Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/47/2015

Maram Reddy Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o Tirupathi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Venati Chandrasekhar Reddy

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :22-05-2015

                                                                             Date of Disposal:16-11-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the  16^th day of   NOVEMBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.47/2015

 

Maram Reddy Sreenivasulu @ Sreenivasulu Reddy,

S/o.Tirupathi Reddy,  Hindu, Aged 50 years,

Resident of Muthyalapadu Village,

Chillakuru Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                                   ..… Complainant    

                                                             Vs.

 

1.	The Manager, State Bank of India, Gudur Branch, Nellore District.
2.	The  Head-Sales & Marketing, SBI General Insurance, 101,201 and 301, Junction of Western Express Highway,   and  Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069.                                         ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .

          This complaint is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, advocate for the complainant and                                    Sri K. Sesha Reddy and Sri K. Mallikarjuna, advocates                                                       for the opposite party No.1 and Sri D.V.R. Kiran Kumar, advocate for the opposite party No.2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum passed the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

           The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties            1 and 2 to direct   the opposite parties to pay an  amount of Rs.4,00,000/-  being the insurance amount covered under the  bank account along with interest at 24% p.a.   from the date  of submission of claim form on 27-04-2015 till its payment  and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

          2.      The brief  averments of the complaint are as follows that:- the complainant is the father of  late Maramreddy Mohan Reddy during life time of the said Mohan Reddy, he opened S.B.Account No.32718995175 with 1^st opposite party  bank.  The 2^nd opposite party is the head of the SBI General Insurance which is the sister  concerned of the 1^st opposite party.  The said account covers the risks of the personal accident benefit on payment of Rs.100/- towards the premium for said the personal accident benefit.  On deducting a sum of Rs.100/- from the account of the said Mohan Reddy, the  opposite parties have  issued  Master Policy No.137300/0000/00 valid from 14-06-2013.  The  opposite parties have issued a certificate No.021053090 to  that effect.  Under the said certificate the complainant is shown as  nominee being the father of the account holder.  As per the conditions  of the said  master policy, the premium at the time of renewal of the policy would be the applicable premium at the date of renewal and the renewal will be subject to account of  the insured with State Bank of India being  still  live and operational.  The deceased Mohan Reddy was operating  the said account   till his death  and  he died on 02-03-2015 in a road accident for  which   a case in crime No.38/2015 was  registered at Chillakuru P.S. SPSR Nellore District.  After the death of the son of complainant, the complainant being the nominee under the policy, submitted a claim on 27-04-2015 before  both the opposite parties and requested to pay Rs.4,00,000/-  being the assured sum in view of the personal accident of the deceased.  The complainant also submitted all relevant documents along with the claim form.  As the opposite parties   have not chosen to give   any reply nor comply the demand, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 08-05-2015 to both the opposite parties calling upon them to pay the assured sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of  submission of claim form till its payment within one week  of the receipt of this notice and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

             3.          The opposite party No.1 filed counter / written version with  the following averments that:-  The opposite party No.1 submits that   one Mohan Reddy Maramreddy was holding a S.B. Account bearing  No.32718995175  with the 1^st opposite party bank and the said Mohan Reddy Maramreddy has taken SBI General Personal Accident Insurance Policy in master policy No.13700-0000-00 for the period  of one year from 14-06-2013 on payment  of Rs.100/- and insured  for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The policy was expired on 13-06-2014 and was not renewed thereafter by the said Mohan Reddy Maramreddy.

               The opposite party No.1 submits that  there is no standing  instruction or consent letter from the account holder to renew the policy.  The bank shall renew  the policy only on the instructions  of the account holder and there was no automatic renewal of the insurance policy by the  bank.  The account holder has to issue standing order or consent letter in writing to that effect.  Therefore, the opposite party  bank was not authorized to debit the premium.  It is the duty of the policy holder to ensure that the premiums are paid in time and the policy is kept in force.  Therefore the  bank is not liable for  the claim.

              The opposite party No.1 submits that   the reply notice                           dated 15-05-2015 issued by Sri.Y.V.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate, Gudur on behalf of the bank, it is true that there was a mention on the expiry date of the policy  as “by  13-06-2015”.  The opposite party No.1 submits that it was only a typographical error instead of  13-06-2014, it was typed  as 13-06-2015.  In this context, this opposite party bank  submits that the  complainant himself admitted that the said policy is valid from 14-06-2013  for a period of one year.  So,  the allegations made by the complainant that the said policy is in force as on the date of the death of deceased is not correct.

             The opposite party No.1 submits that   the allegations made by the complainant, as per the  conditions of the said master policy, the premium at the time of renewal of the policy would be applicable premium at the   date of renewal and the renewal will be subject to account of the insured with State Bank of India still live and operational only in the case of issuing standing order or consent letter in writing to that effect.  Here neither there is  standing order nor consent letter in writing to that effect.

            The opposite party No.1 submits that   the  contention of the complainant that the said account of the  deceased is operational   and  there is sufficient funds in his account  and it is the duty of the 1^st opposite party bank to deduct  the premium account from time to time and renew the policy issued by 2^nd opposite party is not correct.  There is no standing order or  consenting letter from the deceased to that effect.  As such, deducting the premium amount from the account of the 1^st opposite party  and renew the policy does not arise at all.

         The opposite party No.1 submits that  in this context, this opposite party bank submits that a new format has been introduced in “Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy” proposal  form from December, 2013 and as per the said new terms and conditions of the new proposal form,  there is a provision for auto-renewal, i.e., “I authorize renewal of this cover by direct debit of premium to my account as long as the terms and conditions and the premium payable remain unchanged.”.  So, it is also evident  that   at  the time of  issuing the policy to the deceased by name Mohan Reddy Maramreddy on 14-06-2013, there is no automatic renewal of the policy by deducting the amount from the account of the deceased by name Mohan Reddy Maramreddy.  It is the  sole responsibility of the insured to ensure the policy in force by timely remittance of renewal premium.  But here, the said Mohan Reddy Maramreddy did not renew the policy at all.

             The opposite party No.1 submits that as Maramreddy  Maramreddy died on 03-03-2015 and as the policy  was not in force as on the said date  the complainant is not entitled for any claim and it is submitted by the 1^st opposite party bank that the customer’s insurance policy is only an agreement  between  the customer and the SBI General Insurance Company and the 1^st   opposite party bank is merely facilitating the purchase of the insurance policy and  has no obligation towards settlement of claims and the same is also  accepted by the said Mohan Reddy Maramreddy in the said “Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy” form by giving declaration to that effect.

                The opposite party No.1 submits that  the definition of the  “Insured Period”  and the “Expiration Date”  according to the SBI  General Insurance clarifies and / or    answers the mis-interpretation of the policy terms and conditions taken of  by the complainant.  The defined terms are reproduced below for ready reference.

“INSURED PERIOD”  means with respect to the Policy, the period commencing with the Effective Date of the policy  and  terminating with the Expiration Date of the Policy as stated  in the Policy Schedule.

 

“RENEWAL CONDITIONS” -   The Policy may be renewed with Our consent by the payment  in advance of the total premium specified by Us,  which premium shall be at Our premium rate in force at the time of renewal.  We, however, are not bound to give notice that this Policy is due for renewal.   Unless renewed as herein provided, this Policy  shall terminate at the expiration of the period  for which premium has been paid.

 

“EXPIRATION DATE”.

1.  This  Policy  will  terminate on the expiration of the period for which premium has been  paid or on  the Expiration Date mentioned in the Proposal, Declaration Form and Policy  Schedule, whichever is earlier.
2. However, We may cancel this Policy   at any time by giving you fifteen (15) days notice delivered to you, or mailed at your last address as shown by our records, stating when such cancellation  shall be effective.

  Such cancellation will be on grounds of mis-representation, fraud, non-disclosure  of material facts or non-cooperation of the insured…”

           The opposite party No.1 submits that  the 1^st opposite party is no way liable or is burdened with a duty to deduct the premium without  the consent or standing instruction from the customer and the 1^st opposite party  is third party to the contract entered between the customer / Mohan Reddy Maramreddy and the SBI General Insurance Company.  It is also submitted that the insurance policy purchased by the complainant was expired on 13-06-2014 and no instruction was issued to this 1^st opposite   party bank to renew the policy and the  1^st opposite party bank is merely a facilitator for purchase of the insurance policy and has no obligation for settlement of the claims.

