Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/408

maninder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rustam PalLSingh Adv.

12 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 408 of 07.07.2015

   Date of Decision       : 12.07.2019 

 

1.Maninder Pal Singh Sehgal son of Shri Gurdit Singh,

2.Hardeep Kaur wife of Maninder Pal Singh Sehgal,

Both residents of Flat No.11-GF, Sant Isher Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainants

Versus

1.Standard Chartered Bank, Malhar Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

2.Standard Chartered Bank, 19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001 through its General Manager.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants                    :         Sh.Rustampal Singh, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.Anil Dhingra, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT 

1.                          Complainants, husband and wife, took loan of amount of Rs.12 lac from Ops vide loan account No.44060602 with drawn date of 18.6.2005. Loan was repayable in 120 monthly installments of Rs.15,528/- along with interest @9.5004% per annum. Date of maturity was 18.6.2015. Repayment schedule was given to the complainants at the time of grant of loan. That loan amount of Rs.12 lac was withdrawn by the complainants on 27.06.2005. Cheques towards EMI’s were given by the complainants to Ops and those were got encashed through salary account of complainant no.2, who was working as a Teacher earlier, but has retired now. Complainants in good faith did not question about the non-issuance of statement of accounts for the reason that cheques of installments were being debited from the salary account No.50045 of Punjab & Sind Bank, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana of complainant no.2 regularly and in time. No statement of account ever issued by Ops except of date 12.12.2013. That statement of account was issued on repeated demands by the complainants with disclosure that in case the same not supplied, then complainants will approach the Banking Ombudsman. After going through that statement of account, complainants were shocked to note the vast variation from the sixth installment, because the interest was being calculated at the rate of 18% per annum instead of agreed rate of 9.5004% per annum. Complainant no.1 due to mental pain and agony suffered heart attack and was hospitalized on 18.12.2013 in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Entries of penal interest in the said statement of account were incorporated without any fault on the part of complainants. No notice of default or charging of excess amount/interest had ever been served upon the complainants, despite the fact that issue of such notice is mandatory. Act of charging of excess interest or the penal interest alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and malafide. Request to Ops was submitted to forgo the excess rate of interest, but officials of Ops procrastinated the matter and as such, complainants had to lodge the complaint with customer care of OP Bank on 09.05.2014. However, Ops with intention to eye wash, sent a cheque for refund of Rs.11,913.57P along with letter dated 10.06.2014 to the complainants. Thereafter, complainants kept on requesting Ops to charge agreed rate of interest, but Ops did nothing. Complainants were shocked to know from the officials of Ops as if the installments have been enhanced upto the year 2024, despite the fact that as per documents, the last installment was to be paid by the complainants upto 18.06.2015. Complainants claims to have suffered mental pain, agony and harassment and loss of health due to above referred unfair trade practice adopted by Ops and that is why this complaint for restraining Ops from charging interest in excess of 9.5004% per annum. Even direction sought to Ops not to charge the penal interest from the complainants. Direction also sought to Ops not to resort to recover the amount after 18.06.2015. Fresh statement of account after correction also sought along with compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment of Rs.1 lac plus litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-.

