DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/117/2018

Date of Institution : 18.09.2018

Date of Decision : 14.05.2019

Isha Jindal aged about 49 years W/o Sh. Krishan Lal Jindal, resident of H. No. 33, 16 Acre Scheme, Barnala.

…Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Above Delhi Tractor and Combine, Dr. Siddana Hospital Wali Gali, Pucca College Road, Barnala through its Branch Manager.

2. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office, H-Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra)-400710, Mumbai through its M.D.

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for the complainant.

Opposite party No. 1 exparte.  

Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Jain counsel for opposite party No. 2. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU PRESIDENT):

The complainant Isha Jindal wife of Krishan Lal Jindal has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) against Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Barnala and another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The brief facts of the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that in the month of October 2011 the husband of complainant received a phone call from Delhi vide which one Mr. Shekhar who alleged himself as Senior Manager of opposite parties asked the husband of complainant that his company has issued a new plan, wherein the invested amount will be doubled within six years as his company invest the amount in a new project and if the amount is not doubled then the amount shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 

3. The complainant alleged that believing the assertion of said person the husband of complainant showed his willingness to make investment and said person told that their local Agent will come for the detailed plan. After that one Rajesh Kumar visited the house of complainant, who also assured the complainant and her husband for good return i.e. Double amount after six years or in alternative interest at the rate of 15% per annum. On this, complainant and her husband handed over the cheque of Rs. 52,000/- dated 20.10.2011 drawn on Punjab National Bank to the Agent of the opposite parties with the hope that they will get double of the amount after six years. The said agent told that the investment bond will be directly sent by the company to the complainant at her address and took the particulars of the complainant that he will complete all the formalities at his own regarding the investment.

4. It is alleged that after that one Sunil Kumar visited the house of complainant with the same offer saying that the plan is valid till 30.6.2012 and told that they can use the amount after six years for the higher education and marriage of their children. On this the complainant and her husband invested their saving and paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 26.12.2011, Rs. 4,00,000/- on 5.3.2012, Rs. 2,02,000/- on 8.5.2012 to double the amount after six years. The Agent also suggested to make the investment in the name of complainant for getting tax free maturity benefits. The entire payment was made through cheque to the Agent of the opposite parties who issued six different receipts regarding the payment. The detail of the receipts issued by the Agent of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as under.-

S. No. Date of Payment Application No. Amount Paid

1. 31.10.2011 D-2568014 Rs. 52,000/-

2. 26.12.2011 D-0117991 Rs. 1,00,000/-

3. 5.3.2012 D-3629205 Rs. 2,00,000/-

4. 5.3.2012 D-3629206 Rs. 2,00,000/-

5. 8.5.2012 D-3693179 Rs. 1,01,000/-

6. 8.5.2012 D-3693180 Rs. 1,01,000/-

Total amount Rs. 7,54,000/-

5. It is further alleged that except these receipts no other document was issued by the respondents. Further, in the first week of November 2017 the husband of the complainant made a telephonic call to the given numbers by the Agent but all the numbers were not in existence. After that the complainant and her husband visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 for getting the maturity amount and showed the receipts to the official of opposite party No. 1 but the said official after checking the status of the investment told them that no amount is payable under the said investment as the amount was invested in six different life insurance policies wherein they were required to pay the premium regularly for five, seven and ten years respectively but they did not pay the premium regularly due to which all the policies were lapsed and now nothing is payable. The opposite party No. 1 also disclosed the detail of the policies issued against their investment. 

S. No. Date of Payment Policy No. Premium Amount Paid

Paying 

Term 

1. 31.10.2011 19444481 10 years Rs. 52,000/-

2. 26.12.2011 19619200 10 years Rs. 1,00,000/-

3. 5.3.2012 19898950 7 years Rs. 2,00,000/-

4. 5.3.2012 19898954 7 years Rs. 2,00,000/-

5. 8.5.2012 50115328 5 years Rs. 1,01,000/-

6. 8.5.2012 50115336 5 years Rs. 1,01,000/-

Total amount Rs. 7,54,000/-

6. It is further alleged that the complainant and her husband were shocked to listen to the official of opposite party No. 1 and told him that the Agent who took the payment from them never disclosed about the investment in the life insurance policies and they never consented for the same. Even no policy bond or letter was ever received by the complainant from the opposite parties. The Agent of the opposite parties wrongly and illegally invested their hard earned money into insurance policies. Further, it is no possible for the complainant to pay huge amount of Rs. 7,54,000/- per annum for all the policies. The agent of the opposite parties have cheated the complainant and her husband. 

