Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/13/534

Bhag Silngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI Federal life ins.co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                 C.C.No: 534 of 25.07.2013

                                                                      Date of Decision:27/02/2015           

Bhag Singh son of Sh.Teja Singh, r/o 113, Railway Colony, Sherpur Kalan, District Ludhiana.

……Complainant

Versus 

1.IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd.Office: 1^st Floor, Trade view, Oasis Complex, Kamala City, P.B.Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 through its Managing Director/Director.

2.IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

3.Ms.Sandeep Kaur, Agent Code:1000002649, IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO NO.9-10-C, Tower Green Park Enclave Canal Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana -141010.

4.Mr.Kapil Ahuja, then Manager, IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd., at present SCO NO.9-10-C, Tower Green Park Enclave Canal Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana -141010.

                                                                                     …..Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:      Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                     Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                    Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.Rajeev Abhi,Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Ritesh Mohindra, Adv. for OP1 and OP2.

                   Sh.M.S.Sethi, Adv. for OP3 and OP4.

                          ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Bhag Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) against IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to discontinue/cancel the policy bearing No.4000302058 dated 31.03.2011 and refund the amount of Rs.12,03,060/- to the complainant alongwith interest and other benefits to the complainant under the policy in terms of IRDA guidelines and notification dated 1.7.2010 besides Rs.2 lakh as compensation and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that in the month of March, 2011, the Op3 and Op4 had come to the house of the complainant and induced him and his family members by saying that Op3 is the authorized agent of OP1 and OP2 and that this company is providing insurance policies and launched a new scheme known as “IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan”, and in case, the complainant invested the money in this scheme, he will be returned approximate double of the invested amount definitely after three years and the complainant will have to pay the premium only once and although, the policy will be matured after three years, but the complainant can withdraw the amount of the policy after completion of the two years and in that event, the complainant will receive the less amount than the double amount of the investment made under the said policy. It was also informed by the Op3 that in case, the complainant wanted refund of the amount immediately or if he would not be satisfied with the aforesaid plan, they could get the amount paid to the OP1 and OP2 with simple bank rate interest immediately on the same day. The OP3 also informed the complainant that Op4, who is the manager of OP1 and OP2 and husband of OP3.  The complainant and his family members came under the inducement of the Op3, who also took the complainant and his wife in the premises of OP2, where the office was earlier situated, where the OP4 also assured the complainant and his wife that OP3 is the authorized agent of company. The complainant and his wife handed over cheque of Rs.6 lakh to Op3 as first premium on 31.3.2011 in the presence of OP4 and OP3 and OP4 obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers/stamp papers as well as on various printed blank proformas without mentioning any particulars and assured that it will take some considerable time to complete the documentation and OP3 will fill the documents of her own. After some days, the complainant had approached OP3 and OP4 and demanded the documents, who had told that the documents still not received from Mumbai and whenever the same will be received, the complainant will be intimated. After 1 year of issuance of the policy in question in the month of April, 2012, on the repeated demands and requests of the complainant and his family members, all the documents of the abovesaid policy were provided to the complainant and when the complainant and his wife visited the office of OP2 to get the policy encashed which were obtained through OP3 and OP4 having been issued by OP1 and OP2, the complainant was informed that the same could be encahsed after the expiry of period of three years as there was a lock in period of three years and he could get the refund of his amount thereafter only. It was further told to the complainant by the officials of OP2 that he had to pay two more installments, if he wanted refund of his amount which was deposited otherwise the policy would lapse on account of non-payment of premium. It was further told that only surrender value after deducting certain charges which could run upto 60% of the total amount will be paid to the complainant. The complainant under compelling circumstances, deposited one more installment of premium of Rs.6,03,060/- on 26.4.2012 by borrowing from his relatives as he is an illiterate man and could not understand how to save his huge investment of Rs.6 lakh and as such, the complainant had paid to the OP1 and OP2, a sum of Rs.12,03,060/- being the amount of two premium installments. All the family members of the complainant are illiterate and after the receipt of the policy documents in the end of April, 2012, after making the payment of 2^nd premium installment, the complainant had shown to the policy documents to one of close friend, who informed the complainant that the complainant is required to pay the amount of premium of Rs.6 lakh for a long period of 20 years and the maturity amount is very meager against the payment of the premium which they had to pay. Then it came to the knowledge of the complainant that infact, the OP3 and OP4 did not get issued the policy under one time premium deposit scheme, rather they got issued an insurance policy in question, in which, the yearly premium is Rs.6 lakh and the total term of the policy is 20 years with sum insurance of Rs.94,62,250/- on payment of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Even in the proposal form, there is no clause of lock in period of 3 years. The complainant approached the officials of Ops and apprised them that he got the policy under one time premium deposit scheme and did not obtain the insurance policy under regular scheme i.e yearly premium deposit scheme and moreover, he is not in position to pay such huge amount of premium every year i.e. Rs.6 lakh for a period of 20 years, but the officials of Ops did not listen anything, rather forced the complainant to deposit the premium, otherwise, the policy would lapse. The complainant vide his letter dated 20.5.2013 had called the Ops to discontinue/cancel the said insurance policy and to refund and pay the proceeds of the discontinued/cancel policy immediately interms of guidelines and notification dated 1.7.2010 issued by IRDA titled, The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority(Treatment of Discontinuation Linked Insurance Policies Regulations), 2010 but the Ops failed to accede to the genuine requests of the complainant. Such act and conduct of Ops is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written replies.