2.                In joint written reply filed by OPs, it is claimed that complainants are estopped by their act and conduct from filing this complaint, because they themselves have committed default in making payment and that complaint is barred by limitation because the loan was advanced on 18.06.2005, but this complaint is filed on 03.08.2015. As per agreement of loan and other documents executed by the complainants in favour of OP bank, the complainants are liable to pay interest of 9.5% per annum(variable), which was subject to the change as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. In view of this nature of interest rate, there was no maturity date for the loan mentioned in the sanctioned letter. On availing of loan, Ops provided a repayment schedule to the complainants mainly for facilitating their understanding of paying the EMIs. Various factors like market conditions, customer deposit rates, liquidity conditions in the banking system, influences the interest rates of the bank. OP bank reviews the interest rate on a periodic basis and decides the increase or decrease of the interest rates. The term regarding the revision of the interest rate is mentioned in the sanction letter signed by the complainants. Interest rate for the home loans was linked to the lender’s Benchmark lending rates earlier, but the same was replaced by the mortgage variable reference rate of the bank and calculated basis as actual cost of the funds, operating expenses and a minimum margin to cover the regulatory requirement of provisioning, capital charge and profit margin. The bank derives a margin for a particular at the time of sanctioning of loan based on various criteria and other external and internal factors. Difference between MVRR/reference rates is drawn and thereafter, rate is offered to the customer. The lending rate is decided by the respective banks as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Different banks have different criteria for arriving at the eligibility and interest rate. OP bank is entitled to revise its lending rates if RBI increases/decreases the CRR and reverse repo rate during the quarterly monetary policy review. The interest rate had been levied by the Bank by taking into these factors. A revision in the interest rate may or may not affect the tenure of the loan account. In case the actual tenure exceeds the applied tenure, then the equated monthly installment would be revised. It is the endeavour of the bank to maintain a minimum margin for the loan offered to a customer as per the margin assigned at the time of sanction of the loan. Any change in the MVRR would have an impact on the interest rate of home loans sanctioned under ‘variable’ interest rate category. The details of the revision effected in the loan account of the complainants are mentioned in the copy attached with the written reply. On comparison of the MVRR and the rate revision applied to the loan account of complainants, it can be noted that the best possible reasonable rate had been applied to the loan account. The Bank has sent intimation letters to the complainants at the time of effecting the interest revision. Copies of those letters alleged to be annexed with the written reply. Details with regard to the interest rate are mentioned under the 18^th point of the second page of sanction letter. In view of this, it is claimed that this false and frivolous complaint has been filed for harassing Ops and tarnishing the reputation of Ops. Though factum of advancement and disbursement of loan admitted, but it is denied that applicable rate of interest is 9.5004% per annum. Rather, the interest rate was variable from time to time as mentioned above. As per practice, OP bank provides monthly statements only for the transacting accounts such as saving account, current account and overdraft account. No statement provided for the loan accounts. However, on receipt of request from the complainants, Ops provided the statement of account. Op bank only provides repayment schedule for all loan accounts and the complainant himself is admitting receipt of same. Officials of OP bank verbally communicated the complainants regarding levy of charges of excess interest and penal interest. Each and every other averment of complaint denied by claiming that complainants are not consumers of Ops.

3.                 Complainants to prove their case tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant no.1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, counsel for complainants closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Mahesh Kumar, Manager of Standard Chartered Bank along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but parawise comments filed by OPs. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Availing of loan amount of Rs.12 lac by the complainants from OP bank on execution of loan agreement Ex.C5=Ex.R3 is an admitted fact. Submission of counsel for Ops has no force that complainants are not consumers of Ops because services of contracting loan availed by complainants from Ops in consideration of repaying the said loan amount with interest. The availed loan is home loan and not a commercial loan and as such, certainly complainants are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.                Submission advanced by counsel for Ops that complaint is barred by limitation also has no force because even if loan drawn on 18.06.2005 as per contents of complaint and submitted affidavit Ex.CA of complainant no.1, but complainants claims to have approached Ops to forgo excess rate of interest after receipt of statement of account dated 12.12.2013 and as such complaint is filed within two years from the date of knowledge of charging of alleged excess rate of interest and of penal interest. During this period, complainants also claims to have approached customer care of Ops by submitting complaint on 09.05.2014, on which, refund of Rs.11,913.57P alleged to be sent by Ops as an eye wash on 10.06.2016 and as such complaint could have been filed within two years from 10.06.2014. However, this complaint filed on 7.7.2015 and as such, certainly complaint is within limitation.