               The opposite party No.1 submits that  the complainant is not consumer within the purview  of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986   and as such the filing of the complaint is not maintainable and the dispute raised by the   complainant is not the consumer dispute and further the  opposite party bank submits  that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank  at all and as such, the complainant is not entitled for the amount  as prayed by them and hence submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

               4.   The opposite party No.2 filed written version with the following averments that:-

                The opposite party No.2 submitted that  one Mannareddy Mohanreddy had taken a policy  bearing No.137300-0000-00 which is  a master policy under  personal accidental cover and  at the  time  of taking policy he nominated his   father  by name Srinivasulu alias Srinivasulureddy who is the complainant for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The said policy commencing from  14-06-2013 for a period  of one year.  Subsequently the said Mohanreddy demised on 02-03-2015 in a road accident as per recitals.  As seen  from records the  said master policy is lapsed at the  time of accident hence the complainant is put to strict  proof thereof.   Later the opposite party No.2 received necessary form from  the nominee / complainant with insufficient documentation to process the claim submitted by the nominee.  In this connection, the opposite party No.2 made several representation to nominee for want of further documentation in respect of his claim.  But the nominee had not complied the same and suppressing the said facts in earlier he gave a legal notice to  his counsel to the opposite party No.2 with false and incorrect averments     and later filed this complaint before this Forum with a view to get wrongful gain from the opposite party No.2. 

            The opposite party No.2 submitted that hence  basing on the preliminary submissions,  the opposite party No.2 prays  that this Forum may be pleased to dismiss  the above complaint against  opposite party  No.2 with costs.

            The opposite party No.2  submitted that one  Maramreddy Mohanreddy obtained a policy from the opposite party No.2 bearing No.137300-0000-00 which is a master policy with personal accidental cover.  At the time of taking policy he had nominated his father by name M. Srinivasulu alias Srinivasulureddy who is the complainant  for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.  As seen from   recitals the   said M.Srinivasulureddy  was demised on 02-03-2015 in a road accident.  As per records by the  time of the death of the deceased the above referred policy  was lapsed  hence the  complainant is put to strict proof  thereof.  Late the nominee  submitted claim forms to the opposite party No.2.  Later the said M. Srinivasulu / complainant got issued legal notice dated 09-05-2015 to the opposite party No.2  with false and incorrect averments while the claim was under process.  The opposite party No.2 also gave reply to the counsel of complainant for the notice issued on his behalf stating the stage of the claim submitted by nominee.  In the mean time, the opposite party No.2 clearly wrote two letters to the nominee vide the letters dated  12-05-2015 and  27-05-2015  and requested  the nominee to submit all the attested copies of the  document which were placed in those letters. 

              The opposite party No.2 submits that  suppressing  the said facts  the complainant approached this  Forum with a view  to get wrongful gain from the opposite party No.2 and other opposite parties, without complying the letters sent by  the opposite party No.2.  In the reply notice  dated 05-06-2015, it was  clearly mentioned by the opposite party No.2 in respect of compliance of objections raised by the opposite party No.2 that the  complainant has to submit certified copies to process his claim.

             The opposite party No.2 submitted that  the complainant had not approached this Forum with  clean hands  and hence submits for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

              5.     On behalf of the complainant, affidavit of P.W.1 filed  and Exs.A1 to A9 marked.

              6.    On behalf of  opposite party No.1, affidavit of R.W.1 filed and Exs.B1 to B3 marked.

               7.      On behalf of the opposite party No.2,  the affidavit of R.W.2 filed and Exs.B4 and B5 marked.

              8.     Written arguments on behalf of  complainant not filed.

              9.      Written arguments on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed.

             10.    Arguments on behalf of the learned counsels for both parties heard.

             11.      Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

           12.     Now the points for consideration are:

            (1)     Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite

                      Party  1  under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

                      alleging deficiency of service is maintainable?

           (2)       Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite

                      Party  2 under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

                      alleging deficiency of service is maintainable?

          (3)    To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

         13.  POINT No.1:The learned  counsel for the complainant submits  by relying upon the evidence of P.W.1  and Exs.A1 to A9 that late Maramreddy Mohan Reddy, who is the son of the  complainant opened savings bank account No.32718995175  and after  deduction of Rs.100/- towards the  premium, the son of the complainant was issued master policy bearing No.137300/0000/00   valid from 14-06-2013 to 13-06-2014 and the opposite party No.1 has to deduct the premium  and remit the same to the opposite party No.2  at the time of the issuing of fresh policy but the opposite party No.1 failed to deduct the premium and the son of the  complainant  Maramreddy Mohan Reddy  died on 02-03-2015 and as the opposite party No.2  denied about the  payment of the  accident benefits   and  as the  opposite party No.1 failed to deduct the premium, the opposite  parties  and 2 are liable to pay the accidental benefit  amount and inspite of issuing of legal notice as the opposite parties  1  and 2 failed to pay the compensation amount, the complainant who is the father of the deceased  Maramreddy Mohan Reddy   filed this  complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2  to direct them for payment of  Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and submits to allow the complaint by  awarding damages and costs  of the complaint and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

            On the other hand the learned counsel for the  opposite party No.1  submits that it is  the duty of the  account holder to pay the premium as mentioned in Ex.B1 and since December, 2013, the  opposite party No.1  did not deduct the premium and as late Maramreddy Mohan Reddy died,  late Maramreddy Mohan Reddy obtained policy basing  under the  terms and conditions  under Ex.B1, it is the duty  of the said Maramreddy Mohan Reddy to pay the premium to renew  his policy and as Maramreddy Mohan Reddy failed to pay the premium amount,  the policy   which was issued in favour of the  Maramreddy Mohan Reddy was  lapsed and hence the complainant is not entitled  to claim  any compensation and submits for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party No.1 with costs.

              In view of the arguments  submitted by the learned counsels for both parties and as seen from the  facts of the case, it is an admitted fact that the son of the complainant namely Maramreddy Mohan Reddy opened S.B.Account No.32718995175    and  a sum of Rs.100/-  was paid for obtaining  accidental policy and the son of the complainant was issued master policy No.137300/0000/00, it is in force from 14-06-2013 to 13-06-2014 and it is an admitted fact that the opposite party No.1 did not deduct the premium and paid to the opposite party No.2 and hence opposite party No.2  was not issued any policy in favour of the late Maramreddy Mohan Reddy.  The written version filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1 at para-8 reads as follows:

The opposite party No.1 submits that  in this context, this opposite party bank submits that a new format has been introduced in “Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy” proposal  form from December, 2013 and as per the said new terms and conditions of the new proposal form,  there is a provision for auto-renewal, i.e., “I authorize renewal of this cover by direct debit of premium to my account as long as the terms and conditions and the premium payable remain unchanged.”.  So, it is also evident  that   at  the time of  issuing the policy to the deceased by name Mohan Reddy Maramreddy on 14-06-203, there is no automatic renewal of the policy by deducting the amount from the account of the deceased by name Mohan Reddy Maramreddy.  It is the  sole responsibility of the insured to ensure the policy in force by timely remittance of renewal premium.  But here, the said Mohan Reddy Maramreddy did not renew the policy at all.

 

Ex.B2  terms and conditions were issued in the month of  December, 2013 as admitted by the opposite  party No.1  and as on the date of Ex.B2 Maramreddy Mohan Reddy is  alive     and the policy which was issued in the name of  Maramreddy Mohan Reddy  was inforce till 13-06-2014.   The opposite party No.1 is to deduct the premium on or before 13-06-2014  and remit the same into the account of the opposite party No.2 show that the opposite party No.2 can  renew the policy in favour of Maramreddy Mohan Reddy. The opposite party No.1 inspite of receiving of Ex.B2 terms and conditions  which are inforce   since December, 2013, the opposite party No.1 failed to deduct the premium and remit the same to the account of the opposite party No.2.   Considering the  above facts, we are of the opinion that the opposite party No.1 has deducted the premium as Ex.B2 terms and conditions are inforce since December, 2013.

 

In   Manipal  Academy of Higher Education Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner  reported in  AIR  2008 SC page-1951 at 1955.

               Wherein  the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “though  the statute in question  is a beneficial one, the concept  of beneficial legislation becomes relevant only when two views are possible.”

 

In     Steel Authority  of  India Limited Vs. National Union Water Front Workers  reported in   AIR  2001  SC 3527.

 

                 Wherein the  Hon’ble Apex Court held that “ it is now   well settled that in interpreting   a beneficial  legislation enacted to give effect to  directive principles of  the state policy which is  otherwise   constitutionally valid, the consideration of the Court cannot be divorced from those objections.   In a case of ambiguity in  the language of a beneficial labour legislation, the Courts have to resolve the quandary  in favour of conferment of, rather than denial of, a benefit on the  labour by the  legislature  but  without rewriting  and /   or  doing violence  to the provisions of the enactment.”

 

In    Keshavan Madhava Menan Vs. State of Bombay  reported in AIR 1951   SC 128.

 

          Wherein the  Hon’ble  Apex Court held that it is a cardinal  principle of construction that  every statue  if  prima facie prospective unless it is  expressively or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation.”

 

In    S.L.   Srinivasa  Jute   Twine Mills (Private)  Limited  Vs.   Union  of India reported in (2006)  2 SCC 740.

 

           Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “the rule in general is applicable,  where the object of the statute   is to affect vested  rights   or to impose new burdens  or to impair existing  applications.  Unless there are  words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect  existing rights, it is  deemed to be prospective only “nova consideration futures for  amount imponere debet non praeteritis.”

             Following the above decisions as Ex.B2 terms and conditions were issued towards beneficial legislature  and as on  the  date of issuing on instructions in the month of December, 2013,  the opposite party No.1 ought to have   deduct the  premium and pay to the opposite party No.2, so that the policy  of  Maramreddy Mohan Reddy will not be lapsed.  Inspite of  issuing receiving of communication under Ex.B2 and as the said  terms and conditions are in force from December, 2013, the opposite party No.1 failed to  deduct the premium and remit the same   into the  account of opposite party No.2.  so that the policy  of Maramreddy Mohan Reddy will be inforce.  As Ex.B2 were issued towards the   welfare of the customers and  not following the  said Ex.B2 terms and conditions is nothing but  deficiency of  service and hence  the opposite party No.1 is liable  to pay  the compensation amount  to the complainant  who is the  father of the late Maramreddy Mohan Reddy  as premium was not paid by the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2, the claim of the complainant against the opposite  party No.2 is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.

              Following the above decisions and discussion made above, we answer this point in favour of the complainant  and against the opposite party No.1.

           14.  POINT No.2:The complainant filed  this complaint against the opposite party No.2 directing the opposite party No.2  for payment of the compensation amount.  The learned counsel for the  opposite party No.2  submits that   as no policy was renewed, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as the policy was not renewed as on the  date of the death of  the son of the complainant.  In view of the  said fact as the opposite party No.1  failed to pay the premium amount by debiting the same from the  bank account of   late Maramreddy Mohan Reddy  and as the policy was not renewed  for the said reason,  we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant  against  the opposite party No.2 is not maintainable.  In view of the  above discussion, we answer this point against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party No.2.

              15.    POINT NO.3: In view of our answering on point No.1 in favour of the complainant   and  against the opposite party No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed with costs  and in view of  our answering on  point No.2  against the  complainant and in favour of  opposite party No.2, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party No.2 is not maintainable and the same has to be  dismissed without costs.

                In the result,  the complaint is allowed in favour  of the complainant and against the opposite party No.1 only and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only)  with interest  @ 6% p.a. on Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of Ex.A8 i.e., from 09-05-2015 till the date of payment. 

              The claim of the complainant  for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is disallowed as interest was awarded on the compensation amount.

              The opposite party No.1  is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.

              The claim of the complainant against  the opposite party No.2 is dismissed without costs.

               The opposite party No.1 is directed to comply the order within 30 days  on communication of the order.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  16^th  day of  NOVEMBER, 2017.

 

          Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

                                               APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

31-08-2017

Sri M. Sreenivasulu @ Sreenivasulu Reddy, SPSR Nellore District (Deposition affidavit filed).

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -	18-05-2016	Sri Monish L. Kerhar, S/o.Laxmon Kerhar, Hindu/Muslim/Christian, Working as Assistant Manager Litigation in  SBI General Insurance. (chief examination of R.W.2 filed).
R.W.2  -	19-08-2016	Sri Yerramilli Murali Krishna, S/o.Y.V.Bavaji, chief Manager  of  State Bank of India, Gudur  Town, SPSR Nellore District (chief affidavit filed).

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Photostat copy of  Certificate No.021053090  issued by
Ex.A2  -	-	Photostat copy of pass book in Account No.32718995175  in the name of  Mohan Reddy  Maramreddy.
Ex.A3  -	28-04-2015	Photostat copy of Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy.
Ex.A4  -	03-03-2015	Photostat copy of First Information Report No.38/2015, Chillakur Police Station, Nellore.
Ex.A5  -	03-03-2015	Photostat copy of Inquest report.
Ex.A6  -	-	Photostat copy of Post – Mortem Certificate.
Ex.A7  -	27-04-2015	Photostat copy of letter from complainant to the  opposite party No.1 alongwith  registered post receipts.
Ex.A8  -	09-05-2015	Legal  notice from complainant’s advocate to the  opposite parties alongwith registered post receipts.
Ex.A9  -	15-05-2015	Letter from   opposite party No.1 advocate to the  complainant’s advocate.

 

 

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	-	Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy, proposal form.
Ex.B2  -	-	Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy, proposal form.
Ex.B3  -	-	Customer Information Sheet.
Ex.B4  -	-	Photostat copy of  letter from opposite party No.2 to the complainant.
Ex.B5  -	05-06-2015	Photostat copy of  letter from opposite party No.2 to the complainant’s advocate.

 

 

                                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	Sri K. Sesha Reddy and Sri K. Mallikarjuna, Advocates, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.
3.	Sri D.V.R. Kiran Kumar, Advocate, D.No.25-9-336, Z.P.Colony, A.K.Nagar, Nellore-524 004.

 

Date when free copy was issued: