Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/10/2014
A.Munikrishnaiah S/o. A.Munaiah - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)
P.Muni Reddy
18 Aug 2015
ORDER
Filing Date:11.02.2014
Order Date: 18.08.2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
TUESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
C.C.No.10/2014
Between
A.Munikrishnaiah,
S/o. A.Munaiah,
Agriculturist,
D.No.5-350, M.G.Street,
Tirupati. … Complainant
And
1. The Branch Manager,
Agricultural Development Bank,
State Bank of India,
Srikalahasti,
Chittoor District.
2. Santha Sundar,
Senior Manager (Claims),
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Central Processing Centre,
Kapas Bhavan, 3A,
Sector No.10, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai – 400 614. … Opposite parties..
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 29.07.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.P.Muni Reddy, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.E.Satyanarayana, counsel for the opposite party No.1, and Sri.L.Madhusudhan Redy, counsel for the opposite party No.2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- being the refundable policy amount payable to the complainant with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of death of A.Varalakshmi (insured), till realization 2) to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and damages caused to the complainant and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay costs of the litigation.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are:- that Smt.Anthatola Varalakshmi (deceased) was a member of DWACRA Group, run by Government for development of economic status of women. Opposite party No.1, voluntarily offered the members of DWACRA Group, to join in the life insurance policy by subscribing Rs.676/- p.a. A.Varalakshmi joined as member on 01.04.2010 and paid premium for the first year at Rs.676/-, which is yearly premium. Policy is for Rs.50,000/-. Policy No.86000051401. A.Varalakshmi died on 17.04.2012. Immediately, the complainant, who is the husband of Varalakshmi, approached opposite party No.1 and informed the death of Varalakshmi and claimed the policy amount of Rs.50,000/-. Opposite party No.2, refused the claim of complainant, though policy is covering the death of policy holder A.Varalakshmi. The complainant sent legal notice on 25.11.2013 to opposite parties 1 and 2. Though both the opposite parties received the said notice, neither paid the amount nor gave reply. In view of the death of Varalakshmi, the complainant being the husband of deceased Varalakshmi, entitled to receive the policy amount. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1, the Branch Manager, ADB, SBI, filed its written version admitting that Smt.A.Varalakshmi (died) wife of complainant was a member of DWACRA Group, which consists of 10 members. That opposite party No.1, offered the said DWACRA Group, to join in the life insurance policy for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Its premium was Rs.676/- p.a. That the wife of complainant joined in the said policy. Her policy No.86000051401. First installment amount was deduced by opposite party No.1 for the year 2010 and opposite party No.2 deducted the installment for the year 2011 on 31.03.2011. Opposite party No.1 also admitted the death of Varalakshmi on 17.04.2012, intimated by the complainant and also claim made by the complainant for Rs.50,000/-. That it is the habit of opposite party No.1 to deduct the subscription of Rs.676/- every year from the DWAGRA Group account was denied. Further, it is contended that, opposite party No.1 being the bank, suggested the Self Help Group members for covering their life risk through SBI Life Group Swadhan. The first premium amount along with application was collected by opposite party No.1 (bank) and the same was remitted to opposite party No.2. From second premium onwards, the premium amounts will be recovered by opposite party No.2 directly without any intimation or involvement of opposite party No.1. Thus, the role of opposite party No.1 is limited. The complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is not a necessary part to the proceedings. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.1 with costs.
