Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainants have  brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainants applied for car loan of Rs.9.80 lacs from Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly submitted all the necessary documents to Opposite Party No.2 as per their demand, but lateron Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that their income tax return is less and they must have to take two FDR worth Rs.1 lac each and only then, the loan can be sanctioned. The complainants bonafide believed the version of Opposite Party No.1 and they trapped the complainants into his sweet words and got signatures of the complainants on blank papers for said FDR purpose and complainants bonafide signed the said blank papers.  Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.2 passed the loan of the complainants to the tune of Rs.9,80,000/- having loan account No.NG00002202 and on the passing of said loan, the complainants purchased a Verna CRDi SX (o) from Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.10,79,419/-. Thereafter, the complainant had been making the payment of regular installments in time to the Opposite Party No.2.  As per the said account ledger statement/ inquiry if the paid installments amount is calculated, the complainants made payment more than Rs.2.26 lacs to Opposite Party No.2, but unfortunately the Opposite Party No.1 since had been suffering from acute diabetic, blood pressure and heart problem, his health became deteriorated  and he started getting treatments from hospitals which treatments were very expensive and as such the complainant No.2 approached the Opposite Party No.2 and went to the office of manager i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and told him that her husband i.e. complainant No.1 is suffering from acute diabetic,  blood pressure and heart problem,  his health became deteriorated and explained all the situation to the Manager that her husband take esoprine. The complainants informed Opposite Party No.1 that the complainants wanted to clear the car loan and then Opposite Party No.1 took signatures of the complainants on the alleged policies and on blank pages and kept the papers and policies  with him while on the other hand, the complainants took FDRs, as per the submission given above, but Opposite Party No.1 of its own converted the same into the policies which act of the Opposite Party No.1 also amounts to deficiency in service. Lateron in order to clear the loan, said alleged policies were sent for assignment and were kept in the bank custody after taking signatures of the complainants. Thereafter, the complainants were informed telephonically that their policies have been assigned and as such, the complainants can come and clear their loan. Opposite Party No.3 in this regard also sent a letter to the complainants each dated 14.8.2013 and as per the said letter, it was  written that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 can adjust the policies in the manner, they may like.  On 11.9.2013 the complainant write letter dated 11.9.2013 to the Manger of the bank vide which they requested the said authority to adjust the amount of their policies against their loan account. Thereafter on the basis of said application, Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that their loan account No.is NG00002202 and Rs.2 lacs of the policies should be deposited in their said account. It may not be out of place to mention over here that after three days of the said request, a lady employee of the office of Manager dealing with the insurance company called the complainant No.1 telephonically and asked him to reach to the bank premises and accordingly, the complainant  No.1 reached  the premises and thereafter said  lady employee  started threatening and abusing the complainant No.1. She threatened that the polices of the complainants will not be returned or assigned because they will get commission of Rs.25000/- on it and it also spoils the bank record. She also threatened the complainant No.1 to drag him in the court in false cases as she can copy the signatures of complainants anywhere. The complainants requested the bank with folded hands that they are ready to pay car loan with interest and their polices of Rs.2 lacs should be adjusted in car loan. The delay if any stood caused due to the attitude of the bank manager for not  adjusting their policies in car loan. Subsequently, the complainants  surrender the car vide letter dated 13.6.2014 written by complainant No.1 to the Chief Manager on  the plea that the complainant No.1 is very sick and his financial position has gone from bad t worse and he can not pay installments of the car as the bank is kept on increasing time limit so that they can charge more interest for  higher profits and thus surrendered the car to the bank. At the time of receiving the car al the interior, machinery, glasses, things were present there and were in OK position and at that time no endorsement stood made in the presence of complainants but subsequently with malafide intention the Opposite Parties in connivance with each other made endorsement to the effect that  received without side glasses, stereo, extra wheels, fog ramps etc. which act of the Opposite Parties is also illegal and unwarranted and is based on malafide and dishonest intention as from the perusal of said alleged endorsement, it can clearly be established that same did not sign by any of the complainants. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties sold the Verna Car of the complainants, but  did not adjust the policies amount and the installments already paid by the complainants to Opposite Party No.2 which is more than rs.2.26 lacs as per details already given  and also did not inform the complainants that at which rate they have sold the car of the complainants but issued clearance certificate of loan dated 13.6.2014. it seems that the Opposite Parties have committed clear cut fraud with the complainants for which the complainants reserves their right to prosecute the Opposite Parties in accordance with the criminal law and there is no bar to the complainants in this regard.  Now the Opposite Party No.2 has issued a false, illegal and invalid legal notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act dated 5.11.2014 on the plea that the complainant No.1 had taken car loan alongwith  complainant No.2  and lieu of said debt and liability they  have issued a cheque of Rs.5,25,000/-  dated 14.10.2014 which fact is totally false, frivolous and baseless. Said cheque was issued towards security and not towards any liability and since the loan has already been cleared and a clearance certificate dated 13.6.2014 has already been issued by Opposite Party No.2 and as such said  alleged legal notice dated 5.11.2014 has got no legal value in the eyes of law, but the same has been issued to cause further harassment to the complainants. The aforesaid act on the part of the Opposite Parties also clearly amounts to committing gross negligence and utter deficiency in providing  services firstly by converting the FDRs into policies and secondly by grabbing the policies amount of the complainants and secondly by not disclosing the complainants that at which rate they have sold the car of the complainant, etc. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties be directed to disclose that at which rate they have sold the Verna car  of the complainants and whether they have adjusted the policies amount in the car loan or not.

b)      Opposite Parties be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainants from the hands of the Opposite Parties.

c)       The costs of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.5500/- and any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted in his favour. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, initially opposite parties No.1 ,2 & 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the instant complaint is unwarranted, illegal and against the settled principle of law and is liable to be dismissed. The replying Opposite Parties are innocent and have not committed any act of deficiency of services towards the complainants and as such this complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Parties. Various material facts have been concealed and distorted version of the facts have been deliberately presented in or to pressurise and harassment the replying Opposite Parties; that the complaint is false and frivolous and the complainants are trying to take advantage of their own wrongs. On merits, it was averred  that admittedly the complainants have applied for car loan of Rs.9.80 lacs and submitted all the necessary documents. It is denied that  lateron Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that their income tax return is less and they must have to take two FDR worth Rs.1 lac each and only then, the loan can be sanctioned. It is also wrong that the complainants bonafide believed the version of Opposite Party No.1 and they trapped the complainants into his sweet words and got signatures of the complainants on blank papers for said FDR purpose and complainants bonafide signed the said blank papers.  It is matter of record that  Opposite Party No.2 passed the loan of the complainants to the tune of Rs.9,80,000/- having loan account No.NG00002202 and on the passing of said loan, the complainants purchased a Verna CRDi SX (o) from Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.10,79,419/-. It is wrong that thereafter, the complainant had been making the payment of regular installments in time to the Opposite Party No.2.  It is wrong that as per the said account ledger statement/ inquiry if the paid installments amount is calculated, the complainants made payment more than Rs.2.26 lacs to Opposite Party No.2.  It is wrong that complainant is   suffering from acute diabetic, blood pressure and heart problem, his health became deteriorated  and he started getting treatments from hospitals which treatments were very expensive and as such the complainant No.2 approached the Opposite Party No.2 and went to the office of manager i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and told him that her husband i.e. complainant No.1 is suffering from acute diabetic,  blood pressure and heart problem,  his health became deteriorated and explained all the situation to the Manager that her husband take esoprine. It is also denied that the complainants informed Opposite Party No.1 that the complainants wanted to clear the car loan and then Opposite Party No.1 took signatures of the complainants on the alleged policies and on blank pages and kept the papers and policies  with him while on the other hand, the complainants took FDRs, as per the submission given above, but Opposite Party No.1 of its own converted the same into the policies which act of the Opposite Party No.1 also amounts to deficiency in service.  It is totally wrong and denied that in order to clear the loan, said alleged policies were sent for assignment and were kept in the bank custody after taking signatures of the complainants. It is incorrect that thereafter, the complainants were informed telephonically that their policies have been assigned and as such, the complainants can come and clear their loan. It is matter of record that Opposite Party No.3 in this regard also sent a letter to the complainants each dated 14.8.2013 and as per the said letter, it was  written that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 can adjust the policies in the manner, they may like.  It is also matter of record that on 11.9.2013 the complainant write letter dated 11.9.2013 to the Manger of the bank vide which they requested the said authority to adjust the amount of their policies against their loan account. It is matter of record that thereafter on the basis of said application, Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that their loan account No.is NG00002202 and Rs.2 lacs of the policies should be deposited in their said account. It may not be out of place to mention over here that after three days of the said request, a lady employee of the office of Manager dealing with the insurance company called the complainant No.1 telephonically and asked him to reach to the bank premises and accordingly, the complainant  No.1 reached  the premises and thereafter said  lady employee  started threatening and abusing the complainant No.1. It is wrong that the complainant  has threatened that the polices of the complainants will not be returned or assigned because they will get commission of Rs.25000/- on it and it also spoils the bank record. It is also wrong and denied that she   also threatened the complainant No.1 to drag him in the court in false cases as she can copy the signatures of complainants anywhere. It is wrong  the  complainants requested the bank with folded hands that they are ready to pay car loan with interest and their polices of Rs.2 lacs should be adjusted in car loan. It is wrong that the delay if any stood caused due to the attitude of the bank manager for not  adjusting their policies in car loan. It is matter of record that subsequently, the complainants  surrender the car vide letter dated 13.6.2014 written by complainant No.1 to the Chief Manager on  the plea that the complainant No.1 is very sick and his financial position has gone from bad t worse and he can not pay installments of the car as the bank is kept on increasing time limit so that they can charge more interest for  higher profits and thus surrendered the car to the bank. It is not correct that  at the time of receiving the car all the interior, machinery, glasses, things were present there and were in OK position and at that time no endorsement stood made in the presence of complainants but subsequently with malafide intention the Opposite Parties in connivance with each other made endorsement.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

 After filing the written reply, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 hence  Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte.

3.       Opposite Party No.4 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant has not been condoned the delay, thus the complaint being barred by time is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone without going into the merits of the case; that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intent and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail  undue advantage; that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Act as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by this Opposite Party nor any deficiency in service being established against the answering Opposite Party, hence the averments and or allegations made therein are false, frivolous, baseless and misconceived and, the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality.  The Insurance Policy is in the nature of a Civil Contract between the parties, wherein the proposal by filing up the proposal form and by depositing the premium, proposes to the insurance company for issuance of the insurance policy. If the insurance company accepts the proposal, then the contract of insurance is executed, by issuance of the policy bond, which contains the terms and conditions governing the contract of insurance.  The contract is concluded once the policy bond is received by the policy holder. Therefore, this being a factual position under the law, the policy holder nor the insurance company has any rights or privileges to act beyond the governing terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance.  The complainant with best known reasons has not pleaded that the complainant had voluntarily applied for the policy for the purpose of investment and insurance after fully knowingly well about the terms and conditions of the policy. As per clause 6 (2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholder’s Interests) Regulations 2002 while acting under regulation 6(1) in forwarding the policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by letter forwarding the policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of  those terms and conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating reasons for his objections, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges. Similar case is of the complainants and the complainants had the option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receiving the policy, but the complainant did not opt the said conditions. But now the complainant now in order to harass and victimize the Opposite Party, has come up with false and frivolous allegation only by way of this complaint. On merits,  Opposite Party No.4 took  the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.    Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and Ex.CW2/A  in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1  to Ex.C24  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.4 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Motti John, General Manager Ex.Op4/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Op4/2 to Ex.Op4/5  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.4  and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       The complainants have  submitted their affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A in which they have reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and submitted that the complainants applied for car loan of Rs.9.80 lacs from Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly submitted all the necessary documents to Opposite Party No.2 as per their demand, but lateron Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that their income tax return is less ad they must have to take two FDR worth Rs.1 lac each and only then, the loan can be sanctioned. The complainants bonafide believed the version of Opposite Party No.1 and they trapped the complainants into his sweet words and got signatures of the complainants on blank papers for said FDR purpose and complainants bonafide signed the said blank papers.  Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.2 passed the loan of the complainants to the tune of Rs.9,80,000/- having loan account No.NG00002202 and on the passing of said loan, the complainants purchased a Verna CRDi SX (o) from Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.10,79,419/-. Thereafter, the complainant had been making the payment of regular installments in time to the Opposite Party No.2.  