on record to establish that Gurinder Singh applied within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing to insurance company as per GR 17 Rule. Being so, evidence produced by opposite parties is not convincing that actually transfer of ownership had taken place as per norms of the insurance cover policy.
13. In case titled as Reliance Gen.Ins.Co. Ltd. versus Ajay Dharamaraj,IV(2012) CPJ 6, it was found that complainant never paid any amount to insurance company and nor ever hired or availed the services of the insurance company by payment of any premium and that is why he was found to be having no insurable interest.  However, in the case before us insurance premium as per insurance cover note Ex. R15 for the relevant period, covering the day of accident, was paid by complainant and that is why policy was issued in his name and as such, facts of the reported case are distinct than those of the facts before us. Rather, due to payment of premium by complainant, he has insurable interest.
14. In case titled as V. Mahaboob Basha & Another vs. National Ins.Co. Ltd., IV(2011) CPJ 193 (NC), it was found that first complainant sold vehicle to second complainant before date of accident and that is why first complainant not entitled to claim insurance amount because of cessation of ownership right. Second complainant in the reported case was held not entitled to claim insurance because the insurance policy had not been transferred in his name before accident. By applying the analogy of law laid down in this case, it has to be held that complainant being registered owner was having insurable interest because of issue of insurance policy Ex. R15 in his name, particularly when the transfer of that insurance in name of Gurinder Singh not alleged at all. 
15. In case of United India Ins.Co.Ltd. vs. V.C. Deenadayal and another, III (2009) CPJ 260 (NC), dishonesty of complainants for claiming no claim bonus was one of the circumstance taken into consideration for holding that real owner had no insurable interest.  That dishonesty of complainant in conjunction with Gurinder Singh neither alleged nor proved and as such, benefit of ratio of this case not available to the OP.
16. In case,  T. Prabakaran vs. ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co. Ltd., I(2012) CPJ 326, it was found by Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Redressal Commission that complainant had suppressed the fact of sale of vehicle before accident and that is why he was deprived of right to claim insurance benefits. In the reported case, it was found that transfer of the vehicle had already taken place before date of accident due to issue of notorised letters, the authenticity of which was not under challenge. That is not the position in the case before us because here authenticity of Ex.R6 is under challenge and statement of Gurinder Singh, the alleged purchaser has not been got recorded by O.Ps before this Forum. Evidence in the case before us do not at all prove convincingly, the transfer of vehicle from complainant to Gurinder Singh. In case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamal Tours and Travels, III(2011) CPJ 39 (NC), credible documentary evidence regarding sale of the vehicle was produced, but that is not the position before us and as such, benefit of ratio of this case not available to OPs. In case, transfer of insurance policy has not taken place  at instance of purchaser as per Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act read with GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff 2002, then the transferee cannot stake claim successfully qua insurance is ratio of case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ravinder Kumar, II(2010) CPJ 199 (Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). Transfer of the insurance policy in this case from complainant to Gurinder Singh not proved, but contents of Ex. R15 still establishes as if the complainant was the insured on the day of accident and as such, ratio of this case supports case of complainant. In case fraudulent transfer of vehicle takes place in the name of complainant after the accident, but the vehicle remains insured in the name of previous owner, then complainant not entitled to insurance claim as per law laid down in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nsadeem, II(2010) CPJ 238 (Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). Fraudulent transfer in name of complainant neither alleged and nor proved and as such, complainant being the registered owner has insurable interest. Credible evidence qua sale of the vehicle is essential for proving that complainant concerned has left no insurable interest on the day of accident is the proposition of law laid down in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Divya Prashad, I (2011) CPJ 22 (NC). That credible evidence not led before us.
17. In case of Ram Singh vs. Reliance Gen.Ins. Co. Ltd., II(2014) CPJ 99 (NC) , it was found that in accordance with Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, the factum of transfer was reported to the registering authority both by transferor or transferee in prescribed form No. 29 and 30 respectively and that is why claim of registered owner was held rightly repudiated. However, that is not the position in the case before us because transfer not shown to be reported to the registering authority and nor contemplated to be reported by complainant by putting signature on the prescribed form.  In the absence of this, it has to be held that convincing evidence is not at all adduced to show transfer of the vehicle in question from complainant to Gurinder Singh.
18. In case titled as Raj Kumar vs. United India Ins.Co. Ltd., 2000(1) CPJ 370, it was held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, that complainant had taken the insurance policy from insurance company by paying the premium  and as such, he is a consumer. In view of this also, complainant as per Ex. R15 is the insured and remained so even on the date of accident. Delay in settlement of the claim also to be taken into consideration, particularly when the repudiation of the claim is on flimsy grounds of no insurable interest of complainant.
19. As repudiation of claim is illegal and unjustified and as such, certainly complainant has suffered loss both mentally and physically as well as financially because the damaged car still lying parked in garage of opposite party No. 6, for which, he will have to pay some charges. Keeping in view all these circumstances in mind, somewhat hefty compensation needs be awarded in favour of complainant, particularly when OP1 and OP2 will take more time to reconsider the claim of the complainant, as is going to be ordered by us. As complainant had to pay to the engaged counsel and even bear expenses for filing the complaint and as such, Rs. 10,000/- needs be allowed as litigation expenses.
20. As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP1 and OP2 will reconsider the claim of complainant within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. Complainant, if dissatisfied with the fresh order of O.Ps No. 1 and 2, can file fresh complaint.  Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- allowed in favour of complainant and against opposite parties No. 1 and 2, whose liability adjudged as joint and several. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.

18.11.2015

 

                                ( Sat Paul Garg )                                ( G.K. Dhir )

                                      Member                                    President