4. Opposite party No.2, Santha Sundar, Senior manager (Claims), SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai, filed its written version (in 15 pages). Para. 1 to 4 of the written version is about its policies. Under the head of preliminary objections, opposite party No.2 contended that opposite party No.2 is at Navi Mumbai, whereas the case is filed at Tirupati, as such this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. In this regard, the counsel for opposite party No.2, referred a decision of Hon’ble National Commission [in First Appeal No.428 of 2008 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Gupta & others decided on 03.09.2013], that the insurance cover was lapsed on 01.04.2011 due to non-payment of renewal premium by A.Varalakshmi and her date of death was on 17.04.2012. Insurance cover was in lapsed status as on 17.04.2012. As the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of premium, opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any amount as per Section-51, 52, 54, 55 and 25 of Indian Contract Act 1872. Due to non-payment of premium, contract between opposite party No.2 and A.Varalakshmi was come to an end. Therefore, no service provider and customer relationship was in force. Opposite party No.2 admitted at page.6 of its written version that Smt.A.Varalakshmi, had taken insurance cover under Swadhan Group Insurance Scheme with Master Policy No.86000051401, commencing from 01.04.2010, mode of payment was annual premium and sum assured was Rs.50,000/-. Premium is to be paid by 01.04.2011 with a grace period of 30 days. If premium amount is not paid within time or on or before expiry of grace period, policy will be lapsed. Opposite party No.2, did not receive the premium. Hence, policy was lapsed. Opposite party No.2 received only the initial premium under the insurance cover. Since no premium for the period of one year i.e. 2011, policy had been lapsed with effect from 01.04.2011. He referred the following decisions in its written version 1) Hon’ble Apex Court decision in General Assurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumall Jain & Anr. reported in [1966] 3 SCR 500, 2) Hon’ble National Commission decision in IND Swift Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in First Appeal No.157 of 2006 dt:17.09.2012, 3) Hon’ble National Commission decision in LIC of India Vs. Kamlesh, order dt:09.01.2014, 4) Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Sony Cherian [1996 (6) SCC 451], 5) Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Harchan Rai Chandan Lal [2004 (8) SCC 644] (none of the above citations were submitted in the Forum). Opposite party No.2 further contended that the National Commission while disposing of R.P.No.2884 of 2010 in SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Asha Dixit & others clearly held that “even though opposite parties 1 and 2 are sister concerns belonging to the same SBI group, since they are separate legal entities, opposite party No.1 insurance company cannot be held responsible for the fault of opposite party No.2 bank. Hence claim repudiation and the ground of non-payment of renewal premium is perfectly valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1”, applying the same there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and that the complainant has no right to challenge the decisions of opposite party No.2, that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. Complainant, opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 have filed their respective chief affidavits and written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A14 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 for the opposite parties.
6. Now the points for consideration are:-
(i). Whether the refusal of claim made by the complainant under Ex.A6
equivalent to Ex.B4 is justified?
(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
(iii). To what relief?
7. Point No.(i):- in order to answer this point, it is pertinent to mention that complainant being the nominee of policy holder Smt.A.Varalakshmi (died), made claim, claiming the maturity value of Rs.50,000/- under the policy taken by his wife Anthatola Varalakshmi. She was one among the 10 DWACRA Group members. On the offer made by opposite party No.1, all the members of DWACRA Group joined as members and agreed to pay Rs.676/- p.a. as premium amount. The policy is covering risk of all the members, if any member of the said policy dies. The policy will cover their life and the amount assured will be paid to the policy holders. If the premiums were paid completely, what will be the benefits given to the members, were not mentioned in the written versions of opposite parties 1 and 2. Admittedly, the first premium amount of Rs.676/- was collected from the said DWACRA Group on 01.04.2010 by opposite party No.1, by deducting the said amount out of the account being operated by the DWACRA Group with opposite party No.1 and the said amount was admittedly remitted to opposite party No.2. The second premium is due by 01.04.2011 with a grace period of 30 days. If any policy holder of the DWACRA Group failed to pay the premium amount / renewal premium of Rs.676/- either by 01.04.2011 or by 01.05.2011 within the grace period, the policy will be lapsed. Nowhere, it is specifically mentioned that each of the members of the DWACRA Group has to pay Rs.676/- p.a. towards annual premium. So, it is clear that if the premium amount of Rs.676/- is deducted or collected from the account of the DWACRA Group, it will cover the policies of all the 10 members of the DWACRA Group. It is observed that opposite party No.1 has to recover / deduct / collect the amount of Rs.676/- out of the account being maintained with opposite party No.1 by the DWACRA Group and remit the same to opposite party No.2, as was done in respect of initial premium. It is not the case of either opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2, that there was no amount available in the account of the DWACRA Group namely ‘Vishnumaya Mahila Podupu Sangam’, which is maintaining the account No.30285785386 with opposite party No.1, as on 01.04.2011 or by 01.05.2011 (grace period), opposite party No.1 could not collect or deduct the amount out of the account of the DWACRA Group and remitted the same to opposite party No.2 and thus the policy of A.Varalakshmi was lapsed. Opposite party No.2 though referred as many as 7 decisions, picking-up some points, which were found in favour of opposite party No.2 under these decisions and referring them in the written version as well as chief affidavit of opposite party No.2, it failed to furnish / supply any of those decisions, so as to enable the Forum to go through full text of the judgments and know whether the facts of those decisions are applicable to the facts of the case on hand or not. Simply referring some names of parties and giving citations without furnishing them to the Forum does not suffice to say that they were in support of the case of opposite parties.
8. Admittedly, the policy was taken by Anthatola Varalakshmi, who was a member of the DWACRA Group and also member of SBI Life – Swadhan (Group) UIN:111NO14V01, insurance scheme, which was introduced by opposite party No.2 and invited the members of DWACRA Groups, to participate in the scheme for their economic upliftment. The DWACRA Group, which is ‘Vishnumaya Mahila Podupu Sangam’, has opened its account with SBI (opposite party No.1) in the year 2007. Ever since the said account is being continued. The policy was taken by the members of the said DWACRA Group in the year 2010. First premium was collected on 01.04.2010. Admittedly the second premium is due by 01.04.2011. Anthatola Varalakshmi, policy holder died on 17.04.2012. On the death of Varalakshmi, her nominee / husband, who is the complainant herein filed claim under Ex.A1 before opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2, while giving reply to claim, informed the complainant that the policy was lapsed and no death benefits are payable. Similarly, Ex.A7 was also given by opposite party No.2. As per column-VI under Ex.B3 “premium shall invariably be remitted by master policy holder to the company, and shall not be accepted directly from any member. The premiums so remitted by the master policy holder to the company shall only be collected by the master policy holder through a debit to the account (as herein defined) of the concerned member maintained with it”. So, it is apparent and clear that no member is expected to pay the premium personally or directly to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 will collect the policy from members, through opposite party No.1 with which the members are maintaining their group account. Opposite party No.1 is expected to collect the amount out of the account of the DWACRA Group and remit the same to opposite party No.2, according to that instructions only, opposite party No.1 had collected the initial premium amount of Rs.676/- out of the account of DWACRA Group that was being maintained with opposite party No.1 on 01.04.2010 and remitted the said amount to opposite party No.2.
9. Now an important aspect to be noted is, as on 01.04.2011 or as on 01.05.2011 (grace period), whether there is sufficient amount in the account of DWACRA Group is available or not, if there is no sufficient amount in order to meet the premium amount of Rs.676/-, then only the contention of opposite party No.2 can be said to be a ground for rejection of claim. The account extract given by opposite party No.1 (Ex.A12) in respect of the account maintained by DWACRA Group with opposite party No.1 shows that as on 01.04.2011 the statement not covered this date, as on 15.04.2011 the amount available in the account No.30285785386 is Rs.3,850/-, premium due is only Rs.676/-. As per Ex.A13 pass book of the deceased, as on 07.04.2011 the amount available is Rs.4,055/- and as on 07.04.2012 the balance available in the account of deceased is Rs.5,555/-. As per Ex.A14 pass book issued by opposite party No.1 (bank) in the name of ‘Vishnumaya Mahali Podupu Sangam’, as on 09.04.2010 an amount of Rs.5,680/- is available and by 11.04.2011 an amount of Rs.597/- is available, out of it an amount of Rs.559/- was transferred by opposite party No.1, but the details to which it was transferred were not found place and balance shown as Rs.38/-, but by 15.04.2011 some amounts were credited to the said account under Ex.A14, as such the balance amount available as on 15.04.2011 is Rs.3,888/-. Therefore, according to the conditions mentioned in the policy, if the premium is not paid by the due date or before expiry of the grace period of 30 days above the due date, then only the policy will be lapsed. When the amount is very much available in the account of DWACRA Group under Ex.A14, opposite party No.1 ought to have deducted the premium amount of Rs.676/- out of the said account of the members and remitted the same to opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.1 failed to do so, for which the policy holders, who are poor women formed together into DWACRA Group and maintaining podupu sangam and saving some amounts in their account to meet their financial necessities, will not be made scape goat for the latches on the part of opposite parties. In view of the above facts, rejection of claim made by the complainant, by opposite party No.2, is quite unjust and nothing but making false promises, luring the public and some of the woman those who wants to save their monies with banks to participate in SBI Life Insurance Schemes, stating that such schemes will be benefited for them financially and when necessity comes, rejecting their claims abruptly and illegally amounts to misleading the public. In this regard, I am relying on a decision reported in I (2015) CPJ 689 (NC) – State Bank of Patiala Vs. Girija Devi & Ors. The brief facts of the above decision are necessarily to be mentioned Sri Krishan Bihari Prasad, had taken loan from opposite party No.2 / petitioner, State Bank of Patiala in the year 2006. On account of this loan, he was insured by respondent No.5 – SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajpura Town, District Patiala. The said insurance was to mature on 01.09.2016. The premium of Rs.3,642/- was payable annually. The Insurance Company did not receive the premium for the year 2008 when it fell due on 14.08.2008. Unfortunately, the insured Sri Krishan Bihari Prasad passed away on 12.10.2008. The claim was filed by his legal heirs Smt.Girija Devi, Samrita Kumari, Shri Sanjit Kumar and Shri Rakesh Kumar, the complainants therein. Upto 13.08.2008 there was no sufficient balance to pay insurance premium from the account. On 14.08.2008 amount credited by clearing (interbank / branch transaction) which is credited after close of business otherwise customer can withdraw amount from account on other side clearing check can be returned unpaid to avoid such disputes amount credited after close of business (as banking practice) so insurance premium could not be paid on 14.08.2008., 15.08.2008 Public holiday as Independence Day., 16.08.2008 Saturday half working day., 17.08.2008 Sunday not working day., 18.08.2008 amount withdrawn by customer through ATM without appearing in branch so after that balance was not sufficient to pay insurance premium. Upto 14.09.2008 never sufficient balance was in account to pay insurance premium. 