8.                Repayment schedule Ex.C1 was received by complainants, as per which, current interest rate was 9.5004% with maturity date as 18.06.2015. Repayment        of outstanding to made in monthly installments of 120 and as such, it is vehemently contended     by counsel for complainants that in view of contents of Ex.C1 and loan agreement Ex.C5, Ops cannot charge penal interest and nor they can charge interest in excess of agreed rate of interest @10.5%. Copies of statement of account in question dated 12.12.2013 is produced on record as Ex.C2 by the complainants for contending that after receipt of these copies of statement of account, they got knowledge as if entries of penal interest and excess charge rate of interest are incorporated in it. It was after lodging of complaint through customer care of Ops dated 09.05.2014 that Ops issued cheque of amount of Rs.11,913.57P for refund of amount and the same fact borne from the contents of copy of cheque Ex.C3 dated 7.6.2014. In Ex.C3 itself it has been mentioned that Standard Chartered Bank through pay order of Suspense Manager has sent this amount of Rs.11,913.57P for payment to complainant no.1 Maninder Pal Singh. In the written reply, it is simply denied that this cheque for refund of Rs.11,913.57P sent just an eye wash, but during the course of arguments, there is no explanation given by counsel for Ops as to why this amount of Rs.11,913.57P refunded by Ops to the complainant through Ex.C3. In absence of such explanation submitted by counsel for Ops, it has to be held that case of complainants is believable as if this cheque of amount of Rs.11,913.57P sent by Ops to the complainants after lodging of complaint by complainants with customer care of Ops dated 9.5.2014. No bank will send such cheque to its customer without any cause because the accounts of bank like Ops are to be audited by Audit Team. So, it cannot be said that this cheque of amount of Rs.11,913.57P sent by Ops without any cause. So, inference is obvious that this amount was sent by Ops to the complainants through Ex.C3 for rectifying some mistake in the accounts.

9.                Ex.C6 is the discharge summary of complainant no.1 Maninder Pal Singh and Ex.C7 also is a discharge summary which shows as if Maninder Pal Singh got treatment for heart ailment from Alchemist Hospital as well as CMC & Hospital, Ludhiana from December 2013 and January 2014. That record has been produced by complainants for establishing that complainant no.1 suffered from heart ailment, owing to action of Ops in demanding the penal interest and rate of interest in excess of agreed one. However, connection of heart ailment with action of Ops demand is not established because this heart ailment can occur due to various reasons including that of sedentary life style and eating habits etc also.

10.              Perusal of application Ex.R1 for availing home loan shows that complainant no.1 Maninder Pal Singh holds degree in Bachelor of Arts and as such, certainly both complainants are educated fellows because through complaint also, it is claimed as if complainant no.2 worked as a Teacher. Joint application Ex.R1 for availing home loan was submitted by the complainants. At page no.6 of this Ex.R1, a general declaration is there that complainants have read the bank tariffs and agreed to abide by the same. Further, declaration is there that rules and tariffs are subject to change without prior notice. If these declarations in application form Ex.R1 taken into consideration, then this means that complainants themselves claimed to have gone through the bank tariffs and abide by the same without prior notice and change in the rules and tariffs. So, contents of these declarations shows as if the rules/tariffs can be changed without prior notice to the complainants. Tariffs include the rate of interest also and as such as per these declarations, rate of interest can be changed even without prior notice. In the declaration of home loan Ex.C2, there are two columns of rate of interest and  in clause-2, one pertains to giving of option for    fixed rate of interest and the same is kept blank for mentioning the interest rate offered of % per annum. However, in second column of clause 2, it is mentioned as if customer opted for variable rate of interest on offer of 9.50% per annum interest rate. This declaration Ex.C2 at the end is signed by complainant no.1 as primary applicant. If that be the position, then virtually at the time of submission of application, complainants themselves offered for payment of variable rate of interest           @9.50% per annum. Being so, the complainants at the time of submission of loan application, agreed for the variable rate of interest. Clause 4 of this declaration Ex.C2 further provides that complainant no.1 expressed awareness as if in the default of payment of housing loan, penal interest was payable. As per this clause 4 of Ex.C2, the penal interest rate may be changed at any time at the discretion of the bank. Current penal interest rate is mentioned as 27% per annum on overdue amounts and as such, it is obvious that virtually provision for charging of penal interest was made known to the complainants at the time of acceptance of loan application from them. Even the factum of charging of variable rate of interest was disclosed to the complainants at the time of acceptance of loan application,  through  declaration Ex.C2 detailed above. It was on the basis of submission of loan application Ex.R1 along with declaration Ex.C2 that loan was sanctioned by Ops bank on 31.05.2005 through sanction letter Ex.R4. In the sanction letter, it is mentioned that rate of interest is 10.5% on regular home loan. This letter of sanction Ex.R4 was got signed from both complainants in token of acceptance of terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.R4 itself. Even before acknowledging/acceptance of Ex.R4, complainants were disclosed that conditions mentioned in the overleaf page also made known to them. In these overleaf terms and conditions, it is mentioned as if prior to the first disbursement against this sanction letter, complainants will execute the loan agreement. In these terms and conditions of home loan Ex.R4 at page-1 itself, it is mentioned that in the event of any default as defined under the loan agreement, penal interest @27% per annum or such other rate of interest as decided by the bank will be payable by the complainants and as such from this document, certainly it is made out that complainants were made aware as if penal interest is chargeable in the default of payment of EMIs and that loan agreement had to be executed by them. It was in pursuance of this that loan agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5 with appended schedule was executed by the complainants in favour of OP bank. Copies of statement of account Ex.R5 also has been produced on record by Ops. Perusal of Ex.C2 and Ex.R5 reveals as if initially the  interest claimed was in the range of 9307.24P to 9888.72P      during period from 18.7.2005 to 18.03.2006, but later on this  interest for            period from 18.4.2006 to 17.2.2007 was charged in the range of 9979.76P to 10678.21P, but subsequently this  interest increased to more than Rs.11000/-,        then to Rs.12,000/- and then to Rs.13000/- etc. So, variable rate of interest has been charged in this case as revealed by copy of statement of account Ex.C2=Ex.R5 produced by the parties. In repayment schedule Ex.C1 reference of current rate of interest 9.5004% alone made and as such same shows as if same was the rate of interest  prevalent on 28.06.2005, when repayment schedule Ex.C1 was issued. Reference of charging of interest without variation is not at all made in Ex.C1 and as such, just on strength of Ex.C1 alone, it cannot be made out as to whether the fixed rate of interest claimable by Ops on advanced home loan or as to whether variable rate of interest chargeable. Submission advanced by counsel for complainants has no force that application form Ex.R1 or declaration Ex.C2 does not bear the signatures of complainants because in fact after going through last page of Ex.R1 and Ex.C2 each, it   is made out that both these documents are signed by the complainants concerned. Both counsel for parties refers to the various clauses of agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5 for submitting their contentions as to charging of fixed rate of interest or variable rate of interest.

11.              Counsel for complainants refers to clauses 2.2 and 2.3 of Ex.R3=Ex.C5 for contending that in case, rate of interest to be varied or changed, the notice in writing has to be issued by the bank to the customers. Clause 2.2(a) of Home Loan agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5 provides that the rate of interest applicable to the loan will be as stated in the schedule. In the schedule mention regarding applicable rate of interest on loan amount of Rs.12 lac made as 10.5% per annum. Term of repayment of 120 months with EMI’s of Rs.15,528/- is made specifically in this schedule by referring to clause 2.2 of agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5. So, if the terms of clause 2.2(a) read with schedule taken into consideration, then this mean that rate of interest agreed was 10.5% per annum. In such circumstances, submission advanced by counsel for complainant has no force that in view of mentioning of current rate of interest as 9.5004% per annum in Ex.C1, agreed rate of interest is 9.5004% per annum. Rather, agreed rate of interest is 10.5% per annum as per agreement read with scheduled part thereto.

12.              Clause 2.2(a) of loan agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5 reads as                  under:-

“The rate of interest applicable to the said loan as at the date of execution of this agreement is as stated in the schedule.

Provided that in the event SCB reduces or increases the interest rate prior to the disbursement of the full loan, the applicable revised rate of interest that shall be varied will be informed to the customer by bank in writing with reference to the loan amounts disbursed/to be disbursed.”

13.              From this proviso, it is made out that in case rate of interest to be varied, prior to the disbursement of full loan, then the customer will be informed about the variation of rate of interest. Disbursement of loan amount took place in this case on 27.06.2005 is a fact borne from the contents of copies of statement of account Ex.C2=Ex.R5. However, agreement Ex.C5=Ex.R3 is of date 20.06.2005 and as such, certainly in view of this clause, in case, variations in rate of interest than agreed one of 10.5% per annum was to take place, then intimation in writing in that respect was required to be submitted by Ops to the complainants. Clause 2.2(b) of agreement Ex.C5=Ex.R3 further provides that liability of paying taxes on interest to Central or State Government will be of complainants, being borrowers. Clause 2.3 of this agreement Ex.C5=Ex.R3 provides that EMIs to commence on full disbursement of loan.

14.              As per clause 2.3 of this agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5, EMI to commence on full disbursement of loan and same to comprise principal and interest calculated on the basis of monthly rests at the  applicable rate. So, this clause 2.3 provides about variation in amount of EMI. That variation can be in case the variation/revision of rate of interest is permissible. Clause 2.6(e) of agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5 provides that OP bank shall have the right at any time or from time to time to review or to reschedule the repayment terms of loan or of the outstanding amount thereof in such manner and to such extent as Ops may in its sole discretion decide. In such event, the borrower shall repay the loan or the outstanding amount thereof as per revised schedule as may be determined by Ops at its sole discretion and communicated to the borrower in writing. So, joint reading of clauses 2.2(a) and 2.6(e) reveals that in case, the variation in rate of interest prior to disbursement of full loan amount takes place, then bank in writing to inform the customer. However, in case, such variation takes place subsequently, even then communication to the borrower by OP bank regarding variation in rate of interest has to be given. This agreement has become binding on the parties from the date of execution as per clause 2.1 thereof and  this         execution took place on 20.06.2005 as per stamped endorsement with date under signatures of notary public and of the bank. So, notification of change of rate of interest other than the applicable rate of interest mentioned in schedule as 10.5% per annum has to be given in writing by OP bank to the complainants. Submission of counsel for complainants in this respect has force, more so when agreement in question came into existence after issue of sanction letter Ex.R4 dated 31.05.2005.

15.              Agreement came into existence after invitation of offer, submission of proposal and acceptance thereof. In this case, invitation of offer was given by the complainants for availing loan at varied rate of interest through application form Ex.R1 and it was thereafter that sanction letter Ex.R4 was issued. That sanction letter virtually contained counter proposal by Ops to offer to charge rate of interest @10.5% per annum (variable). As execution of agreement of loan was stipulated as a condition precedent for the disbursement of loan as per overleaf instructions contained in Ex.R4 and as such, it is obvious that virtually bank even offered advancement of loan to the complainants subject to execution of agreement. In such circumstances, final contract of advancing loan took place on execution of loan agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5. So, terms and conditions contained in loan agreement is binding on the parties. In such circumstances, submission advanced by counsel for Ops has no force that sanction letter Ex.R4 is an integral part of agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5. It is well settled that when an offer is put forth and acceptance thereof takes place with variation or counter offer, then       no concluded contract comes in existence. However, in case, the variation in the proposal/offer further are changed through mutual understanding in the shape of agreement, then the terms of agreement signed by both the parties to prevail because on execution of agreement, the contract virtually comes in existence. If that be the position, then terms regarding giving of notice in writing for claiming variable rate of interest incorporated in Ex.R3=Ex.C5 to prevail, more so when clause 10.3 of agreement also provides that notice required to be issued shall be deemed to have been duly given or made when it is delivered by hand, mail or telegram to the party to which, it is required or permitted to be given. Notice to party must be given in writing as per this clause 10.3 of agreement by serving the same at the address specified in the agreement or at such other address as notified by the party. So, it is obvious that different terms and conditions of agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5 provides that notice in writing of change of rate of interest must be given by Ops to the complainants by delivery of the same by hand or by mail or by telegram at the address mentioned in the agreement or such other address, the change of which to be notified by the complainants.

16.              Counsel for Ops vehemently contends that notices were sent to the complainants, but counsel for complainants denies about receipt of those notices by the complainants. In such circumstances, onus was on the Ops to prove as to by which mode, such notices in writing were served. It was for Ops to prove that such notices in writing delivered by hand or by mail or by telegram or by like mode. However, Ops in the affidavit of representative or in the written reply or through any other documents has not established as to by which modes prescribed by clause 10.3 of agreement, notices regarding change of interest was communicated to the complainants. Being so, Ops cannot charge interest in excess of 10.5% per annum, which is applicable rate of interest as per clause 2.2 read with schedule appended to agreement Ex.C5=Ex.R3.

17.              Benefit from ratio of case titled as Ajit Goel and another vs. Standard Chartered Bank, decided on 20.11.2017 through Revision Petition No.3990-3991 of 2013 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi cannot be gained by counsel for Ops because after going through para no.13 of above cited case, it is made out that the terms and conditions of loan agreement in the reported case were such as provided for charging of rate of interest at variable       rates by keeping in view the market conditions. In the reported case, consumer failed to establish that rate of interest charged was higher than the one which was prevailing at a particular time as per market conditions and as such, bank was allowed variable rate of interest as per terms and conditions of loan agreement. However, agreement Ex.R3=Ex.C5 in this case does not provide for charging of variable rate of interest, but the same in fact provides for charging static rate of interest, which is determined as 10.5% per annum through clause 2.2 as discussed in detail above.

18.              In case titled as Bharathi Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Limited-1996 AIR(SC)2508, it was held that parties are bound by the terms of contract and as such in view of fixation of limit of liability, the amount in excess of agreed limited liability of compensation cannot be allowed. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, more so when Ops failed to establish that they gave notice in writing by the mode prescribed by terms and conditions of agreement regarding variation in rate of interest. It is not the terms of sanction letter or of proposal form or of declaration, which is to prevail, but it is the terms and conditions stipulated in the detailed agreement that is to prevail. Being so, act of charging interest in excess of 10.5% per annum by Ops is an act of adoption of unfair trade practice and as such same liable to be termed as providing of deficient services by Ops to the complainants. In view of charging of interest in excess of agreed one, complainants stood mentally harassed and as such, complainants are entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment, but not on amount spent by complainants on treatment, but on amount, which has direct connection with act of charging of excessive rate of interest. Being so, complaint deserves to be allowed with compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation expenses.

19.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to Ops to calculate interest on the disbursed loan amount of Rs.12 lac @10.5% per annum (static) and prepare fresh statement of account.                        This statement of account be prepared by Ops                                                       within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On preparation of such statement of account, the copy thereof will be sent by Ops to the complainants and thereafter, complainants will make the payment of balance outstanding amount within 60 days. However, in case, excess amount has been received by Ops, than the freshly calculated one with interest @10.5%, then Ops must refund the said excess received amount within 60 days on preparation of fresh statement of account, failing which, complainants will be entitled to interest @8% per annum on that excess received amount from the date of lodging of complaint namely 7.7.2015 till payment/reimbursement by Ops. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) more allowed in favour of complainants and against OPs. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

20.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Jyotsna Thatai)                                               (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:12.07.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.