7. It is further alleged that the complainant and her husband requested the opposite party No. 1 to refund their amount alongwith interest but opposite party No. 1 flatly refused and told that as per terms and conditions of the policy no amount is payable. So, the opposite parties are not only deficient in providing service but also indulging in unfair trade practice as their Agent targeting the poor and middle class peoples for their own benefits. 

8. It is further alleged that IRDAI is the governing body of opposite parties and has issued certain guidelines for life insurance and the opposite parties and their Agents violated the said guidelines and no documents of investment have ever been sent to the complainant. The income of the complainant and her husband is not more than Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum so the question of paying huge amount of Rs. 7,54,000/- per annum by the complainant and her husband does not arise at all. So, the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount as promised by the Agents of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused mental shock and trauma to the complainant and her husband as the opposite parties grabbed the hard earned money of the complainant and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) The opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Policy No. 19898950) alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the due date i.e. 5.3.2018 till realization OR in the alternative refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of investment i.e. 5.3.2012 till realization.  

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3) Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.  

9. Upon the service of notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 not appeared despite service, so the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2.11.2018. 

10. Upon the service of notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is purely barred by limitation as cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 15.2.2012 when the policy was issued to the complainant which was as per terms and conditions was closed when the complainant failed to exercise the option of Free Look Cancellation Period. The opposite party objected that the complainant approached this Forum much after the expiry of Limitation period as prescribed in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which requires the complainant to file the complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen and she has filed the present complaint in August 2018 after the expiry of limitation period so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

11. The opposite party further objected that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as investment made under Unit Linked Policy is a speculative gain and speculative investment and these matter does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party alleged that present policy i.e. Reliance Guaranteed Money Back Plan Super is a Unit Linked Policy and the issue under unit linked insurance policies are not the subject matter of Consumer Forums and that the policyholder is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

12. The opposite party alleged that as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations 2002 every policy document sent by the opposite party is accompanied with a copy of proposal form signed by the applicant and a forwarding letter which clearly mentioned that in case policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days i.e under the Free Look Cancellation Period. The opposite party sent the policy document at the registered address of the complainant via Speed Post Receipt No. EQ547172735IN on 17.3.2012 and same was duly received by the complainant but she did not approach the opposite party with any discrepancies regarding benefits payable or any other policy terms and conditions neither he approach the opposite party for cancellation of policy during Free Look Period which shows that she had agreed to all the terms and conditions of the policy and it is not the case of the complainant that the policy documents were not received by her. The opposite party alleged that the complainant is bound by policy contract and is deemed to have given up/waived her rights by not exercising the Free Look provision and insurance is a contract between the insured and insurer and terms and conditions of the policy of insurance are binding upon the parties. The opposite party has not done anything against the terms and conditions of the policy and remaining fund value has already been paid out and no further amount is payable to the complainant. 

13. The opposite party alleged that the proposal form is not merely a document to be signed and submitted for formality but it is basis of the contract of insurance which is filled and signed by the complainant herself. The opposite party further alleged that the complainant has made all the allegations of mis-selling against the Authorized Agent, who is not made as necessary party in the present complaint so the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party No. 2 alleged that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service. 

14. The opposite party further alleged that they received duly filled and signed proposal form bearing No. D3629206 requesting for issuance of policy under Reliance Guaranteed Money Back Plan for annual premium of Rs. 2,00,000/- and on this the opposite party issued a policy bearing No. 19898950 on 15.3.2012 which was with a term of 15 years. The opposite party explained the standard terms and conditions and handed over application form and key features of the policy and complainant also visited the laboratory for medical test of level prior to the issuance of the policy. The opposite party alleged that the complainant has signed the proposal form after reading and understanding the document including terms and conditions and is bound by the policy contract. The opposite party further alleged that as per terms and conditions of policy the complainant was supposed to pay premium for seven years but she has failed to pay further premium except first premium so the policy got lapsed and she has failed to pay premium during the grace period for revival of policy. The opposite party further alleged that the policyholder was at all times aware of policy details and only after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy she applied for the same and made the premium payment and it is only improbable that any prudent person would invest in an insurance policy without understanding the terms and conditions therein. The opposite party further alleged that complainant had five other policies with the opposite party and she had approached the opposite party on 22.1.2013 for issuance of Duplication Life Insurance Policy No. 19898950 and said request was duly signed by the complainant herself which establish that the complainant have duly received all the policy certificates issued by the answering opposite party which also shows that complainant did understand the terms and conditions of policy and was duly managing them. 

15. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 admitted that answering opposite party issued receipts for the payment received by them in the form of cheques from the complainant. However, the complainant herself gave duly filled and signed proposal form to the answering opposite party for proposal of life insurance of complainant and after acceptance of her application cheque was issued by the complainant in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party No. 2 further submitted that the complainant duly received all the policy certificates and out of which only policy certificate No. 19898950 was lost by the complainant, so she approached the opposite party for duplicate policy bond. The opposite party No. 2 has not cheated the complainant but refund of policy amount is not acceptable as per policy terms and conditions. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant herself has enjoyed the hassle free service of the answering opposite party with respect to her life cover for the period she paid the premium to the opposite party and in case of any incident the family of the complainant was the beneficiary for the sum assured under the subject policy. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

16. The complainant in order to support her complaint has tendered in evidence her affidavit as Ex.C-1, affidavit of husband of complainant as Ex.C-2, copy of payment receipt as Ex.C-3, copy of Income Tax return of the complainant as Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8, copy of Aadhaar Card as Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

17. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 to support their version have tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajnish Kumar as Ex.OP-2/1, copy of passbook as Ex.OP-2/2, copies of ITR as Ex.OP-2/3 and  Ex.OP-2/4, copy of PAN Card as Ex.OP-2/5, copy of voter card as Ex.OP-2/6, copy of declaration as Ex.OP-2/7, copy of income certificate as Ex.OP-2/8, copy of cheque as Ex.OP-2/9, copy of application as Ex.OP-2/10, copy of policy as Ex.OP-2/11, copy of First Premium Receipt as Ex.OP-2/12, copy of policy schedule as Ex.OP-2/13, copy of terms and conditions as Ex.OP-2/14 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 

18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the record on file. Written arguments also filed by the parties.

19. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased the insurance policy namely Guaranteed Money Back Plan from the opposite parties and they have received the payments from the complainant and also issued receipts in this regard to her. It is also admitted between the parties that the complainant never cancelled the policy. It is also admitted between the parties that the complainant not received any amount on the maturity amount of the policy. 

20. From the pleadings of the parties the main question arises in the present complaint is that whether the Agent of the insurance company sold the insurance policy to the complainant by way of misrepresentation and whether the complainant has the capacity to pay huge amount as premium. 

21. To prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and affidavit of her husband Ex.C-2 in which they reiterated her case as mentioned in the complaint. Ex.C-3 is the copy of receipt dated 5.3.2012 vide which the opposite parties received the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant. The complainant further produced copies of her income tax returns Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 vide which she showed her annual income from the year 2011 to 2016 which comes about Rs. 1,60,000/- to Rs. 2,40,000/- annually. On the basis of these documents the counsel for the complainant argued that the Agent of the Insurance Company sold the insurance policy to the complainant by way of misrepresentation as the complainant has no capacity to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum as premium. He further argued that besides this policy the opposite parties also sold five other policies to the complainant and the total premium is to be paid by the complainant comes to Rs. 7,54,000/- annually and the complainant cannot pay this much huge amount annually which is crystal clear from her income tax returns Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8. 

22. On the other hand the opposite party No. 2 to prove their case tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajnish Kumar Ex.OP-2/1 in which they reiterated the submissions as mentioned in the written version. The opposite parties also produced on the file copy of pass book of husband of the complainant Ex.OP-2/2, copies on income tax returns of husband of the complainant Ex.OP-2/3 and Ex.OP-2/4, copy of PAN card of the husband of the complainant Ex.OP-2/5, copy of AML/ KYC declaration by Premium Payer Ex.OP-2/7, copy of certificate issued by Chartered Accountant dated 12.6.2011 Ex.OP-2/8 and copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-2/14. On the basis of these documents the counsel for the opposite party No. 2 argued that complainant and her husband have the capacity to pay the requisite premium of the policy and opposite parties never sold the policies to the complainant or her husband by way of misrepresentation. He further argued that as the complainant has paid only one premium and thereafter failed to pay any premium so as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-2/14 the policy of the complainant was lapsed and she is not entitled for any amount. 

