Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/196/2018

C R Kulasekaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Post Master General & Another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s K Ganesan

27 Dec 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 04.05.2018

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 27.12.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.196/2018

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 27^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

                                 

C.R. Kulasekaram,

S/o. Late. C. Ranganatham,

First Floor, New No.23, Old No.12,

Tanjore Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                        .. Complainant. 

                                                                                                ..Versus..

 

1. The Senior Post Master,

T. Nagar Head Post Office,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Chennai City Central Division,

Third Floor, T. Nagar Head Post Office,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant         : M/s. K. Ganesan & others

Counsel for the opposite parties  : Mr. D. Chandar

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund the amount of Rs.5,34,860/- deducted by the 1^st opposite party adopting a faulty calculation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. of Rs.26,332/- from the date of complaint till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is a Senior Citizen and a constituent of the 1^st opposite party having a Senior Citizens Savings’ Scheme Account No.0000936835 with a deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-.   The said Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme Account was opened at Pondicherry Post Office on 10.09.2009 and transferred to the 1^st opposite party’s office and was in a continuous operation with the 1^st opposite party at its office situated at T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 since 19.06.2010.   The periodical interest were credited into the Savings Bank Account of the complainant since then by the 1^st opposite party.   The said account matures at the end of 5 years.   After 5 years, i.e. 12.09.2014, the complainant extended the account for a period of 3 years on 12.06.2015.  With this extension, the account was due to mature on 12.09.2017. But the 1^st opposite party failed to pay the maturity proceeds on the account in full and deducted a sum of Rs.5,46,382/- on account of alleged excess interest paid calculated at the rate applicable to the Scheme and allowing only the interest at the rate applicable to the Savings Bank Account on the excuse that the account was an irregularly opened account in contravention of rules governing the scheme.   The opposite parties paid a sum of Rs.9,62,993/- only on 06.11.2017 as against the total maturity value of Rs.15,00,000/-.  The complainant made several trips to the office of the 1^st opposite party and preferred a written complaint dated:10.10.2017 and email dated:17.10.2017 to get his legitimate due of the maturity proceeds which after a considerable delay and upon vigorous follow-up resulted in the 1^st opposite party issuing a letter dated:03.11.2017 stating that the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Account No.0000936835 was opened irregularly without mentioning the earlier accounts standing in the name of the complainant and as a result, a sum amounting to Rs.10,85,046/- would be deducted on account of excess interest paid on the account.   The calculations appended with the letter further stated that an amount of Rs.9,62,993/- would be repaid out of the total deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-.   The Scheme is a product of a social beneficial legislation floated under the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873 and governed by the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Rules, 2004 framed by the Central Government which came in to force on 02.08.2004.

2.     The complainant submits that the other two Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Accounts viz., 101011 opened on 21.09.2004 and 102938 opened on 13.04.2005 and closed on 31.10.2009 & 24.11.2009 respectively.    The complainant further states that the deposit in dispute was made by him only after due instructions to the agent to close the earlier accounts.   The number of days overlapping between the accounts ought to have been reckoned as 51 days in case of account No.101011 & 75 days in case of account No.102938 and not the entire period of eight years as calculated by the 1^st opposite party.  The faulty calculation adopted by the 1^st opposite party deprives the complainant from getting the legitimate interest accruals applicable on the deposit made by the complainant under the scheme.   The complainant states that the interest payable for the days of overlap is Rs.7,336/-  & Rs.10,788/- at the rate of 3.5% as applicable to the Savings Bank Account prevailing at that point in time on account No.101011 & 102938 respectively. Whereas, the interest calculated as Rs.11,527/- & Rs.16,952/- totalling to Rs.28,479/- only.   Instead of adopting the above calculation, the 1^st opposite party has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the complainant by deducted a huge sum of Rs.5,46,382/- far in excess of the actual and has caused a huge pecuniary loss which has to be necessarily compensated by the opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party chose not to act according to Rule 4 Sub-rule (1) of the Senior Citizens’ Scheme Rules, 2004, which states as under:

“A deposit office shall as soon as it comes to the notice that a deposit exceeds the ceiling prescribed under sub-rule (1) request the deposited in writing to withdraw the excess deposit immediately”.

When the deposit in dispute was transferred to the 1^st opposite party on 19.06.2010 by the time the earlier deposits were closed as such the first opposite party is not correct in stating that the account was opened irregularly by the complainant.   The failure of the deposit office to notify the complainant at the earliest point in time as envisaged by the Rule 4 (4) of the said scheme has greatly prejudiced the complainant.   

3.     The complainant further submits that according to Rule 7 of the said rules, the excess amount shall carry interest at the rate applicable from time to time to the Post Office Savings Account and such interest shall be payable from the date of deposit of excess amount to the end of the month preceding the month in which, the deposit office requests the depositor to withdraw the excess amount was only for the period of 51 days in case of the deposit account bearing No.101011 and 75 days in case of the deposit account bearing No.102938.   Therefore, the action taken by the 1^st opposite party to deduct the entire interest of Rs.10,85,046/- only at the time of maturity of the said account alleged to have been paid during the period of 8 years as against that paid during the period of excess alone is patently illegal and unfair which attracts the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the opposite parties are bound in law to reimburse the excess sum deducted of Rs.5,08,528/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 12.09.2017 till the date of payment.   The interest is payable on the date of maturity itself by the opposite parties.   However, the opposite parties have deducted the interest sum payable to the complainant and hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at such rate the deposit carries under the scheme till the date of payment.  The opposite parties has not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party which is adopted by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:-

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 1^st opposite party states that on 10.09.2009, the complainant opened SCSS account bearing No.0000936835 at Pondicherry Head Office for Rs.15,00,000/- the account was transferred to T. Nagar Head Post Office on 19.06.2010 at the request of complainant.   While the account opening form, SB-3 along with the Pass Book was received at T. Nagar Head Office for effecting transfer, it was verified and found that the petitioner had given the self declaration at the time of opening of account at Pondicherry Head Office that he has no SCSS account at any other post office in India.

Account No.	Amount	Date of opening	Date of closing	Amount paid	Deduction
101011	Rs.5,00,000/-	20.09.2004	03.10.2009	Rs.5,00,000/-	Nil
102938	Rs.10,00,000/-	24.11.2004	24.11.2009	Rs.10,00,000/-	Nil
0000936835	Rs.15,00,000/-	10.09.2009	06.11.2017	Rs.9,62,993/-	Rs.10,85,046/-

It is seen from the three Senior Citizen Savings Accounts opened by the complainant, the amount of deposit had exceeded the maximum limit Rs.15,00,000/- while opening the third account at Pondicherry HO, whereas he had given a false declaration that he has no other Senior Citizen Savings account in the Account Opening Form.   Had the complainant revealed the existing Senior Citizen Savings Accounts at the time of opening third Senior Citizen Savings account, the Department would have guided him to withdraw the excess deposit at the time itself.  The excess deposit came to notice only when the complainant applied for duplicate pass book at T. Nagar Head Post Office and he was informed to close the account.   However on coming to know the above violation of crossing the ceiling limit prescribed under rules, the excess interest amount paid Rs.10,85,046/- in total from the date of opening 10.09.2009 was recovered as deductions in the account No.0000936835.   Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.   

5.     The 1^st opposite party states that at the time of opening the third Senior Citizen Savings Account at Pondicherry Head Post Office on 10.09.2009, the complainant / depositor has not mentioned the details of earlier opened SCS accounts in the Account Opening Form.   The deduction of interest was made in accordance with the Rules under the scheme SCSS 2004.   The 1^st opposite party states that as per the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol I, Chapter 7 of SCSS Rules 2004, “A deposit shall as soon it comes to its notice that a deposit exceeds the ceiling prescribed in the Rules (i.e.) Rs.15,00,000/- requests the depositor in writing to withdraw the excess deposit immediately.   The amount deposited in the account in excess of the prescribed limit will be refunded with interest at the rate applicable to Savings account from the date of deposit to the end of the month preceding the month in which, the deposit office issues request to the depositor to withdraw the excess amount.   The Senior citizen interest paid if any on the excess amount will be adjusted from the amount payable”.  Hence, as per Rules, only SB rate of interest applicable from time to time was paid to the depositor. As the account itself was opened in contravention of Senior Citizen Rules, the interest paid at the rate of SCSS was recovered from the date of opening.  As per Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume, the Senior Citizen Savings Account 0000936835 ceases to earn any SCSS rate of interest since the day of opening of the account.

6.     The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant requested on 10.09.2014 to extend the period of Senior Citizen Account No.0000936835 for a further period of 3 years after maturity i.e. from 10.09.2014 till 10.09.2017.   Before the date of maturity of the Senior Citizens Savings Account, the complainant approached the T. Nagar Head Office for issue of Duplicate Pass Book vide his application dated:04.09.2017.  When the request was verified through Savings Bank Control Organization, T. Nagar Head Office, it was found that account number mentioned in the request was already closed.   Therefore, the complainant was asked to render the correct account number.   Subsequently, when the complainant submitted his revision application for issue of Duplicate Pass Book, it was ascertained and the suppression and false self declaration about maintaining three Senior Citizen Savings accounts simultaneously came to light that the complainant has opened the SCSS account No.0000936835 at Pondicherry Head Office while he had already held two SCSS accounts at T. Nagar Head Office for Rs.5,00,000/- & Rs.10,00,000/- each, which were active and operational.   The complainant already had two Senior Citizen Savings Accounts opened at T. Nagar Head Post Office bearing account No.101011 & 102938 opened on 20.09.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- and on 24.11.2004 for Rs.10,00,000/- respectively totalling of Rs.15,00,000/-.  Thus, the irregularity in opening the 3^rd SCSS account was traced and found that the complainant had opened the said SCSS account by concealing the truth in the self declaration part in Account opening Form.

7.     The 1^st opposite party states that the software used all over India for postal saving bank namely; Sanchay Post module while effecting transfers there was no option to search whether the complainant had held any other live SCSS account at T. Nagar Head Office.   The complainant closed his SCSS accounts viz. 101011 & 102938 on 03.10.2009 & 24.11.2009 which were already opened at T. Nagar Head Office on 20.09.2004 & 24.11.2004.   When the complainant himself the account numbers of his another SCSS account in the request for duplicate pass book on 04.09.2017, it was found that the complainant availed the benefits of SCSS beyond the limit prescribed under Rules and the complainant was informed to close the irregular account bearing No.0009368635 opened on 10.09.2009. The duplicate pass book was issued to the complainant on 15.10.2017 and the SCSS account No.0000936835 was closed on 06.11.2017.   After adjusting the excess interest paid to the complainant as per the Savings Bank rules in vogue, the account was closed with balance as Rs.9,62,993/- and paid to the complainant.  The complainant has represented to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Chennai City Central Division, the 2^nd opposite party on 18.12.2017.   The 2^nd opposite party has rejected the claim of the complainant vide his letter No.SB/CRK/SCSS/ Dlgs dated:22.12.2017 stating that the SCSS a/c No.0000936835 opened on 10.09.2009 exceeded the maximum limit of Rs.15,00,000/- on that date which was in contravention of SCSS Rules and the recovery of excess paid interest was in accordance with the Rules.  