14.09.2008 salary of department was credited by clearing after close of business to avoid ATM withdrawal salary of Krishna Bihari Prasad was kept out of his account to pay insurance on next working day but on 15.09.2008 customer for payment of his salary without deduction of insurance premium and withdraw Rs.5,000/-, remaining balance was not sufficient to pay insurance premium so bank is not liable for non-payment of insurance, customer himself refused from payment of insurance premium (emphasis supplied). On the above particulars of the amounts availability in the account of the deceased, their Lordships of National Commission held that the petitioner had withdrawn the money on 18.08.2008. The petitioner could have deducted the amount on 16.08.2008. The bank employees were neither vigilant nor prudent. First of all, the money was available on 14.08.2008 and 16.08.2008 but they did not discharge their duty properly. They did not give a notice to the insured that due to lack of money, his premium is not being paid. The bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duties. Its bizarre conduct shows negligence, inaction and passivity on their part. The revision petition is without merits, therefore, the same is dismissed. The bank will be at liberty to adjust that amount in the loan account obtained by the insured. Revision Petition dismissed. The facts of the above decision are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. As the money was very much available with the bank (opposite party No.1 on the date of 15.04.2011) within the grace period but did not deduct the said amount towards the premium amount due for the reasons best known to it. The bank also did not give any notice to the insured that no amount is available in their account, as such the bank could not deduct the premium amount. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that repudiation / rejection of the claim by opposite party No.2 is quite unjust and illegal. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Accordingly this point is answered.
10. Point No.(ii):- to answer this point, we have to state that according to the policy No.86000051401, Smt.A.Varalakshmi (deceased) along with other 9 group members, joined on the advise of opposite party No.1 in SBI Life Swadhan Scheme. The complainant is her nominee. As per Ex.B3 amount assured is Rs.50,000/- for each member. The bank account number being maintained with opposite party No.1 by the DWACRA Group is 30285785386, Group Member ID is 23492698, Group Member is Mrs. Anthatola Varalakshmi, the Branch Name is Srikalahasti ADB, Form Number is 11701901, premium amount is Rs.676/-, premium is yearly, nominee is mentioned as A.Munikrishnaiah. The details furnished in Ex.B3 itself is sufficient and enabling the complainant to file the claim after the death of the insured, his wife Varalakshmi. 1st premium was paid on 01.04.2010 and 2nd premium is due by 01.04.2011 or within the grace period of one month thereafter i.e. on or before 01.05.2011. Mode of payment is through opposite party No.1 from the account of DWACRA Group. As on 15.04.2011 the amount available in the account of DWACRA Group i.e. Vishnumaya Mahila Podupu Sangam, bearing Account No.30285785386 is Rs.3,850/-. The premium amount payable is only Rs.676/-. So, it is for the opposite party No.1, to take the amount, out of the amount available in the account of the DWACRA Group and remit the same to opposite party No.2, to see that the premiums are regularly paid and the rights of the insured should be protected. Instead of doing so, though the amount is very much available in the account of the DWACRA Group with opposite party No.1, it seems that opposite party No.1 negligently failed to deduct the premium amount and remit the same to opposite party No.2, to make the policy survived and the policy holder be benefited. Because of the latches, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, the policy holders or the insured should not made suffered. The policy itself is death covered policy and the premiums invariably be collected from the account being maintained with opposite party No.1 and the same be remitted to opposite party No.2. No premiums shall be accepted directly by opposite party No.2 from any of the members of the scheme. So, except showing the amount in the account, the policy holders or the insured have no alternate to pay the premium amount. It is the bank, which committed error by not collecting the amount towards the premium due by 01.04.2011 or before expiry of grace period of 30 days over and above the due date. Therefore, the complainant in our opinion, being a nominee / husband of the deceased A.Varalakshmi, is entitled to receive the death benefits of his wife, under the scheme introduced by opposite parties 1 and 2, in which she was a member. The claim made by the complainant is quite reasonable and justified. Accordingly this point is answered.
11. Point No.(iii):- in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, because of which policy was said to be lapsed. Opposite party No.1 for the reasons best known to it, did not deduct the premium amount of Rs.676/- for the period from 01.04.2011 to 01.04.2012, premium is due by 01.04.2011 with grace period of 30 days, as on 15.04.2011 a sum of Rs.3,850/- was very much available in the account No. 30285785386 being maintained by Vishnumaya Mahila Podupu Sangam, DWACRA Group members with opposite party No.1, out of the said account, the premium amount ought to have been remitted to opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.1 failed to do so, on the same ground opposite party No.2 refused to accept the death claim made by the complainant for the death of his wife, insured Smt.A.Varalakshmi. The complainant is entitled to the maturity amount of Rs.50,000/- under the SBI Life Swadhan Group Scheme from opposite parties 1 and 2 and he is also entitled to compensation for the mental agony caused by the opposite parties and he is also entitled to the costs of the litigation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards maturity amount payable under the policy No.86000051401, in view of the death of A.Varalakshmi, the insured, none other than the wife of the complainant, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim i.e. 18.09.2012, till realization. Opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 18th day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.
PW-1: A.Munikrishnaiah (Chief Affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.
RW-1: Mrs. Dhanya K. P. (Chief Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
A Photo copy of Claimant’s statement Death Claim. Dt: 06.09.2012. | |
A Photo copy of Net claim form. Dt: 06.09.2012. | |
A Photo copy of Requisition of the complainant. Dt: 29.08.2012.
| |
A Photo copy of Death (17.04.2012) Certificate of A.Varalakshmi. Dt: 08.05.2012. | |
A photo copy of SVIMS Case summary. | |
Evasive reply given by the Opposite Party No.1 on 14.9.2012 (Original). | |
A photo copy of SBI Life Swadhan (Group) certificate of Insurance filed on behalf of the complainant filed on 14.09.2012. | |
Photo copy of Household Card filed on behalf of the complainant. Card Issue Date: 28.08.2005. | |
Office copy of Legal Notice filed on behalf of the complainant. Dt: 25.11.2013. | |
Office copy of Postal acknowledgements. Dt: 11.02.2014. | |
A Photo copy of bank(SBI) pass book and SBI LifeSwadhan (Group) certificate of Insurance (COI) for account holders of State Bank Group. | |
Statement of Account filed on behalf of the Complainant for the period of 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013. Dt: 04.06.2014. | |
Document filed on behalf of the complainant with original Pass book of Swayam Sahayaka Sangham (Original). Joining Date: 03.12.2007. | |
Document filed on behalf of the complainant with original SBI bank pass book. Date of Issue: 03.12.2007. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
1. | A True copy of the Master Policy of Group Swadhan Scheme. Policy No.86000051401. Dt: 13.07.2006. |
2. | A True copy of the group insurance scheme membership form. Dt: 09.03.2010. |
3. | A True copy of Certificate of Insurance (COI) for Account holders of the State Bank Group. Dt: 01.04.2010. |
4. | A True copy of Policy No.86000051401 Death of late Antatola Varalakshmi, Group Swadhan- A/C.No.30285785386. |
Sd/-
President
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. The Complainant.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.