23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the record on the file. Copy of policy is Ex.OP-2/11 in which the name of the plan is mentioned as Reliance Life Insurance Guaranteed Money Back Plan which means that the insurance company gave guaranty to the customer to give her money back to her under any circumstances and complainant also understand the same meaning and purchased this plan on the basis that her money is in safe hands as the opposite parties gave guaranty to give her money back to her under any circumstances. Further, in first premium receipt Ex.OP-2/12 it is mentioned that the Frequency of Premium Payment is yearly. In our view 'Frequency' is a mathematical term and a common man cannot understand the meaning of this word and opposite parties should have mentioned the same in simple words like premium is to be paid every year or 'annual premium'. 

24. Further, we perused the copies of income tax returns of the complainant Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 which proved that the annual income of the complainant is between Rs. 1,60,000/- to Rs. 2,40,000/- between the years 2011 to 2016. We also perused the income tax returns of the husband of the complainant Ex.OP-2/3 and Ex.OP-2/4 and copy of AML/KYC declaration by Premium Payer Ex.OP-2/7, from all these documents one thing is proved that the annual income of the husband of the complainant is about Rs. 2,60,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. If we club the income of both husband and wife then it comes to Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, even then the complainant and her husband cannot pay the premium of such a huge amount of Rs. 7,54,000/- annually in any circumstances as they have other expenses also to meet their daily needs. The opposite parties also filed copy of certificate Ex.OP-2/8 of R. Vishvanathan Chartered Accountant dated 12th June 2011 in which he mentioned that annual income of Ms. Isha Jindal is less than Rs. 55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Only), which in our view is a baseless and arbitrary document as less than may be any amount. He should specifically mentioned the income of the complainant and when we compared this certificate with her income tax returns then her income is not even near to Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum so this certificate is false and issued only on the instance of the opposite parties. If this certificate is true then the opposite parties must filed affidavit of the Concerned Chartered Accountant on the file to prove the capacity of the complainant to pay such a huge amount as premium. Even the opposite parties intentionally not filed the copy of the proposal form from which it can clear that the same was filled by the complainant herself  or by the Agent of the insurance company and many other things which can help to decide the matter. So, in our view the opposite parties sold the insurance policies to the complainant through their Agent by way of misrepresentation and not told the terms and conditions of the policy and agent did not disclose true amount of premium and also number of years for which complainant has to pay the premium to the insurance company, as agent sold the policy by way of misrepresentation so the terms and conditions of the policy not applicable to the complainant. The opposite parties are fully responsible for the acts of their Agent of misrepresentation with a lady. The insurance company and the agent have the relationship of principal and agent otherwise he has no authority to collect the premium on behalf of insurance company. In case the insurance agent is just to collect the documents then onus becomes more heavy upon the insurance company to verify all the contents mentioned in the proposal form before issuing insurance policy but nothing was done to check it whether the information given in the proposal from is correct or whether the complainant actually intend to purchase the policy which the insurance company has issued. In these circumstances, in our view it is clear case of misrepresentation of the insurance agent on behalf of opposite parties to freeze the money of the innocent complainant on the pretext that in case she invest for six years in single premium policy her amount will be double wherein the picture is otherwise as the policy was issued as regular premium policy and seven years was just a lock in period. In the present case the complainant alongwith her husband have the annual income of about Rs. 4,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- then how they will be in a position to pay premium of Rs. 7,54,000/- for seven years. The insurance company is also responsible for the acts of the agent so the insurance company is adopting unfair trade practice in connivance with the agents to boost their commission, so the opposite parties are liable to return the amount to the complainant.  

25. Further, from the evidence on the file one thing is clear that no verification was done by the opposite parties with regard to the income of the complainant. Her PAN number was not verified which is mandatory for issuance of policy of more than Rs. 1 lac. Moreover, the Insurance Regularly Development Authority of India (IRDA) had issued guidelines/ norms which are known as Know Your Customer (KYC) norms and according to these norms the insurance company is required to gather evidence with regard to the residential proof, identity of the insured and capacity with regard to the paying capacity. The opposite parties have not verified that fact from which source as to how the complainant will pay Rs. 7,54,000/- per annum when the complainant and her husband annual income is about Rs. 5,00,000/- which clearly shows that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and regularly issued policies worth Rs. 7,54,000/- knowing fully that in the next year she will not be able to pay the premium and premium already paid would become zero. The policies were purchased on the assurance of the opposite party that it is one time premium and that too with the income of her husband and there is a Circular No. 032/IRDA/Act1/Dec-2005 dated 21.11.2005 in which detailed guidelines were give to the insurance company with regard to the Unit Linked Life Insurance Products and these guidelines were totally ignored while issuing the policies. There is other instructions also issued by IRDA vide Circular No. 049/IRDA/ACTL/ULIP/January-08 dated 1.1.2008 wherein it has been clearly stipulated that in all the case of Unit Linked Policies the insurer is bound to get the signatures of the policyholder on guaranteed benefits and non guaranteed benefits. The signatures of the complainant were not taken on the policies as these were issued by assurance that these are one time investments. IRDA has further issued guidelines on 1.7.2010 to clear the position as to how the charges are to be deducted while refunding the amount to the consumers at the time of discontinuance of the policies which should not exceed Rs. 6,000/-, so in this way in the present matter instructions of IRDA known as KYC norms were not followed by the opposite parties. Even the notice was not given to the complainant at the time of discontinuance of the premium as per the instructions of the IRDA vide their circular dated 21.12.2005. 

26. The opposite parties also taken a specific objection that the complaint is not within the period of limitation but the complainant only came to know in November 2017 that these were not the policies with single premium investment but were of regular premium investment, so the cause of action arose to her was continuous till the opposite parties pay the original amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest taken by the opposite parties by way of misrepresentation, so the limitation will not be that date when the policies were issued by the opposite parties and present complaint is within the period of limitation as cause of action arose in November 2017 and complaint is filed on 18.09.2018.

27. The opposite parties also not issued any notice as required under Section 50 of the Insurance Act, 1938 which is mandatory. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled LIC of India Versus Bimla Devi reported in III (2009) CPJ-370 (NC) held as under.-

“The act of the opposite party unilaterally cancelling the policy without giving any notice or option to the complainant is not justified clearly proving the opposite parties are not following the rules and regulations of their own authority, which amounts to unfair trade practice.”

28. The Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 75 of 2012 titled Chhinder Singh Versus The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited decided on 19.12.2013 held as under.-

“In case the proposal form has been obtained by the Insurance Agent by way of mis-representation and terms and conditions have not been made to understand then those are not applicable.”

29. The opposite parties relied upon the cases of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Tarsem Singh Versus PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2016 (4) CPR-340, Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2013 (3) CPJ-203, Harish Kumar Chadha Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. And others reported in 2014 (1) CPJ-188 and Life Insurance Corpn. of India and others Versus Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) and others reported in 2008 (4) CPJ-156. But these citations are not applicable to the present complaint due to different facts and circumstances of the present matter as in the present complaint the complainant and her husband have no capacity to pay such a huge amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 7,54,000/- per annum as their annual income is about Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum and policies were sold to the complainant by agent of the opposite parties by way of misrepresentation even knowing the fact that the complainant and her husband have no capacity to pay the required premium of these policies. 

30. In view of the above discussion and citation of our own Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh as the opposite parties sold the insurance policy by way of misrepresentation so this is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

31. As a result of above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of payment to the opposite parties till actual realization. However, cost and compensation not awarded because full amount of payment is to be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest. Compliance of order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

Reason for delay in deciding the complaint:

As the whole time Post of President of this Forum is vacant since 19.10.2017 due to non appointment of it by the State Government, Punjab so matters are pending since long. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President who is the author of this order, assumed Additional Charge of this Forum as President on 01.01.2019 for only two days a week and this complaint is decided as soon as possible on the conclusion of arguments on 07.05.2019 by the learned counsel for parties.  

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

14th Day of May 2019

 

 

 

            (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

           President

 

 

 

           (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                Member