DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 41 of 08-02-2007<br /> Decided on : 22-05-2007<br /> <br /> Jagdev Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh R/o Village Teona Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Indco Hightech Agro Rural Development of Women Welfare Society, 82 Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.<br /> 2. Indco Hightech Agro Rural Development of Women Welfare Society, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Model Town First Floor on SBOP Hightech Branch, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Head/Incharge. <br /> 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Indica Hightech Agro, Kamla Park, Sangrur.<br /> 4. State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Bank, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Bansi Lal, Advocte, for opposite parties No. 1 & 2. <br /> Sh. V K Garg,Advocate for opposite party No. 3. <br /> Sh. S M Goyal, Advocate, for opposite party No. 4.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to release new Stevia plants to him; honour his claim; give subsidy to him to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- as assured; pay compensation to him to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- jointly and severally i.e. Rs. 5.00 Lacs being the loss in income and Rs. 10.00 Lacs for mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation undergone by him, besides Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :<br /> 3. Complainant is an agriculturist and has land in the revenue limits of village Teona, Tehsil and District Bathinda. He is doing mechanized farming. Opposite party No. 1 through its pamphlet “Kissan Lai Khushkhabri” “Stevia Di Khati” made tall claims and assured income of Rs. 5,59,.000/- per acre in three years by way of sowing Stevia. Representation in the pamphlet was also made that the Stevia is Non Toxic with Anti Viral, Anti Fungal, Anti Bacterial, Hypoglycemic, Anti Hypertensive, Vasodilator Properties and Rich sources of Carotene, Aluminum, Calcium Prevents Tooth Decay, Strengthens Gums, Anti Wrinkle & Anti Ageing, Properties Avoids Constipation, Prevents Obesity, Cures Cancer, regulates Blood Pressure, Skin care, Flavour, Enchancer, Regular use Finishes Diabetes, Iron, Magnesium, Ascorbic Acids and other physiochemicals. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 also approached him and assured good return from the cultivation of Stevia. On the basis of assurance given to him, he entered into tripartite agreement dated 25.11.2005 with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and opposite party No. 4. Opposite party No. 1 further allured him by saying that he would be provided subsidy of Rs. 70,000/- by opposite party No. 4 and crop to be sown by him would be got insured with opposite party No. 3. At the instance of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 he had purchased Stevia plants worth Rs. 6,81,000/- and other articles vide receipts No. 526 dated 26.11.05 and 527 dated 10.12.05 for Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,81,000/- respectively. Plants were sown in three acres of land and had grown up under the active guidance and supervision of Dr. Karamjit Singh who is expert person of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. He was paying regular visits from time to time to his land where crop of Stevia was sown strictly in accordance with the instructions of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. In the month of March, 2006 crop was harvested and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in his account. Thereafter no crop was harvested nor any amount was paid to him by the opposite parties. Crop was duly got insured by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with opposite party No. 3 vide Certified No. 051883 dated 01.11.05. Plants had withered away as they were of inferior quality. Claim made by the opposite parties turned false. He alleges that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He approached opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on 23.9.06 with the request to do the needful in the matter. Sh. Bhupinder Kumar an agent of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and Dr. Karamjit visited the spot on 23.9.06. Dr. Karamjit who is an expert opined that 85% of the crop had been damaged. Direction was given to him (complainant) to plough the crop. He was also directed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to plough the field as per the advice of Dr. Karamjit Singh. Assurance was given that crop was fully insured with opposite party No. 3. They further represented that they would provide new plants to him for sowing them afresh. Accordingly he ploughed the field and prepared the land for sowing the plants afresh. He waited for the new plants. Opposite parties failed to provide them despite his repeated requests and demands. Opposite party No. 3 which is the insurance company was requested to indemnify the loss undergone by him, but to no effect. Ultimately, he got served registered A.D. Post legal notice upon opposite parties No. 1 to 3 on 24.10.06. Opposite parties refused to receive the envelopes and managed to get them returned. At the time of entering into tripartite agreement, he was assured that subsidy of Rs. 70,000/- would be provided out of the total loan amount which has not been provided. To the contrary, opposite party No. 4 is threatening him to deposit the entire loan amount in lump-sum which is against the terms and conditions of tripartite agreement. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in discharge of their partial lawful existing liability to pay the amount of damages, issued a cheque No. 484984 dated 22.11.06 for Rs. 50,000/- in his favour from their A./c No. 65006669766 maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Ludhiana. Assurance was given that cheque would be honoured as and when the same is presented for encashment. Accordingly cheque was accepted and presented for encashment with State Bank of India, Bathinda. His banker had sent the same to the banker of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 at Ludhiana for clearance. It was returned by the banker of the opposite parties alongwith cheque returning memo dated 11.12.06 with the remarks “Not arranged for”. His banker returned the original dishonoured cheque to him. This reveals the malafide intention of the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 4. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause and action and locus standi to file the complaint and he has concealed true facts from this forum. On merits their version is that they are non-governmental organisation working for the benefit of farmers and women on the basis of no profit no loss. They are encouraging the farmers to come out from the crops circle of paddy and wheat so that their miserable status can be improved as they are getting nothing by sowing paddy and wheat. They are encouraging the farmers to adopt medicinal plants so that their income may increase and the fertility of their land would remain intact. They admit that complainant was told that he could earn more by proper cultivation of Stevia. This information was provided on the basis of NABARD Scheme regarding cultivation of Stevia. Pamphlets are based on NABARD Scheme. Infact complainant had approached and told them that he wanted to come out of the crop circle by way of sowing Stevia plants. Information regarding Stevia cultivation was provided. They had entered into tripartite agreement with the complainant and opposite party No. 4 on 25.11.05. They deny that they had allured him that he would get subsidy of Rs. 70,000/-. Subsidy is provided by Central Government to the farmers who grow medicinal plants. It is given by the Government to the bank from which the loan is obtained by the farmers. It is deducted from the loan amount and it is provided only after repayment of the installments of loan. They admit that crop of the complainant was got insured with opposite party No. 3. complainant had purchased Stevia plants of his own accord but the same were not worth Rs. 6,81,000/-. Guidance was given to the complainant for cultivation of the plants as they were to buyback the crop as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Loan was sanctioned by opposite party No. 4 to the complainant. Only two crops were sold by the complainant to them and the payment was duly paid by them to complainant and opposite party No. 4. At the time of sowing the Stevia plants and at the time of inspection by Dr. Karamjit Singh, plants were perfectly alright and their development was more than satisfactory. They deny that plant had withered away as they were of inferior quality. Their allegation is that complainant with malafide intention and to get wrongful gain did not sell his next crop. Instead he sold it in the open market. He had started to sell Stevia plants on higher rates to other farmers. No damage was ever done to his crop due to inferior quality. Plants were prepared by tissue culture by approved laboratory at Pune. Complainant with malafide intention started to claim that his crop has been damaged. When they asked him to get his field inspected from expert, he started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. In the end, they were told by him that he has ploughed the field. Their plea is that field was ploughed by him of his own. Now he wants to take benefit of his own wrong. They deny that they have committed fraud with the complainant in collusion with opposite parties No.3 & 4. Cheque was given by them on account of payment of the crop. It was not honoured as he had failed to sell the next crop to them. Despite this, payment of amount of cheque has been made to him on 25.1.07 vide draft No. 955318. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply of the complaint stating that complaint is false and frivolous. Complicated and complex question of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided by this forum in summary procedure. Complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. Complainant is not entitled to claim anything more than the amount payable i.e. Rs. 7,381/- per unit (i.e. against the policy limit of Rs. 1.00 Lac). It has been calculated strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy. As per certificate of insurance No. 051883, complainant himself got insurance of 3 units of Rs. 1.00 lac each from it. This insurance is Weather Insurance. In this case Weather covered was Temperature. Policy duration was 365 days from 1.6.05 to 31.5.06. Claim was to be calculated strictly as per terms and conditions of the certificate of insurance and Termsheet for Weather Index Insurance which were duly supplied and communicated to the complainant. Claims were to be calculated on the basis of data of Temperature to be collected by Indian Meteorological Department ( IMD). Since it was a case of Weather Insurance, actual profit or loss from the crop sown or produced is not to be seen. Notice served was not legal and valid. It is not a party to any tripartite agreement In the present case, claim was payable only in case of likelihood of diminished agriculture output/yield resulting from a deviation in the anticipated normal weather index within the specified geographical location and specified time period subject to maximum of sum insured. It is not liable to make any payment in connection or in respect of any expenses whatsoever incurred by any insured in connection with or in respect of any loss howsoever caused. As per this calculation data has been taken of the weather stations Amaritsar, Hissar and Delhi and the average of data of weather i.e. Temperature of these three stations was the basis of calculation as there is no authentic data of temperature available for Sangrur and Bathinda weather stations. In the present case, they observed Index 51 and 295 for CDD and HDD. Therefore for CDD the claim payable as calculated is as under :-<br /> “51-40 i.e. 11 index points at the rate of 667 i.e. Rs. 7,381/- approximately.<br /> For HDD since observed Index was 295 i.e. lesser than 320, no claim is payable for HDD. Therefore, over all Rs. 7,381/- per unit is payable to the complainant. Temperature requirement for Stevia is anything between 10 degree Celsius. to 42 degree Celsius.”<br /> They refute the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 6. On being put to notice, opposite party No. 4 filed reply taking legal objections that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to the file the complaint; complaint is not maintainable in the present from and it had not agreed to pay the amount of subsidy. Subsidy amount, if payable, was payable by government and opposite parties No. 1 to 3; complainant has not come with clean hands; complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and mis joinder of parties; complaint against it is false and frivolous; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; allegation of fraud and cheating cannot be determined by this forum and intricate question of law and facts are involved for which oral and documentary evidence is required which can only be taken by civil court. Tripartite agreement does not bear signature of any of its officials. It has been wrongly impleaded as party. Crop loan was given by it to the complainant which he had agreed to repay in half yearly installments. No assurance was given by it to the complainant nor plants were supplied or provided by it. Complainant has become defaulter by not paying the loan amount as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement which it is legally entitled to recover in lump-sum through process of law. It denies deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Similarly, it denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 7. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopies of pamphlets (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), photocopy of certificate of insurance (Ex. C-5), photocopy of bill dated 28.12.05 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of payment receipts (Ex. C-7 & C-8), photocopy of legal notice dated 20.11.06 (Ex. C-9) and photocopy of Agreement (Ex. C-10).<br /> 8. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. K C Bansal (Ex. R-1), affidavit of Sh. Karamjit Singh (Ex. R-2), photocopy of DD (Ex. R-3), photocopy of tripartite agreement (Ex. R-4) and on behalf of opposite party No. 3 affidavit of Sh. Sat Parkash Area Head (Ex. R-7), photocopy of product explanation (Ex. R-8), photocopy of certificate of insurance (Ex. R-9), photocopy of term sheet (Ex. R-10), photocopy of calculation sheet (Ex. R-11), photocopies of letters and data of Temperature from IMD (Ex. R-12 to Ex. R-30) and on behalf of opposite party No. 4 affidavit of Sh. G.S. Guliani, Branch Manager (Ex. R-5) and copy of account statement (Ex. R-6) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 10. Mr. Sidhu learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that opposite party No. 1 through pamphlets, copies of which are Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4 made tall claims assuring income of Rs. 5,59,000/- per acre in three years from Stevia crop. Complainant had entered into Tripartite Agreement dated 25.11.05 with opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 and copy of the same is Ex. C-10. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 had assured that he would be provided with subsidy of Rs. 70,000/- by opposite party No. 4 and further crop to be sown would be got insured with opposite party No. 3. Accordingly crop was insured by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with opposite party No. 3 and copy of the insurance is Ex. C-5. Complainant purchased Stevia plants and other equipments etc., and a sum of Rs. 6,81,000/- was paid by complainant to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide receipts copies of which are Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8. Plants were sown and had grown up in an area of of 3 acres of land under the supervision of Dr. Karamjit Singh who is expert of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Only one crop was harvested. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in the account of the complainant with opposite party No. 4 from which loan was taken by the complainant. Thereafter plants had withered away being of inferior quality and complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 5.00 Lacs. Nothing was done by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in the matter. Bhupinder Kumar of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and Dr. Karamjeet Singh had visited the spot for inspection. Dr. Karamjit Singh who is technical expert opined that there was 85% damage to the crop. He had directed complainant to plough the field as crop was fully insured with opposite party No. 3 and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 would provide new plants. He further argued that field was ploughed by the complainant. New plants have not been supplied by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Opposite party No. 3 has not indemnified the loss. Subsidy amount has not been given. In this manner, opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally deficient in providing service and that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.<br /> 11. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 countered the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that mere allegation of the complainant that plants were of inferior quality is of no consequence particularly when there is no evidence to establish it. No deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 stands proved.<br /> 12. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 argued that if any amount is payable by opposite party No. 3 to the complainant on the basis of Weather Index Insurance, the same is payable @ Rs.7381/- per unit of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 22,143/- in all of 3 units of the complainant.<br /> 13. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 14. At first we deem it fit to determine the question as to whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4. Burden of proving deficiency in service is upon the complainant as has been held by their Lordhsips of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another 2000(1) CLT page 33 (SC). Alleged Tripartite agreement, copy of which is Ex. C-10 infact is not tripartite agreement as it has not been signed by any competent authority on behalf of opposite party No. 4. Virtually it is an agreement between the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Complainant had purchased Stevia plants from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. This fact has been admitted by them in reply of the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. K C Bansal. Allegation of the complainant is that plants were of inferior quality and that one crop was harvested and that thereafter they had withered away and that on the advice of Dr. Karamjit Singh, technical expert that there was damage to the crop to the extent of 85%, field was ploughed and new plants were not given and that subsidy was not provided. Complainant did not get the crop inspected from any agriculture expert to show that Stevia plants supplied by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were of inferior quality. He could move application to the Chief Agriculture Officer to this effect, but he did not do so. From this adverse inference is drawn against him that plants were not of inferior quality. His story that Dr. Karamjit Singh advised him to plough the field and that accordingly he ploughed the field in which there were Stevia plants stands belied with the affidavit Ex. R-2 of Dr. Karamjit Singh.. He is diploma holder in Aromatic Plants and Medicinal Plants. He has 12 years experience in the field of agriculture especially in the field of organic farming. He helps the farmers and guides them. He has stated in Ex. R-2 that he had inspected the field of the complainant at the time of sowing medicinal plants and growth of the plants were perfectly alright. Their development was more than satisfactory. It is further in his affidavit that he never inspected the field as alleged by the complainant nor did he tell him to plough the field by saying that crop had been damaged due to the inferior quality of the plants. According to him plants supplied by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were of best quality prepared from tissue culture. Affidavit Ex. R-1 also supports the stance of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in the reply of the complaint. Moreover, complainant himself has admitted in the complaint that one crop was harvested and that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in his account with the bank by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Not to speak of this, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 gave draft dated 25.1.07 of Rs. 50,000/- and amount has been credited in the account of the complainant with opposite party No. 4. In this manner amount regarding crops of the complainant was deposited by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 twice with opposite party No. 4 in the account of the complainant. So far as subsidy is concerned, it was to be given by Government to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- as is evident from Ex. C-4. Government is not a party to the complaint. Hence subsidy was not to be given by the opposite parties. There is no record to show that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 agreed to provide new plants to him for sowing them afresh. Complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong. On the one hand he ploughed the field and on the other he is claiming that opposite parties should provide new plants. Since crop was harvested, it does not appeal to reason that Stevia plants were of inferior quality. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is not proved.<br /> 15. So far as opposite party No. 4 is concerned, there is no deficiency in service on its part. It provided loan to the complainant which is repayable by him. There is no privity of contract between it and the complainant for payment of subsidy. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were to supply the inputs and the Stevia plants. Opposite party No. 4 is not a party to the agreement, copy of which is Ex. R-4. Amount of produce of the complainant purchased by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 was deposited with opposite party No. 4 towards loan amount and it has been credited in his account as is obvious from Ex. R-6. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 4 towards the complainant.<br /> 16. So far as opposite party No. 3 is concerned, it had issued Weather Index Insurance with respect to temperature, copies of which are Ex. C-5 and Ex. R-9, for 3 units of Rs. 1.00 Lac each i.e. maximum upper limit of sum insured was Rs. 3.00 Lacs. Tripartite agreement as per the complainant was amongst opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and opposite party No. 4. Complainant got the loan from opposite party No. 4 for purchase of plants and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 agreed to purchase the produce from the complainant. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 agreed to pay the sale price of produce against loan amount. In the case of weather insurance, claims were to be calculated on the basis of deviation from a standard weather as per actual weather for which data was to be collected from Indian Meteorological department. Actual profit or loss in the crop was not to be seen and claims were to be determined strictly on the basis of standard data of weather (temperature) collected from IMD as per formula given in Term Sheet Ex. R-10. On the back of Ex. R-9 there is Exclusions Clause according to which opposite party No. 3 is not liable to make any payment under the policy in connection with any expenses whatsoever incurred by any insured in connection with or in respect of any loss howsoever caused other than on account of a deviation in the anticipated normal weather within a specific geographical location and specified time period even if such loss results in diminished agricultural output/yield. Insurance Policy is to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning can be given to the words given in it as has been held by their Lordhsips of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2005(1) CLT 215. In this case data of temperature was collected from IMD by opposite party No. 3 for the period from 1.6.05 to 31.5.06 as is clear from Ex. R-12 to Ex. R-30. On their basis claim has been calculated as is clear from Ex. R-11 strictly as per formula given in Term Sheet Brochure, copy of which is Ex. R-10. According to it a sum of Rs. 7381/- per unit of Rs. 1.00 Lac is payable to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us that this calculation made by opposite party No. 3 is not correct. Complainant has purchased insurance of 3 units of Rs. 1.00 Lac each vide Ex. C-5/Ex.R-9. Accordingly, opposite party No. 3 is liable to pay Rs. 22,143/- and nothing more as he (complainant) is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. Opposite party No. 3 is not liable to pay subsidy, alleged loss in income and the amount allegedly incurred towards expenses. Complainant approached opposite party No. 3 for indemnifying the loss, but it paid no heed. Even notice copy of which is Ex. C-9 was served by the complainant upon opposite party No. 3 as well. Despite this, due amount has not been paid. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3 as it failed to pay the amount as per terms and conditions of the certificate of insurance.<br /> 17. Now the question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant in the given situation. Direction deserves to be given to opposite party No. 3 to pay Rs. 22,143/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 21.2.07 ((The date calculated on expiry of three months period from 20-11-06 when notice as per Ex. C-9 was issued by the complainant to opposite party No. 3, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course) till realisation. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment. In our view, there is no case to allow it in the face of the relief going to be accorded as above, particularly in view of the authority in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur (Minor) and others 2002(2) CLT 646, wherein Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab held that interest is not granted within the contract between the insured and insurer, but within the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act on deficiency in rendering service being established for compensating the complainant.<br /> 18. No other point was urged before us at the time of argument.<br /> 19. In the result, complaint against opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 is dismissed. It is accepted against opposite party No. 3 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite party No. 3 is directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay Rs. 22,143/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 21.2.07 till payment.<br /> Compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 22-05-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member