BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.421/11.
Date of instt.: 15.11.2011.
Date of Decision: 06.01.2015.
M/s. Siri Ram Rattan Lal, New Grain Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal through its proprietor Rattan Lal S/o Siri Ram, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. Jagdish Chander, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal.
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. It is alleged that the Ops were charging processing charges @ Rs.10,000/- annually upto financial year 2007-08. It is further alleged that the Ops illegally and against the rules have charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges during the financial year 2008-09. It is further alleged that the complainant made protest and demanded the refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops have charged extra and then the Ops refunded the same on 10.09.2009. It is further alleged that the Ops again charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges instead of Rs.10,000/- in the financial year 2009-10. It is further alleged that the complainant again made protest and demanded refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops charged extra and then, the Ops refunded the same on 07.04.2011. It is further alleged that the Ops now in the financial year 2010-11 again charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops; On merits, it is submitted that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank; that the entry dt. 03.08.2010 of Rs.10,000/- which was wrongly debited during inspection was refunded vide entry dt. 07.04.2011, whereas entries at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) dt. 26.02.2011 and 16.03.2011 which relates to processing as-well-as inspection charges were rightly charged and hence could not be refunded. The contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. The Ops in the financial year 2010-11 charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank. On perusal of all the record available on the file, we found that both the parties have not placed complete record on file. Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
7. In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.421/11.
Date of instt.: 15.11.2011.
Date of Decision: 06.01.2015.
M/s. Siri Ram Rattan Lal, New Grain Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal through its proprietor Rattan Lal S/o Siri Ram, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. Jagdish Chander, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal.
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. It is alleged that the Ops were charging processing charges @ Rs.10,000/- annually upto financial year 2007-08. It is further alleged that the Ops illegally and against the rules have charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges during the financial year 2008-09. It is further alleged that the complainant made protest and demanded the refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops have charged extra and then the Ops refunded the same on 10.09.2009. It is further alleged that the Ops again charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges instead of Rs.10,000/- in the financial year 2009-10. It is further alleged that the complainant again made protest and demanded refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops charged extra and then, the Ops refunded the same on 07.04.2011. It is further alleged that the Ops now in the financial year 2010-11 again charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops; On merits, it is submitted that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank; that the entry dt. 03.08.2010 of Rs.10,000/- which was wrongly debited during inspection was refunded vide entry dt. 07.04.2011, whereas entries at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) dt. 26.02.2011 and 16.03.2011 which relates to processing as-well-as inspection charges were rightly charged and hence could not be refunded. The contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. The Ops in the financial year 2010-11 charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank. On perusal of all the record available on the file, we found that both the parties have not placed complete record on file. Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
7. In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.421/11.
Date of instt.: 15.11.2011.
Date of Decision: 06.01.2015.
M/s. Siri Ram Rattan Lal, New Grain Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal through its proprietor Rattan Lal S/o Siri Ram, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. Jagdish Chander, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal.
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. It is alleged that the Ops were charging processing charges @ Rs.10,000/- annually upto financial year 2007-08. It is further alleged that the Ops illegally and against the rules have charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges during the financial year 2008-09. It is further alleged that the complainant made protest and demanded the refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops have charged extra and then the Ops refunded the same on 10.09.2009. It is further alleged that the Ops again charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges instead of Rs.10,000/- in the financial year 2009-10. It is further alleged that the complainant again made protest and demanded refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops charged extra and then, the Ops refunded the same on 07.04.2011. It is further alleged that the Ops now in the financial year 2010-11 again charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops; On merits, it is submitted that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank; that the entry dt. 03.08.2010 of Rs.10,000/- which was wrongly debited during inspection was refunded vide entry dt. 07.04.2011, whereas entries at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) dt. 26.02.2011 and 16.03.2011 which relates to processing as-well-as inspection charges were rightly charged and hence could not be refunded. The contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. The Ops in the financial year 2010-11 charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank. On perusal of all the record available on the file, we found that both the parties have not placed complete record on file. Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
7. In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.421/11.
Date of instt.: 15.11.2011.
Date of Decision: 06.01.2015.
M/s. Siri Ram Rattan Lal, New Grain Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal through its proprietor Rattan Lal S/o Siri Ram, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. Jagdish Chander, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal.
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. It is alleged that the Ops were charging processing charges @ Rs.10,000/- annually upto financial year 2007-08. It is further alleged that the Ops illegally and against the rules have charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges during the financial year 2008-09. It is further alleged that the complainant made protest and demanded the refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops have charged extra and then the Ops refunded the same on 10.09.2009. It is further alleged that the Ops again charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges instead of Rs.10,000/- in the financial year 2009-10. It is further alleged that the complainant again made protest and demanded refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops charged extra and then, the Ops refunded the same on 07.04.2011. It is further alleged that the Ops now in the financial year 2010-11 again charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops; On merits, it is submitted that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank; that the entry dt. 03.08.2010 of Rs.10,000/- which was wrongly debited during inspection was refunded vide entry dt. 07.04.2011, whereas entries at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) dt. 26.02.2011 and 16.03.2011 which relates to processing as-well-as inspection charges were rightly charged and hence could not be refunded. The contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. The Ops in the financial year 2010-11 charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank. On perusal of all the record available on the file, we found that both the parties have not placed complete record on file. Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
7. In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.421/11.
Date of instt.: 15.11.2011.
Date of Decision: 06.01.2015.
M/s. Siri Ram Rattan Lal, New Grain Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal through its proprietor Rattan Lal S/o Siri Ram, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. Jagdish Chander, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Talai Bazar, Kaithal.
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Panchkula.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. It is alleged that the Ops were charging processing charges @ Rs.10,000/- annually upto financial year 2007-08. It is further alleged that the Ops illegally and against the rules have charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges during the financial year 2008-09. It is further alleged that the complainant made protest and demanded the refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops have charged extra and then the Ops refunded the same on 10.09.2009. It is further alleged that the Ops again charged Rs.20,000/- on account of processing charges instead of Rs.10,000/- in the financial year 2009-10. It is further alleged that the complainant again made protest and demanded refund of Rs.10,000/- which the Ops charged extra and then, the Ops refunded the same on 07.04.2011. It is further alleged that the Ops now in the financial year 2010-11 again charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops; On merits, it is submitted that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank; that the entry dt. 03.08.2010 of Rs.10,000/- which was wrongly debited during inspection was refunded vide entry dt. 07.04.2011, whereas entries at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) dt. 26.02.2011 and 16.03.2011 which relates to processing as-well-as inspection charges were rightly charged and hence could not be refunded. The contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has been availing the facility of cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- at interest since 2004 vide CC account No.10656577432 maintained by Op No.1. The Ops in the financial year 2010-11 charged Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on account of processing charges. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the processing charges were debited in the account as per norms of the bank and terms and conditions of the loan documents and instructions of bank. On perusal of all the record available on the file, we found that both the parties have not placed complete record on file. Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
7. In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