As per the said account ledger statement/ inquiry if the paid installments amount is calculated, the complainants made payment more than Rs.2.26 lacs to Opposite Party No.2, but unfortunately the Opposite Party No.1 since had been suffering from acute diabetic, blood pressure and heart problem, his health became deteriorated  and he started getting treatments from hospitals which treatments were very expensive and as such the complainant No.2 approached the Opposite Party No.2 and went to the office of manager i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and told him that her husband i.e. complainant No.1 is suffering from acute diabetic,  blood pressure and heart problem,  his health became deteriorated and explained all the situation to the Manager that her husband take esoprine. The complainants informed Opposite Party No.1 that the complainants wanted to clear the car loan and then Opposite Party No.1 took signatures of the complainants on the alleged policies and on blank pages and kept the papers and policies  with him while on the other hand, the complainants took FDRs, as per the submission given above, but Opposite Party No.1 of its own converted the same into the policies which act of the Opposite Party No.1 also amounts to deficiency in service. Lateron in order to clear the loan, said alleged policies were sent for assignment and were kept in the bank custody after taking signatures of the complainants. Thereafter, the complainants were informed telephonically that their policies have been assigned and as such, the complainants can come and clear their loan. Opposite Party No.3 in this regard also sent a letter to the complainants each dated 14.8.2013 and as per the said letter, it was  written that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 can adjust the policies in the manner, they may like.  On 11.9.2013 the complainant write letter dated 11.9.2013 to the Manger of the bank vide which they requested the said authority to adjust the amount of their policies against their loan account. Thereafter on the basis of said application, Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that their loan account No.is NG00002202 and Rs.2 lacs of the policies should be deposited in their said account. It may not be out of place to mention over here that after three days of the said request, a lady employee of the office of Manager dealing with the insurance company called the complainant No.1 telephonically and asked him to reach to the bank premises and accordingly, the complainant  No.1 reached  the premises and thereafter said  lady employee  started threatening and abusing the complainant No.1. She threatened that the polices of the complainants will not be returned or assigned because they will get commission of Rs.25000/- on it and it also spoils the bank record. She also threatened the complainant No.1 to drag him in the court in false cases as she can copy the signatures of complainants anywhere. The complainants requested the bank with folded hands that they are ready to pay car loan with interest and their polices of Rs.2 lacs should be adjusted in car loan. The delay if any stood caused due to the attitude of the bank manager for not  adjusting their policies in car loan. Subsequently, the complainants  surrender the car vide letter dated 13.6.2014 written by complainant No.1 to the Chief Manager on  the plea that the complainant No.1 is very sick and his financial position has gone from bad to worse and he can not pay installments of the car as the bank is kept on increasing time limit so that they can charge more interest for  higher profits and thus surrendered the car to the bank. At the time of receiving the car al the interior, machinery, glasses, things were present there and were in OK position and at that time no endorsement stood made in the presence of complainants but subsequently with malafide intention the Opposite Parties in connivance with each other made endorsement to the effect that  received without side glasses, stereo, extra wheels, fog ramps etc. which act of the Opposite Parties is also illegal and unwarranted and is based on malafide and dishonest intention as from the perusal of said alleged endorsement, it can clearly be established that same did not sign by any of the complainants. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties sold the Verna Car of the complainants, but  did not adjust the policies amount and the installments already paid by the complainants to Opposite Party No.2 which is more than Rs.2.26 lacs as per details already given  and also did not inform the complainants that at which rate they have sold the car of the complainants but issued clearance certificate of loan dated 13.6.2014. it seems that the Opposite Parties have committed clear cut fraud with the complainants for which the complainants reserves their right to prosecute the Opposite Parties in accordance with the criminal law and there is no bar to the complainants in this regard.  Now the Opposite Party No.2 has issued a false, illegal and invalid legal notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act dated 5.11.2014 on the plea that the complainant No.1 had taken car loan alongwith  complainant No.2  and lieu of said debt and liability they  have issued a cheque of Rs.5,25,000/-  dated 14.10.2014 which fact is totally false, frivolous and baseless. Said cheque was issued towards security and not towards any liability and since the loan has already been cleared and a clearance certificate dated 13.6.2014 has already been issued by Opposite Party No.2 and as such said  alleged legal notice dated 5.11.2014 has got no legal value in the eyes of law, but the same has been issued to cause further harassment to the complainants. The aforesaid act on the part of the Opposite Parties also clearly amounts to committing gross negligence and utter deficiency in providing  services firstly by converting the FDRs into policies and secondly by grabbing the policies amount of the complainants and secondly by not disclosing the complainants that at which rate they have sold the car of the complainant, etc.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant and submitted that  the present complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant has not been condoned the delay, thus the complaint being barred by time is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone without going into the merits of the case; that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intent and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail  undue advantage; that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Act as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by this Opposite Party nor any deficiency in service being established against the answering Opposite Party, hence the averments and or allegations made therein are false, frivolous, baseless and misconceived and, the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality.  The Insurance Policy is in the nature of a Civil Contract between the parties, wherein the proposal by filing up the proposal form and by depositing the premium, proposes to the insurance company for issuance of the insurance policy. If the insurance company accepts the proposal, then the contract of insurance is executed, by issuance of the policy bond, which contains the terms and conditions governing the contract of insurance.  The contract is concluded once the policy bond is received by the policy holder. Therefore, this being a factual position under the law, the policy holder nor the insurance company has any rights or privileges to act beyond the governing terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance.  The complainant with best known reasons has not pleaded that the complainant had voluntarily applied for the policy for the purpose of investment and insurance after fully knowingly well about the terms and conditions of the policy. As per clause 6 (2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholder’s Interests) Regulations 2002 while acting under regulation 6(1) in forwarding the policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by letter forwarding the policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of  those terms and conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating reasons for his objections, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges. Similar case is of the complainants and the complainants had the option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receiving the policy, but the complainant did not opt the said conditions. But now the complainant now in order to harass and victimize the Opposite Party, has come up with false and frivolous allegation only by way of this complaint.

9.       Perusal of the complaint as well as in para No.4 of duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A shows that the complainants have alleged that  Opposite Parties have committed clear cut fraud with the complainants for which the complainants reserves their right to prosecute the Opposite Parties in accordance with the criminal law and there is no bar to the complainants in this regard and it has also been averred by the complainant that  the Opposite Party No.2 has issued a false, illegal and invalid legal notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act dated 5.11.2014 on the plea that the complainant No.1 had taken car loan alongwith  complainant No.2  and lieu of said debt and liability they  have issued a cheque of Rs.5,25,000/-  dated 14.10.2014 which fact is totally false, frivolous and baseless. Said cheque was issued towards security and not towards any liability and since the loan has already been cleared and a clearance certificate dated 13.6.2014 has already been issued by Opposite Party No.2 and as such said  alleged legal notice dated 5.11.2014 has got no legal value in the eyes of law, but the same has been issued to cause further harassment to the complainants. The complainants have also alleged that the  Opposite Parties have taken the signatures on blank papers and thereafter allegedly filled by them as per their wishes.  

In fact it seems that there is some fabrication  made in the documents. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commision in case Vishamber Sunderdas Badlani and Anr. Vs. Indian Bank and 3 others in 2008(1) CPR 76 in Original Petition No. 24 of 2005 decided on 28.9.2007 has held that disputed questions of facts, relating to unauthorised representations made about paying high rate of interest- since requirement of recording voluminous evidence relating to forgery and conspiracy involved, thus the matter not adjudicable in summary proceedings and relegated to Civil Court- Complaint dismissed. The law is well settled that when there are allegations of fraud and cheating etc., the Consumer Court has got no jurisdiction and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court. In this connection, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and that of Hon'ble Punjab State Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel , 2006(IV) CPJ-1 (SC) and Daljit Singh Dogra vs. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and others 2009(4) CLT 22 respectively can be referred to with advantage. Not only this, the proceedings before this Forum under Consumer Protection Act are summary proceedings and the present complaint contains legal and technical aspects requiring full dressed trial, elaborate evidence and contentious issue of fact and this can be done only by Hon’ble Civil Court which is the proper Forum.

10.     In view of the above observations and findings, it is held that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and as such, the same is dismissed. The complainant is relegated to the Civil Court to get his grievance redressed. In doing so, if limitation comes in his way, he can take advantage of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1. No order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.