8.     The 1^st opposite party states that while opening the third SCSS account No.0000936835 on 10.09.2009 at Pondicherry Head Post Office, the complainant has furnished a false declaration that he had no other Senior Citizen Savings Accounts in his name.  Subsequently, when the holding of other two SCSS live accounts 101011 & 102938 opened by the complainant on 20.09.2004 & 24.11.2004 came to light, the third account was closed after deducting excess interest paid, which is in accordance with the rules.   At the time of opening the third SCS account 0000936835 for Rs.15,00,000/- at Pondicherry Head Post Office, Rs.30,00,000/- was held by the depositor which is in contravention of rules under the scheme which rendered the present account irregular.    The 1^st opposite party states that the complaint given by the complainant in this regard was returned by the 2^nd opposite party stating that the SCSS A/c.0000936835 opened on 10.09.2009 at Pondicherry Head Post Office exceeded the maximum amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which is in contravention of SCS Rules and while opening the third account at Pondicherry Head Post Office under Account No.0000936835 on 10.09.2009, the complainant himself has given declaration in Account opening form that he has no Senior citizen savings account at any other Post Office.    There is no such methodology as alleged by the complainant in working out the rate of interest under this scheme.   In this case, interest was worked out at the rate of prevailing at that time in accordance with the Rules.   Therefore, there is no deficiency  in service as alleged by the complainant and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the opposite parties.

 

 

10.    The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.5,34,860/- deducted by the 1^st opposite party with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Rs.26,332/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, financial sufferings with cost as prayed  for?

11.    On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a Super Senior Citizen of above 80 years.  He has availed Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme account for Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.09.2004, Rs.10,00,000/- on 13.04.2005 & Rs.15,00,000/- on 10.09.2009  just before the maturity of the first two accounts.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the Account Nos.101011 & 102938 are closed on 31.10.2009 and 24.11.2009 respectively and the Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme account has been collected by the complainant.  While so, the Account No.0000936835 was matured.  The complainant availed extension of deposit for another 3 years i.e. upto 2017 (12.09.2017). While the account No.3400010 was matured, the opposite party deducted a huge amount of Rs.5,46,382/- and paid only a sum of Rs.9,62,993/- including TDS as per Ex.A2 & Ex.A3.  When the complainant questioned the same, the opposite party replied that there is a suppression of material fact of previous deposits. 

12.    As per the Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme, one Senior Citizen is entitled to have a deposit of only Rs.15,00,000/-.  But the complainant made fixed deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- in different occasions.  Hence, the interest paid has been waived off.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that when the two Senior Citizen Deposit Scheme are pending; the opposite party permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 10.09.2019 vide Account No.0000936835 under the same Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme knowing fully well not the opposite party is entitled to permit the complainant to make such deposit.  Even though, the rules are framed to make liability on the complainant it is the duty of the opposite party to ascertain whether the complainant had deposit as per the rules.  In this case, the complainant maintained three Senior Citizen Savings accounts.   The two Account Nos.101011 & 102938 were matured on 31.10.2009 & 24.11.2009 i.e. before maturity of 51 & 75 days earlier.   The complainant opted to have another Senior Citizen Deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- on 10.09.2009 vide Account No.0000936835 was permitted by the opposite party and cleared the first two Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme Deposit.  While on payment of the 3^rd Senior Citizens’ Savings Deposit, the opposite party collected a huge amount of Rs.5,46,382/-  arbitrarily without adhering natural justice strictly followed in beneficiary and welfare rules laws and enactments.  In this case, as per the rules, the Senior Citizen can maintain a deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- at a time.

13.    The complainant maintained Rs.30,00,000/- for a period of 51 days and Rs.25,00,000/- for a period of 75 days.  If at all, the opposite party deduct the interest it shall be only for 51 days for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and 75 days for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.  But the opposite party deducted a huge sum of Rs.5,46,382/- arbitrarily without any basis.   The complainant made request repeatedly.   But the opposite party has not considered the request of the Senior Citizen who is aged more than 80 years.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case.   Further, as per Rule 4, of the Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme, it is a paramount duty of the opposite party to instruct the complainant to withdraw the excess amount deposited immediately.   In this case, the opposite party kept on silent for such a long period and deliberately, wantonly and arbitrarily deducted a sum of Rs.5,46,382/- etc amounts to negligence and deficiency in service.

14.    The learned Counsel for the complainant cited the decision reported in:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Between

Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Posts

-Versus-

Col. Jagdish Singh Sura & anr.

