ORDER

Per:  K.V.Krishna Murthy:   

            A MAXICAB with 11+1 seating capacity vehicle bearing registration No. KA-37/A-3354 dashed against a road side tree on 04-6-2013 at about 7 PM near Hiresindhogi village resulting in death of the driver of the vehicle by name Shashikanth and injuries to 8 passengers travelling in the vehicle.  A case in crime No.55/2013 has been registered against the deceased driver but no prosecution on account of death of the deceased driver.  The accident was not due to mechanical defect of the vehicle as could be seen from the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and certain damages occurred to the vehicle.  The vehicle was got repaired subsequently, for which the complainant claims that he has spent Rs.2,50,000.00.  His claim for repair charges has been declined by the Insurance Company.

            2.  The complainant therefore moved this District Forum praying for an award of Rs.2,50,000.00 towards the repair charges. Rs.10,000.00 towards towing charges of the vehicle.  Rs. 50,000.00 for physical and mental agony.  Rs.50,000.00 towards deficiency in service.  Rs.50,000.00 for late payment of policy amount (?) and Rs.7,000.00 towards litigation and other expenses.

            3.  The repudiation letter of the claim of the complainant has been marked as Ex.A1 dated 24-7-2014, which reads as follows.

“This has reference to your claim in respect of the above vehicle, which has met with an accident on 04.06.2013 Koppal near Hiresindhogi village.  The matter was reported to Alawandi Police Station.  The final survey was entrusted to Mr.R.M.Giri, Hubli.  The Surveyor has assessed the loss and submitted his report on 14.07.2014

After going through the file we have observed that the Driver of the vehicle Mr.Shashikanth Devaraj was holding LMV (NT)/TRV RIGID valid from 07.03.2006 to 06.03.2026.  But the vehicle involved in the accident is passenger carrying with seating capacity of 12+1.  But the Driver as on date of accident was not holding LMV (TR) with Badge.  Hence it is violation of our police conditions and also under Motor Vehicle Act.

Hence the above claim is repudiated for the following reasons - THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WAS NOT HOLDING VALID LICENCE AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENT.”

            4.  In paragraph – 8 of the written version filed on 05-12-2014, the Insurance Company contended as follows;

“As per Driving License of the Driver of the said Tracks on the material date, time and place of accident, His FDL No. KA3520060005045 issued by the RTO authorities of Hospet on dated 07-03-2006.  His date of Birth is 03-11-1987.  The RTO authorities of Hospet have issued DL to the said driver to driver LMV (Non Transport) and Transport Vehicle Licenses.  The LMV (NT) is valid from 07-03-2006 to 06-03-2020.  It is for 20 years, Transport means Heavy Goods Vehicle it is valid from 19-11-2008 and it renewed again from RDL No.KA35DLR/0000712/2013 and it is valid up to 15-02-2016.  The Driver of the said Tracks is not having valid and Effective DL to drive the LMV Transport with Badge for 3 years.  The Maxi cab is a Luxury Taxi, it has Yellow Board and Badge along with 3 years Endorsement is Mandatory.  On this count alone the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.”

            5.   Counsel for the OP has furnished following decisions.

1. Order in MFA No.21079/2009 C/w MFA Crab No.745/2008 (MV) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
2. Order in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.30903/2009 (MV) before the High Court of Karnataka, Gulbarga Bench.
3. National Insurance Co.Ltd., V/s Shiv Shankar Soni – 2013 (3) CPR 75 (NC)
4. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V/s Prabhu Lal – 2008 ACJ 624
5. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V/s Musharaf Alam – 2012 (2) CPR 473 (NC).

6.  The contention of the Insurance Company for the rejection of the claim is that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid licence at the time of accident.

7.  The limitation as to use condition stipulated in the policy schedule, Ex.A.2 provides that any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds effective driving licence at the time of accident.

8.  Section – 3(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 states –

3. Necessity for driving licence – (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than [a motor-cab or Motor Cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.

9.  Section – 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 reads;

10.  Form and contents of licences to driver – (1) Every learner’s license and driving license, except a driving license issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central government.

(2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely :-

(a) motor-cycle without gear;

(b) motor-cycle with gear;

(c) invalid carriage;

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) transport vehicle;

(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;

(g) heavy goods vehicle;

(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;

(i) road – roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.

10.  Rule – 69 of Motor Vehicles Rules – 1988 states that every driving licence issued or renewed by the licensing authority shall be in Form – 6 or Form – 7.

11.  We have gone through the prescribed Form No. 6 & 7 and it may not be necessary to reproduce the same.  What is important to notice is class of vehicle as referred to in Section – 10 cited above required to be specified.  Badge details as mentioned in Form No. 7 requires the following particulars;

Badge Details

• Badge Number
• Valid till
• Authorisation Number
• Authorisation Date.

12.  Section – 14 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 to the extent relevant are as follows;

14. Currency of licenses to drive motor vehicles –

(2) A driving license issued or renewed under this Act shall –

(a) in the case of license to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years.

13.  The Insurance Company has furnished Ex.B.3, the driving license issued by RTO, Hospet, which is reproduced herein below.

            14.  From the above, it is clear that the deceased driver possessed the effective licence for LMV and non-transport vehicle.  The licence of LMV (non-transport) was in force w.e.f. 7-3-2006 to 06-3-2026 for 20 years.  The licence for transport vehicle was issued on 09-11-2008.  The same was renewed on 21-02-2013, effective till 15-02-2016, which implies that the previous date of expiry of the effective licence for transport vehicle was upto 16-02-2013.  The accident occurred on 04-6-2013.

            15.  Badge number not given as per requirement of Form No.6 or Form No.7 and if not given, the fault lie on the licencing authority and not the licencee because, Section – 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 do not require the badge number should be mandate.  What it all says is a effective driving licence.  In the instant case, the driver had effective driving licence to drive –

            i. LMV valid upto 26-03-2026.

            ii. Transport vehicle valid upto 15-02-2016.

            16.  U/sec. 2(47) of Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 ‘Transport vehicles’ means – a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.

            17.  U/sec. 2 (35) of Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 ‘Public Service Vehicle’ means – any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage.

            18.  U/sec.2 (22) of Motor Vehicles Act – 1988, Maxi Cab means – any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward.

            19.  U/sec. 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 Light motor vehicle means – a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor-car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [75000] kilograms.

            20.  In the case on hand, Force Tracks Maxi Cab unladen weight of the vehicle was 1780 Kgs vide Ex.A.5.  In this case, the Maxi Cab had 11+1 seating capacity and so is a public service vehicle.  Hence the vehicle in question comes within the purview of Section 2(47) as well as Sec. 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988. 

21. U/sec. 2(10) of Motor Vehicles Act – 1988, - Driving licence means – the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.  As such the driver must be deemed to have effective driving licence to drive the motor cab in question because light motor vehicle means the transport vehicle as per Sec. 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act – 1988.  Since extract of licence is not in prescribed Form No. 6 or Form No.7.  We cannot hold that the driver has not valid licence because the error, if any, is on the part of RTO Office.  In the case before us, the Maxi Cab had valid permit to run as TOURIST VEHICLE THROUGHOUT INDIA w.e.f.
29-05-2013 to 28-05-2018.  So it is a public service vehicle.  As such, Sec. – 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act – 1988 attracts.  It can be safely described as Transport Vehicle for which the driver had valid licence.

            22.  In the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha V.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1986 – 2002 Consumer 6139 (NS) : 1999 (2) CCC 90 (NS) : 1999 (6) SCC 620, the appellant was the owner of a truck weighing less than the maximum limited prescribed in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act.  The said truck was, therefore, a light motor vehicle.  It was registered with the respondent insurer for a certain amount and for a certain period.  Within the period of insurance, the truck met with an accident and got completely damaged.  The appellant’s claim against the respondent was rejected by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  The National Commission accepted the respondent’s contention that the truck was a goods carriage or a transport carriage and that the driver of the truck, who was holding a driving licence in Form 6 to drive light motor vehicles only, was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle and, therefore, the insured having committed breach of the terms of insurance policy and the provisions of the Act, the respondent insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured.  Allowing the appeal, this Court held as under:-

“14. Now the vehicle in present case weighed 5920 kolograms and the driver had the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle.  It is not that, therefore, the insurance policy covered a transport vehicle which meant a goods carriage.  The whole case of the insurer has been built on a wrong premise.  It is itself the case of the insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to have a specific authorization on the license of the driver under Form 6 under the rules.  It has, therefore, to be held that Jadhav was holding an effective valid licence on the date of the accident to drive a light motor vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-28-567.

            23.  In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, 1986-2008 Consumer 13194 (NS) : 2008 CCC 63 (NS) : 2008 (3) SCC 464, the vehicle involved in the accident was a matador having a goods carriage permit and was insured with the insurance company.  An issue was raised that the driver of the vehicle did not possess an effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle.  The Tribunal held that the driver was having a valid driving licence and allowed the claim.  In appeal filed by the insurance company, the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the claimants are third parties and even on the ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy the insurance company cannot be permitted to contend that it has no liability.  This Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and definition and meaning of light goods carriage, light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, finally came to conclusion that the driver, who was holding the licence duly granted to drive light motor vehicle, was entitled to drive the light passenger carriage vehicle, namely, the matador.  This Court observed as under:

“20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for “medium goods vehicle” and heavy goods vehicle”.  The light motor vehicle continued at the relevant point of time to cover both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”.  A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.”

            24.  Following the above decision of the Supreme Court we conclude that there is no statutory requirement to have specific authorization of the licence of the driver Shashikanth u/sec. 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 as there is no disctinction as to LMV (non-transport) and LMV (transport) in Clause (c) of Section – 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988.  See Sec. 10 of Act No.55 of 1988.  According to us, LMV is a transport vehicle as it was not a motor car or a motor cycle as defined u/sec. 2(26) or 2(27) of the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988 as per the plain reading of Section 2(21).

            25.  From the above analysis of the facts of the case, we hold that the driver shashikanth had effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident.

            26.  An unreported case in MFA No. 21079/2009, DD : 08-11-2013, the observation of High Court in paragraph – 13 & 14 reads as under;

“13. Liability to pay compensation arises only when the driver of the vehicle or owner of vehicle possesses a valid and effective driving licence, as specified under the Act, and on satisfying all the conditions in the policy.  In the instant case, driver of the vehicle in question was holding licence to drive non-transport vehicle whereas he was driving a transport vehicle for which the driver is to be held liable since he has committed an offence under Indian Penal Code, as he has contravened the provisions of the Act.

14.  Under the circumstances, I hold that the order of the Tribunal fastening liability on the insurance company has to be set aside.  Hence I pass the following order

            27.  The above decision had arisen out of a case where the driver had licence to drive non-transport vehicle whereas he was driving a transport vehicle.  In the case under consideration before us, the driver had licence to drive light motor vehicle as well as transport vehicle separately.  As such the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.

            28.  In the unreported decision in MFA No.30903/2009 (MV), DD: 02-8-2014, the deceased driver was held driving a mini lorry TATA tempo – 407.  The question for consideration before High Court was – Whether a driver possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle is enabled to drive a transport vehicle, without the need for an endorsement to that effect, by the competent authority?.

            29.  In the concluding paragraph, the High Court observed as follows;

“In the light of the above decisions, it is to be held that a driver holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle is not enabled to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ without a specific endorsement to that effect on the form of licence.  In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that there was no such endorsement and therefore the insurer is absolved of any liability to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant.

The appeal is allowed and the liability fastened on the appellant is set aside.  The claimants are left to their remedy against the owner of the offending vehicle.”

            30.  The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, because the deceased driver Shashikant had licence to drive the transport vehicle also, which include a public service vehicle, i.e. Maxicab.

            31.  In the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Jodhpur & Anr., V/s Shiv Shankar Soni – 2012 (3) CPR 75 (NC), it is held that –

“9.xxxxxxxx the driving licence possessed by the driver authorized him to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) only, he was not authorized to drive passenger/transport vehicle.  Insured’s vehicle was a taxi, which would be a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.  That since the driver did not possess the driving licence to drive the passenger/transport vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured.”

            32.  In the above case, the driver had no licence to drive a transport vehicle but also is a case where the driver had licence to drive not only light motor vehicle but also transport vehicle.  As such above decision is not applicable. 

            33.  In the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and Anr., V/s Musharaf Alam – 2012 (2) CPR 473 (NC), the National Commission observed as under;

“10. On perusal of the documents on record we note that in the copy of the driving licence produced by the Respondent it is clearly stated that it was renewed on 11.7.2005 for a period of three years.  There is, however, no evidence on record to show that the driver had a valid driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 6.6.2005.  We specifically asked Counsel for Respondent if he could produce any licence in respect of this period and he fairly conceded that no such evidence was available.  Although, the State Commission has not touched on discussed this aspect, we are of the view that in view of the above facts, and without going into the issue of whether the licence was fake or not, the driver of the Respondent did not have a valid licence at the time of accident and this is clearly a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as also Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. X x x x x x x x x.”

            34.  The above observations are not applicable to the present case as the driver had effective licence in-force on the date of accident on 04-06-2013 and therefore the decision relied upon do not holds good.

            35.  In the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance co.Ltd., V/s Prabhu Lal – 2008 ACJ 627, the driver had licence to drive the LMV only whereas he was driving the commercial vehicle to carry passengers.  In the case under consideration before this Forum, the driver had license to drive not only a light motor vehicle but also a public service vehicle.

36.  In the case of S.Iyyapan V/s. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., & another – 2013 (2) CCC 455 (NS), the question for decision before the Supreme Court was – can an Insurance Company disown its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle although duly licensed to drive light motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the license to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle.  This is the sole question arises for consideration in that appeal.

            37.  In the last two paragraph of the decision in the case of S.Iyyapan V/s. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., & another – 2013 (2) CCC 455 (NS), the Supreme Court observed as follows;

“19. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle.  There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab.  Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle.  The impugned judgment is, therefore liable to be set aside.

20.  We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and hold that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation so awarded to the dependants of the victim of the fatal accident.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

            38.  In the above said decision, three appeals have been decided on similar reasons.  The paragraph 44 & 45 relates to other two appeals and the reasoning’s given are as follows;

“44. In the matter of Nasir Ahmed [S.L.P (C) No.7618 of 2005], the vehicle was a luxury taxi-passenger carrying commercial vehicle.  There also the driving licence issued in favour of the driver was to ply light motor vehicle (LMV) and hence the driver could not have driven the vehicle in question.  In that case too, the licence was renewed for a period of 20 years, i.e., from 5.2.2000 to 4.2.2020.  Again, there was no endorsement as required section 3 of the Act.  A specific plea was taken by the insurance company but the authorities held the insurance company liable which could not have been done.  The reasoning and conclusion arrived at by us in the matter of Prabhu Lal [S.L.P. (C) No.7370 of 2004] would apply to the case of Nasir Ahmed.  That appeal is therefore, allowed.

45.  In Chandra Prakash Saxena [S.L.P. (C) No.17794 of 2004], the vehicle involved in accident was a jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and in view of the fact that the driver was holding licence to drive the light motor vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the vehicle in question.  For the reasons recorded hereinable in the main matter of Prabhu Lal, i.e., S.L.P. (C) No.7370 of 2004, insurance company could not have been held liable and that the appeal also deserves to be allowed.”

39.  These observations are also not applicable to the driver Shashikant, had licence to drive both LMV and public service vehicle like Maxi cab.

            40.  In the light of discussion hereinabove, the contention raised by the insurance company about the validity of the licence of the deceased driver at the time of accident is unacceptable.

            41.  The next question is to decide the admissible claim.  This will be an easy task for us because the counter evidence of OP do not touch on this aspect of the matter.  But still we have to judge the claim because neither the complaint nor the affidavit evidence of the complainant contain details of the expenditure for the claim of Rs.2,50,000=00 for the repairs.  So more discussion is required.

            42.  The bill, Ex.A.7 consists bills bearing No. 4802 to 4816, all the bills dated: 26-05-2014 issued by Sri Shivanand Motors, Gadag.

            Bill No. 4806 to 4814                     -           Rs. 1,43,933=00

            Bill No. 4815: Labour charges     -           Rs.    28,090=00

                                                TOTAL          -           Rs. 1,72,023=00

            43.  We are not convinced that the spare parts mentioned in bill No. 4816 were required for repairs as a result of the accident that occurred on 04-06-2013, i.e. 11 months earlier.

            44.  The remaining bills, Ex.A.8 to Ex.A15 are of different dates; dated: 10-01-2014, 05-02-2014, 13-02-2014, 10-03-2014 and 30-03-2014 do not contain the name of the complainant as purchaser and no VAT charges in some bills.  Ex.A.10 is not a bill and not proved to be guanine to the satisfaction of this Forum.  Hence this Forum decline to treat Ex.A.8 to Ex.A.15 as guanine and therefore rejected, because these parts could have been purchased in M/s Shivanand Spares, which was dealer’s shop wherein labour work was done for the repairs of the vehicle in question.

            45.  Another aspect is required to be considered that the accident occurred on 04-06-2013 near Gadag town where the vehicle was repaired.  But the spare parts were purchased on 26-05-2014, that means the vehicle was repaired about 11 months later.  Reason for much delay in getting the vehicle repaired is not made known to us.  It is an elementary knowledge of every owner of the vehicle that condition of a damaged vehicle kept idle without running condition and proper maintenance for a long period will result in further damage requiring extra repairs.  For that reason only we have gone through each and every item mentioned in Ex.A.7 and found that there is no material to conclude that every item mentioned therein was to be replaced on account of damages occurred 11 months earlier on 04-06-2013.

            46.  Damages noticed at the time of inspection by the Inspector of Motor Vehicle, RTO, Koppal on 12-06-2013 were as follows;

1. Front bumper damaged
2. Front registration number plate damaged
3. Radiator & bonnet damaged
4. Front wind screen glass broken
5. Dash board and steering system damaged
6. Front both side chassis damaged.

47.  No photographs of damaged vehicle furnished by the complainant nor he produced the job card details of the repairs done.  Hence we find it reasonable to reduce the spare parts price as well as labour charges by 1/3 but without any depreciation of the spare parts the vehicle purchased was a new one manufactured in 2013.  So, we are allowing Rs.95,956=00 only after deduction of Rs.47,977/- as excessive claim, arisen on account of not getting a repaired the vehicle soon after the accident and keeping the vehicle in Alawandi Police Station premises without proper maintenance.

48.  The complainant has not furnished the job cards showing the labour charges pertaining to each job.  Hence, we think it proper to deduct 1/3 out of labour charges.  So, we deducted Rs.9,090=00 out of Rs.28,090=00.  Thus considered, labour charges will be allowed to the extent of Rs.19,000=00 as against Rs.28,090=00, because the labour charges increased due to non-repair of the damaged vehicle for more than 11 months from the date of accident.

49.  Bill No. 4082 discloses Rs.60,362.44 plus 14.5% VAT charges for chassis replacement.  Many metal parts have been replaced.  Hence, in the absence of clear evidence placed before this Forum, we propose to deduct 10% of the spare parts price towards salvage.  Hence, Rs.14,393=00 will be deducted out of Rs.1,43,933=00.  As such, amount payable would be Rs.1,29,540=00.  Thus, the amount payable would be Rs.1,29,540.00

50.  Policy provides for compulsory excess of Rs.500=00, which is to be given deduction.

51.  From the above analysis, the admissible amount is calculated as follows;

1. Amount allowed towards spare parts            -           Rs.  95,956=00
2. Labour charges                                                 -           Rs.   19,000=00

TOTAL          (+)       -           Rs. 1,14,956=00  

1. Less deduction : Salvage                    (-)         -           Rs.    14,393=00
2. Compulsory policy excess                  (-)          -           Rs.         500=00

Rs. 1,00,063=00

                        This is rounded off to                              -           Rs. 1,00,000=00

            52.  The repudiation letter is dated: 24-07-2014. As such we propose to award Rs.10,000=00 towards deficiency in service on part of the Insurance Company in not paying the repair charges although the complainant paid premium amount of Rs.11,018=00.

53.  To conclude, this Forum directs the Insurance Company to pay sum of Rs.1,10,000=00 (Rupees one lakh and ten thousand only) to the complainant with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment.  In addition, Rs.5,000=00 (Rupees five thousand only) is awarded towards litigation expenses.  The Insurance Company is to report the compliance of the order to this Forum before the end of June – 2015.

Complaint Partly Allowed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript, edited, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 21-02-2015.

                                                                                                     President

Member-in-charge.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.

                President

Member-in-charge.