4.                OP1 and OP2 filed their written reply through their counsel Sh.Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections and submissions that the complainant has two policies in his name and has also availed 6 other policies in the name of his wife and daughter from the answering Ops. The total sum assured value of the 8 policies is Rs.3,39,10,619/-. The total premium paid by the complainant and his family members is Rs.47,56,116/-. It is also submitted that these 8 policies were availed from the answering Ops in the period between 2010-2011. Further, it is submitted that the complainant and his wife and daughter have filed 6 different complaints before this Hon’ble Consumer Forum, Ludhiana bearing case NO.975 of 2012, Case No.534 of 2013, Case No.540 of 2013, Case No.61 of 2013, Case No.60 of 2013 and Case No.541 of 2013. It is submitted that out of these 6 cases, case No.975 of 2012 was dismissed by this Hon’ble Forum in favour of the answering OPs. From perusal of the instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made therein, are vague, baseless and with malafide intention. The complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer Dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, it is submitted that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the policy named “Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan” voluntarily filled up the proposal form bearing No.2082237135 and signed it on 31.3.2011 for sum assured of Rs.94,61,250/-. Under that said policy, an annual premium of Rs.6 lakh was to be paid annually for a period of 15 years. In the proposal form at page no.2, the complainant himself filled the sum Insured  as Rs.94,61,250/-, premium paying term as 15 years and policy term as 20 years and Model premium as Rs.6 lakh. The benefits of the policy have also been explained to the complainant through benefit illustration form. Upon receipt of Rs.6 lakh towards the initial premium alongwith the proposal form for the issuance of the policy, the answering Ops evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of information provided by the complainant and issued policy bearing No.4000302058 on 31.03.2011 to the complainant. Thereafter, the policy documents alongwith the schedule and the standard terms and conditions thereto and a Welcome letter were sent to the complainant which were duly delivered to him at the address of the complainant. It is submitted that despite receipt of the policies document containing welcome letter, terms and conditions of the policy and proposal form, the complainant did not raise any objection regarding terms of the policy, thus, a concluded life insurance policy came into existence and both insurer and insured is bound by the terms of the policy. Further, it is submitted that the policy can be discontinued before the term fixed in the policy only by way of surrender of the policy and clause 11 of the policy terms and conditions provided for the surrender of the policy. Further, it is submitted that the clause relating to grace period and lapse and paid up and reinstatement of the policy have been provided under clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the terms and conditions of the policy in question. Further, it is submitted that in the month of September, 2011, the answering Ops had received a request for change in contact details of the complainant and on the basis of such request, the answering Ops had updated the request and issued a letter dated 21.9.2011 to the complainant to that effect. It is submitted that the complainant after paying the premium upto 31.3.2012 did not make any further premiums due for 31.3.2013 and the policy lapsed as per the terms and conditions. It is submitted that the answering Ops had sent the renewal payment notice to the complainant on 1.3.2013 for paying the premium due on 31.3.2013, but the complainant did not pay the premium as a result of which, the policy got lapsed. It is submitted that the answering Ops thereafter sent lapse notice dated 1.5.2013 to the complainant informing him that the risk cover under the policy is not available from April 30,2013. Further, it is submitted that the complainant was also informed through the lapse notice that the policy can still be revived subject to fulfillment of necessary conditions, but the complainant did not pay any heed to it for the reason known to him. It is also submitted that as the contract of insurance is a contract of utmost goodfaith i.e. uberrima fide and as such, the answering Ops have performed their part of the contract by providing services and covering the risk of the life of the complainant from the date of commencement of the policy. On merits, it is denied that the complainant will have to pay the premium only once and although the policy will be matured after three years, but the complainant can withdraw the amount of policy after completion of two years and in that event, the complainant will receive the less amount than the double amount of the investment made under the said policy as alleged in the para. However, it is submitted that in the proposal form at page no.2, the complainant himself filled the sum insured as Rs.94,61,250/-, premium paying term as 15 years and the policy term as 20 years and model premium as Rs.6 lakh. Further, it is submitted that the answering Ops have followed all the IRDA rules and all products of answering Ops are duly approved by IRDA. Further, it is submitted that the guidelines and notification referred in by the complainant in the complaint dated 1.7.2010 issued by IRDA titled “Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority(Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010 is not applicable to the subject policy, which is a non-linked product. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service on their part and denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                OP3 and OP4 filed their separate written replies through their counsel Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant hired or availed no services for consideration from the answering Ops in its/their individual capacity, so the complainant is not a consumer of the answering Ops and the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Hon’ble Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the matter in dispute because in the present case, the complainant sought the relief for cancellation/discontinue the policy bearing No.4000302058 dated 31.3.2011. Discontinuation/cancellation of the policy amounting to Rs.94,61,250/- is sought alongwith refund of Rs.12,03,060/- with RS.2 lakh as compensation and total relief comes to Rs.1,08,64,310/-,whereas, Hon’ble Forum has the pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.20 lakh only as per provision of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The present complaint is time barred as said policy is dated 31.3.2011, whereas, the present complaint has been filed in 7/2013 and various complaints on this issues have also been decided by this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant has not lodged any kind of protest with the OP1 and OP2 or with answering OPs after purchase of disputed policies and after receiving the policies within reasonable period of 15 days rather paid regular premiums so after the gap period of one year or more filing of present complaint is nothing but amounts to abuse of law and provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as said policy is dated 31.3.2011, whereas, present complaint has been filed in 7/2013. Further, it is established on record that the complainant signed the proposal form after reading and verifying all the contents of proposal form with term and condition as well as later on receiving policy alongwith covering letter dated 31.3.2011 as relied upon by the complainant also in which specifically disclosing that in case, the complainant is not satisfied with the IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment & Money Back Plan, the OP1 and Op2 offer the option of cancelling the policy within the free lock period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the document but the complainant instead of cancelling the policy opted to pay the installments and also availed and enjoyed the life insurance coverage and risk for the previous period. So, no misrepresentation was made by the answering Ops and furthermore, the complainant has sought the relief for discontinue/cancel the policy which is to be decided by Op1 and OP2 as policy in question was issued by OP1 and OP2 and as such, answering Ops are not a necessary and proper party in the present complaint. The complainant alleged in its complaint that present case is covered under the notification dated 1.7.2010, then it is based on Unit Linked Policy, then this Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to look into the matter in this case of Unit Linked Policy as the matter has been settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in case “Ram Lal Aggarwalla vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Ins.Co.& others. So, no cause of action has been arisen to the complainant against the answering Ops. On merits, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service on their part and denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12.

7.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP1 and Op2 adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RW1 of Sh.Sony George, its Assistant Vice President-Legal, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the Op1 and OP2 and rebutted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Op1 and OP2 has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

8.                Similarly, learned counsel for the OP3 and Op4 adduced evidence by placing on record affidavits Ex.RW2 of Sh.Mandeep Kaur and Ex.RW3 of Sh.Kapil  Ahuja, in which, they have reiterated all the contents of the written replies filed by the Op3 and OP4 and rebutted the case of the complainant.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant and further, it has been submitted under the head “Points of Arguments” that incomplete copies of the insurance policy has been supplied by the Ops to the complainant. Wrong policy has been sold/sent to the complainant and as such, the contract of insurance is not binding upon the complainant. The terms contained in the proposal form and standard terms and conditions of the insurance policy are never explained, read over and communicated to the complainant. The terms and conditions printed in the policy are not readable and that there is no question of explaining or communicating the same to the complainant by officials of Ops and OP3 and OP4 and the agent OP3 and officials of Ops have never read over and explained the terms and conditions printed on the policy. The standard terms and conditions of the insurance policy was never the part of the proposal form which was not filled by the complainant and even the contents of the same were not readover and explained to the complainant. The address in the proposal form is that of OP3 and OP4 and not of the complainant and as such, the policies were received by OP3 and OP4 and not by the complainant. The OP3 and OP4 had not supplied the copy of insurance policy as detailed in the complaint and as such, free lock in period clause is not applicable to the complainant. There is no occasion to pay the premium after first year in case of wrong policy. However, after undue pressure and threat of discontinuation of policy and forfeiture of premium of Rs.6 lakh, the complainant has paid the second premium. The complainant had never requested in the month of September, 2011 to change the contact details and no proof of annexure OP4 has been produced on the record. No notice for the revival premium and lapse policy has been sent by the OPs which they were bound under the law. The Ops neither informed the complainant regarding the lapse of policy nor any notice u/s 50 of the Insurance Act is given and paid up value of the policy was not paid to the complainant as required u/s 50 of the Insurance Act. The option of free look period is not applicable as the same has never been explained, readover and communicated to the complainant. The Ops are bound to send the account statement year wise. No statement of account from March, 2011 to upto date has ever been sent to the complainant till date. Even no statement of account year wise has been placed on record showing the sending of the statement of account. The present case pertains to the discontinuation of payment of the premium and as such, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority(Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies)Regulations, 2010 is applicable as the complainant had obtained the policy after the enforcement of the said notification on 31.3.2011 i.e. date of commencement of the policy and had applied for the refund of the surrender value after the enforcement of the notification dated 1.7.2010 vide letter dated 20.5.2013. The policy is never terminated as alleged. The present policy is a composite policy covering the risk of life as admitted by the OP1 to OP4 in their written statement as well as in the policy and is also a unit linked policy and as such, this Hon’ble forum has the jurisdiction. The complaint deserves acceptance alongwith costs and interest and damages as prayed for in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has made reference of all the documents produced by the complainant in his evidence and further relied upon judgments titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Chitanaya Dass and another-I(2013)CPJ-492(N.C.); Rajinder Singh vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co.Ltd.-III(2013)CPJ-126(Punjab State Commission); Sukhwinder Singh and others vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company-first Appeal No.1006 to 1012 of 2011 dated 7.6.2013(State Commission); Bhartendu Sood vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.-III(2012)CPJ-2(U.T.State Commission) and Sicily Thomas vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd-I(2013)CPJ-94(Kerala State Commission).

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op1 and OP2 has contended that the complainant had purchased the policy in question after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the policy named “IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan” voluntarily filled up the proposal form bearing No.208237135 and signed it on 31.3.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.94,61,250/- and further, the same was duly signed by him. The complainant was duly explained the terms and conditions of the policy and period as well as premium which was to be paid by the complainant. Further, it has been contended that the complainant did not exercise his option to cancel or surrender the policy in question within the free look period of 15 days and even deposited the second premium after feeling satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy in question. Now, the complainant cannot take the plea that he is not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy in question as well as termed of the policy. The complainant has not surrendered the policy in question till date, nor he has got the same cancelled. The policy in question has already lapsed after serving due notices to the complainant.

12.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP3 and OP4 has contended that OP3 has only acted as agent of insurance company who had explained all the terms and conditions of the policy in question while fulfilling the proposal form by the complainant and the complainant after understanding the same to be correct, put his signatures on the proposal form and made request to issue the policy after depositing the premium of the policy. Further, it has been contended that OP4 was only the then Manager of the insurance company and who has no more in the service. Policy in question was issued to the complainant on the basis of the proposal form filled by the complainant after understanding the contents of the proposal form and the terms and conditions of the policy in question and thereafter, the policy in question was duly issued to the complainant by the insurance company. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP3 and OP4.

13.              We have gone through the written arguments alongwith judgments filed by learned counsel for the complainant and have also considered the rival contention of learned counsels for the OP1 to OP4 and have also gone through the documents and file very carefully.

14.              Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased the policy in question after filling up the proposal form and paid the premium of Rs.6 lakh as first premium on 31.3.2011 and thereafter, policy in question was issued. Further, it is an undisputed fact that second premium of Rs.6,03,060/- was paid by the complainant on 26.4.2012 and thus, total a sum of Rs.12,03,060/- being the amount of two premium installments was paid by the complainant to the Op1 and OP2.

15.              As per the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was asked by the OP3 and OP4 that it is one time insurance policy and the complainant will be getting the double of the amount of the premium after one year. However, under compelling circumstances, he had deposited one more installment of premium on 26.4.2012 and in this way, total amount paid to the tune of Rs.12,03,060/-. But later on, the complainant came to know that he is required to pay the amount of premium of Rs.6 lakh for a long period of 20 years and thus, Ops have adopted unfair trade practice by mis-representing the complainant about the terms and conditions of the policy in question as well as the period of commencement of the same which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and further, the complainant has sought the refund of amount of premium as per guidelines and notification dated 1.7.2010 of IRDA.

16.              On the other hand, there is specific plea of the learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 that the proposal form was duly filled up by the complainant himself and he had deposited the amount of premiums at his own. The free look period was 15 days which was provided to the complainant from the date of receipt of the policy by the complainant but despite of surrender of the policy or getting the same cancelled, the complainant himself deposited second premium and never made any request for cancellation of the policy well within the period of free look. Rather, there was a lapse on the part of the complainant to continue with the policy in question by depositing the premium further, as a result of which, after serving a notice of lapse upon the complainant, the policy was ultimately lapsed and now the complainant is not entitled for refund of any premium.

17.              From the evidence of the parties, it is apparently clear that the complainant had deposited the second premium with the OP1 and OP2 at his own and did not opt to get the policy cancelled or surrendered within the free look period, as result of which, due to non-payment of the premium, the policy in question was lapsed by the OP1 and OP2. Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has not placed on record any letter of request filed with OP1 and Op2 to surrender the policy or to get the same cancelled if he does not want to continue with the said policy. Since, it is a proved fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the composite insurance policy in question from OP1 and OP2. However, the notification dated 1.7.2010 is applicable only to the Unit Linked Policy. As such, the complainant cannot take benefit of this notification. However, there is no bar under any law that the complainant cannot approach the OP1 and OP2 to get the policy cancelled or surrendered the same in order to get the surrender value of the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

18.              So, it will be in the fitness of things that if the present complaint is partly allowed by giving necessary direction to the complainant to submit the requisite documents alongwith application form on the prescribed proforma qua the surrender of the policy/cancellation of the policy to the Op1 and OP2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter, necessary directions are given to Op1 and OP2 to consider the request of the complainant and to settle and pay the surrender value of the insurance policy to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in accordance with the latest law.

19.              Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against OP1 and OP2 only with the directions to the complainant to submit the requisite documents alongwith application form duly filled on the prescribed proforma qua the surrender of the policy/cancellation of the policy to the Op1 and OP2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter, Op1 and OP2 are directed to consider the request of the complainant and to settle and pay the surrender value of the insurance policy to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in accordance with latest law within 30 days from the date of receipt of aforesaid documents from the complainant, failing which, Op1 and OP2 are liable to pay interest @9% p.a.  from the date of submitting the request for surrender of the policy/cancellation of the policy till its realization. Further, Op1 and OP2 are burdened with litigation costs of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to compensation is passed. Order qua litigation costs be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

  (Babita)              (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

             Member                 Member                     President.  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:27.02.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.