Held that

          “If the amount being was deposited in excess then appellants-O.Ps. should have pointed out this fact then and there.   After so many years it is not proper to ask them to return the aforesaid amount.   Complainant did not play any fraud or mischief with O.Ps. –appellants.   They received interest on the amount deposited by them.  Even otherwise complainant Col. Jagdish Singh Sura and Amritesh Singh are senior citizens and they were entitled for the interest equal to the interest paid against deposites in this case.   In these circumstances appellants cannot effect recovery from complainant vide letter dated:17.01.2015.  However, it cannot be considered as deficiency in service because it is a question of interpretation of rules, so the impugned order passed by District Forum about payment of compensation qua mental agony and litigation expenses is set aside and complainants are entitled for the interest”.

15.    The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that  as per the Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme rules, the Senior Citizen is entitled to have a deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-.  In this case, the complainant had two Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme Account Nos.101011 for Rs.5,00,000/- dated:20.09.2004, A/c. No.102938 for Rs.10,00,000/- dated:24.11.2004.  While so, the complainant availed another Account No.0000936835 on 10.09.2009 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- at Pondicherry Head Office which was transferred to T. Nagar, Head Office on 19.06.2010 and was matured on 12.09.2014 and thereafter, the complainant applied for extension of the account for 3 years from 12.06.2015 upto 12.09.2017.  The opposite parties also kept silent till 06.11.2017 the date of closing and deducting a sum of Rs.5,46,382/- on the ground that the complainant suppressed the material facts thereby, deducted such huge amount towards interest paid. 

16.    Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme is a beneficiary scheme for the welfare of the Senior Citizen such suppression cannot be entertained.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that while other Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme deposits and pending for maturity of 75 & 51 days earlier.  The third account was opened by the complainant at Pondicherry.  The opposite party without looking into previous accounts permitted the complainant to have the third deposit also.   Thereafter, the complainant transferred the said Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme account to T. Nagar Branch.   At that time also, the opposite party has not instructed the complainant to withdraw the amount.   Further, the opposite parties permitted to mature the amount even after sanctioning extension of time for such Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme against the rule provided in the Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the deduction of Rs.5,46,382/- towards interest paid to the complainant.  But on a careful perusal of records, interest for 75 days for Rs.30,00,000/- and interest for 51 days for Rs.25,00,000/- is Rs.5,46,382/- proves that the deduction of such huge amount by the opposite parties is arbitrarily.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,34,860/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Rs.26,332/- with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,34,860/- (Rupees Five lakhs thirty four thousand eight hundred and sixty only) being amount deducted by the 1^st opposite party along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Rs.26,332/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand three hundred and thirty two only) and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of December 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Copy of Passbook of SCSS Account No.0000936835
Ex.A2		Copy of Passbook of SB Account 3400010 in which, the interests on SCSS were deposited
Ex.A3		Copy of ledger (SB) with respect to Account No.3400010
Ex.A4		Copy of Form-E submitted by the complainant
Ex.A5	23.09.2017	Copy of request letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party for credit of maturity proceeds
Ex.A6	10.10.2017	Copy of complaint sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party for delay in crediting the maturity proceeds
Ex.A7	10.10.2017	Copy of acknowledgment of complaint by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A8	03.11.2017	Copy of letter ref No.600017-09137 dated at Ch – 17 the 31.10.2017/03.11.2017 by the 1st opposite party to complainant
Ex.A9	03.11.2017	Copy of letter written by the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A10	26.11.2017	Copy of letter written by the complainant acknowledging receipt of maturity proceeds on protest
Ex.A11	29.11.2017	Copy of letter written by the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A12	30.11.2017	Copy of appeal sent to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A13	05.12.2017	Copy of letter written by the complainant to 1st opposite party
Ex.A14		Copy of Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme Rules, 2004
Ex.A15		Copy of calculation Memo filed by the complainant

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1	25.11.2009	Copy of Account Opening Form
Ex.B2	11.07.2015	True copy of SCSS A/c Verification dated:11.07.2015
Ex.B3	06.10.2017	Copy of Account Closing Statement dated:06.10.2017

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT