DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 25 of 17.01.2008<br /> Decided on : 09-04-2008 <br /> <br /> Smt. Harbans Kaur Anand W/o Sh. H S Anand R/o # 202 Bharat Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Travel People Though Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Authorised Agent having ID No. 01384661, G-55, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001.<br /> 2.M/s.Fantastic Tours & Travels, SCO 42-44, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh 160017.<br /> 3.M/s. Grace Travels through its MD/GM/Company Secretary, Domestic and International Air Booking Cabin No. 6, First Floor, SCO No. 324, Sector 9, Panchkula 134109.<br /> 4.Sri Lankan Airlines Limited 312-3rd floor Word Trade Centre,Bara Khamba Avenue, Connaught Place, New Delhi.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Manpreet Singh Tulshi, authorised representative of opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> Sh. S K Pattanaik, Advocate, for opposite party No. 4. <br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Sh. H S Anand is the husband of the complainant. He had got booked three air tickets through opposite party No. 3 against payment of Rs. 87,546/-. Opposite party No. 3 got arranged these tickets through opposite party No. 2 vide Invoice No. 18000303 dated 15.9.07 issued by opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 3 had sent air tickets to the husband of the complainant at his official address at Bathinda. In the electronic ticket (Passenger Itinerary Receipt) issued by opposite party No. 1, the status of Flight in each copy of ticket was shown O.K. It is alleged by her that she is the consumer of the services of travelling in Sri Lankan Airlines for touring from Delhi – Kula Lumpur-Singapore and then from Singapore to Delhi via Kula Lumpur on payment of consideration of Rs. 87,546/- on online banking by crediting the said amount in the account of opposite party No. 3 as per its instructions. Services were arranged by the opposite parties in her name as well as in the name of her daughter Reema Anand and her husband Sh. H S Anand for their travelling on 22.9.07 to the destination. Journey was performed as per schedule except the segment from Kula Lumpur to Singapore. When she had reached at Kula Lumpur to board in Flight No. MH-0605 scheduled to depart at 15.40 Hrs on 26.9.07 alongwith her husband and daughter, it was told by Malaysian Airlines that they are unable to track the ticket for her. She was further instructed to contact Sri Lankan Airlines. She immediately rushed to the office of Sri Lankan Airlines. It was found that its office was lying locked. She was told by neighbouring Airlines that Sri Lankan Airlines office would open after departure of Malaysian Air Line Flight. She immediately came to Malaysian Air Line Counter. Counter Executive advised her to buy a new ticket for her otherwise the Flight may be missed. She was compelled to buy a fresh air ticket for herself for travelling in Flight No. MH-0605 since Malaysian Airlines was unable to track her ticket for the Flight. She spent US$95 (approximately Rs. 4,000/-) for flying in the Malaysian Flight No. MH-0605 together with her husband and daughter from Kula Lumpur to Singapore, This fact was recorded by Malaysian Airlines Counter Executive on the top head of the air ticket which is reproduced as under :<br /> “ATTN.ALL; MH605/26 SEP. DUE TO TKT PROBLEM MH CANNOT UPLIFT TIS TKT N PSGR HV TO BUY NEW TKE IN ORDER TO FLY TO SIN BY MH PLS ACK TKS' under his<br /> signature and seal.<br /> On reaching Sri Lanka after return of journey, she checked up the position with Sri Lankan Airlines at Colombo to know why Malaysian Airlines were not accepting the ticket for her. She was told after verification that computer was flashing a message :<br /> “The ticket coupon was suspended by the agent”<br /> against her ticket<br /> It is alleged that she was made to incur an extra expenditure of US$95 solely due to negligence, carelessness, fault of the opposite parties in not issuing the proper booked OK flight ticket for journey from Kula Lumpur to Singapore. She, her daughter and husband were made to undergo unnecessary harassment, mental tension, agony and physical discomfort and financial loss . Proper air ticket was not booked for her for journey from Kula Lumpur to Singapore. Registered A.D. post letter dated 21.11.07 was issued by her to opposite party 1 with copies thereof to opposite parties No. 2 & 3 through courier on 5.12.07 and 8.12.07 as well as to Sri Lankan Airlines Limited, New Delhi. No reply was received from the opposite parties. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1096 (Here-in-after referred to as “Act”) has been preferred by her seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay her Rs. 4,000/- i.e. US$95 incurred by her in extra for purchase of fresh air ticket and Rs. 40,000/- as damages.<br /> 2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; it is an abuse of process of law; complainant has not come with clean hands and has concealed material and relevant facts; Complainant has been filed merely with an intention and purpose of harassing and troubling them and to extract money; amount claimed is highly exaggerated ; complainant has no locus standi to maintain this complaint against them as she is not consumer as they have no privity of contract with her and complaint is false and frivolous. There is no specific denial about the fact that three tickets were got booked through opposite party No. 3 which further arranged them through opposite party No. 2 against payment of Rs. 87,546/- vide invoice dated 15.9.07. That admit that tickets were issued by them for the complainant as per request of opposite party No. 3. Complainant has not made direct payment to them. According to them Invoice No. 18004413 , 18000303, Receipt No. 800197, Cheque No. 993718 and Exchange order No. 8000317 were issued by opposite party No. 1. Their role is to issue valid travel documents. They provided confirmed tickets to the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency in service on their behalf. It was the duty/responsibility of opposite party No. 4 to provide seats to the complainant in the flight. Tickets issued were of opposite party No. 4. It is not known as to why complainant's ticket could not be tracked by the Airlines. Complainant had to travel Sector Kula Lumpur-Singapore on Malaysian Airlines. Complainant alleges that her ticket could not be tracked by Malaysian Airlines. This problem may be due to malfunctioning of computer link up between the two Airlines i.e. Malaysian Airlines and Sri Lankan Airlines. Once confirmed tickets are issued, it is the responsibility of the Airlines to allow the passenger to board the plane. There is no specific denial about the fact that ticket coupon was suspended by the agent against the ticket of the complainant. They deny that letter dated 21.11.07 was received. They deny that complainant was burdened to purchase a fresh ticket for boarding in Flight No MH-0605 on 26.9.07 by spending US$ 95 again causing lot of discomfort, displeasure, agony and harassment by them. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Reply of the complaint was received from opposite party No. 3 by post on 25.2.08 in which legal objection has been taken that complaint is not maintainable against it; It had got booked all the three tickets and they were sent at Bathinda. Fault lies with opposite parties No. 1,2& 4 for the reasons known to them as confirmed tickets were issued for the tour by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on the Flight of opposite party No. 4. It admits that Passenger Itinerary Receipt was issued by it showing status of Flight in each copy of ticket as okay. Opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 are liable for suspension of ticket of the complainant by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. It had also taken up the matter with opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 telephonically but its request was not acceded to. As per message flashing on the computer on verification by Sri Lankan Airlines, it was opposite party No. 1 at whose instance the ticket coupon of the complainant was suspended and she was compelled to buy another ticket for travelling. It admits that tickets were booked from Bathinda and delivered to the complainant vide Invoice No. 18000303dated 15.9.07 at Bathinda against credit in its account on online payment maintained with State Bank of Patiala Branch, Chandigarh.<br /> 4. No one came present on behalf of opposite party No. 3 to contest the complaint. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 5. Opposite party No. 4 filed separate reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it is not a designated court as stated in Rule 29(1) of the Carriage by Air Act 1972; it is not actually and voluntarily residing or carrying on business or has branch office or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum; complaint does not show any cause of action against it; ticket was wrongly booked by IATA appointed travel agent for Kula Lumpur to Singapore Sector in which Airlines Flight No. MH 0605 has to discharge the service. Sri Lankan Airlines has no role to play in the transaction as the ticket coupon might have been suspended against the said Airline or there might any other communication error between the IATA agents and Airlines and complaint is bad for non-joinder of Malaysian Airlines System. On merits, its plea is that IATA Agent Travel People had issued an electronic ticket of following particular :<br /> a) DELHI-COLOMBO: SRILANKAN AIRLINES<br /> b) COLOMBO INT-KUALUM PUR; SRILANKAN AIRLINES<br /> c) LUMPUR TO SINGAPORE ; AIRLINES;MH 0605<br /> d) SINGAPORE TO COLOMBO BY SIRLANKAN AIRLINES<br /> e) COLOMBO TO THIRUVANANTHPURUM BY SIRLANKAN AIRLINES<br /> f) TRIVANDUM TO COLOMBO BY SRILANKAN AIRLINES<br /> g) COLOMBO TO DELHI BY SRILANKAN AIRLINES<br /> It denies that complainant had come at its counter and had found its office locked on 26.9.07 and that thereafter counter executive of Malaysian Airlines had advised to buy a new ticket for travelling in flight no. MH-0605. Circumstances suggest that ticket coupon was suspended by the agent and on that account Malaysian Airlines was not accepting it. Both the Travel People and Malaysian Airlines are independent business organisations and carry on business for profit in their independent capacity. It denies its liability, negligence and carelessness. Itinerary Receipt was issued by Travel People with OK status. It has not charged or appropriated US$ 95(about Rs. 4,000/-). Remaining averments in the complaint stand denied.<br /> 6. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopies of Invoices (Ex. C-2 & Ex.C-3), photocopy of receipt dated 17.9.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 21.11.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of Invoice dated 15.9.07 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of passenger Itinerary receipt (Ex. R-7 to Ex. C-8), photocopy of Ticket (Ex. C-9), photocopy of Envelop (Ex. C-10), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-11), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-12), photocopy of courier receipt (Ex. C-13), photocopy of another letter (Ex. C-14), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-15) and photocopy of courier receipt (Ex. C-16).<br /> 7. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 4 affidavit of Mr. Tharka Ravindrajith Galahitiyawa (Ex. R-1) and on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Manpreet Singh Tulsi (Ex. R-2), photocopies of Invoices (Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-4), photocopy of receipt dated 17.9.07 (Ex. R-5), photocopy of exchange order (Ex. R-6) and photocopy of pay order (Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone the written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No. 4.<br /> 9. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that opposite party No. 3 was contacted by the husband of the complainant for purchasing three air tickets. They were arranged by opposite party No. 3 and confirmed tickets were issued by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Copy of the relevant Invoice No. 18004413 dated 15.9.07 is Ex. C-2. It was issued by opposite party No. 1. Copy of another Invoice No. 18000303 dated 15.9.07 is Ex. C-3. Copy of the receipts for Grace Travels by opposite party No. 2 is Ex. C-4. As per copy of the Exchange Order dated 14.9.07 status of the ticket is Okay. It was issued by opposite party No. 2. Cheque of Rs. 87,546/- was issued by opposite party No. 3 in favour of opposite party No. 2. Even in the affidavit Ex. R-2 of Sh. Manpreet Singh Tulsi who has appeared as authorised representative of opposite parties No. 1 &2, there is admission that they had issued valid travel documents and that confirmed tickets were provided as per request of opposite party No. 3. Record reveals that full amount of Rs. 87,546/- was charged for three tickets. It is clear from Ex. C-9 that another ticket was purchased on 26.9.07.<br /> 10. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 are that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction against opposite party No. 4, complainant has got no cause of action against it, International Association of Travel Agents is an independent business organisation and opposite party No. 4 has no concern with it and that complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party.<br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the issuing Airline is opposite party No. 4. Complainant has got cause of action against all the opposite parties and that complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.<br /> 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 13. It is the plea of the complainant that journey was performed as per schedule except the segment from Kula Lumpur to Singapore. When she had reached Kula Lumpur to board Flight No. MH-0605 she was told by Malaysian Air Lines that they are unable to track her ticket and she was instructed to contact Sri Lankan Air Lines. Ultimately, she was compelled to buy another air ticket for herself for Malaysian Airlines for travelling in flight No. MH-0605 by way of spending US$95 (Approximately Rs. 4000/-) . Under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - <br /> “(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or<br /> (b) any of the opposite parties where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or<br /> (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arise.”<br /> 14. In our view complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 4 because she did not hire its services for sector Kula Lumpur to Singapore. For this sector, service provider was Malaysian Airlines. It had denied the service and on that account, complainant has to purchase another ticket. Malaysian Airlines is an independent business association. Ticket was booked by Travel People by using the gateway of AMADEUS by independent booking reference i.e. AMADEUS; 2TUNBA, AIRLINES; MH/J7TGVL and AMDEUS' 2TUNBA, AIRLINES; UL/DCBAFF. As booking references are two, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that opposite party No. 4 owes responsibility to update the system of Malaysian Airlines System. Rather cause of action arises against opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 or against the Malaysian Airlines. So far as International Association of travel agents is concerned, it is an independent business organisation. It has independent duty towards consumers of its services which may include but not limited to travel planning, choice of airlines, hotel booking travel advice etc., Travel Agent works independently without the permission, control or supervision of Airlines like opposite party No. 4. It can choose between Airlines, travel itinerary depending on its clients need. Virtually it acts like an agent of the passenger. It is the version of the complainant as well that on reaching Sri Lanka after return of journey, she checked up the position with Sri Lankan Airlines at Colombo to know why Malaysian Airlines was not accepting her ticket and then after verification official of opposite party No. 4 told that computer was flashing a message “The ticket coupon was suspended by the agent” against the ticket of the complainant. Matter has also been set at rest by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Mr. J P Singh Vs. British Airways and others O.C No. 51 of 1997 decided on 5.1.98 wherein it has been held that travelling agents are independent business concern. Business of the Airline is to run Airways. For that, they have to sell travel ticket. Either they are sold in their own offices or by sale agents. It cannot be said that Airlines is carrying on business at each and every corner of the Country. Sales agent may be getting commission on purchase of the ticket from the Airlines and thereafter selling the ticket to the public at their own. It cannot be said that they are doing business for the Airlines. Rather they would be doing their own business of running the travel agencies. In these circumstances, complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 4.<br /> 15. When there is conflict between a general law and special law the provisions of special law will prevail over the corresponding provisions of general law. Section 3 of the Act envisages that provision of the Act even though is an additional remedy cannot be used in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. Carriage by Air Act, 1972 is a special Act which was enacted under Article 352 of the Constitution of India. Contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 that alleged transfer of money by online banking does not create cause of action against opposite party No. 4 and this is hiring of bank's service for transferring money and not for hiring the services of opposite party No. 4, is tenable. In support of it, reference can be made to the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1384 in which it has been held that provision of special law would prevail over the Act (Consumer Protection Act). In the case of Bharat S. Modi Vs. British Airways Original Petition No. 48 of 1996 decided on 10.12.2001, Hon'ble National Commission has held that since the Carriage by Air Act 1972 is a Special provision providing for liability of the air carrier, the territorial jurisdiction laid down in Rule 29(1) of the second schedule of the Carriage By Air Act 1972 would prevail over Section 11 of the Act. Bathinda is not the principal business place of opposite party No. 4. Airline is ordinarily resident within its territorial limit. No part of the cause of action has accrued against it within the territorial of this Forum. It is not actually and voluntarily residing or carrying on business or has branch office within District Bathinda. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held the provision of Carriage by Air Act 1972 regarding jurisdiction to be special in nature in the case of Gulf Air Company Vs. Nahar Spinning Mills Limited and others Civil Revision No. 1019 of 1999 decided on 7.9.1999. Similar view has been held in the case of Old Village Industries Ltd., Vs. Air India 1996 (3) CPJ 41. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that cause of action against the opposite parties is joint and has accrued at Bathinda and as such, this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint against opposite party No. 4 as well is not tenable in view of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Gulf Air Company Vs. Nahar Spinning Mills Limited and others (supra). Relevant portion of the authority is reproduced as under :<br /> “The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Mill that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Ludhiana is not barred because the cause of action of the respondent Mill against the petitioner company is joint with that of other respondents, has no force in view of the provisions contained in the Act, as reproduced and explain above and Article 253 of the Constitution of India.”<br /> 16. As a result of our foregoing discussion, we conclude that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint against opposite party No. 4.<br /> 17. So far as opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 are concerned, complainant has cause of action against them and this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint qua them. Tickets were booked from Bathinda telephonically through opposite party No. 3. They were issued by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 as has been admitted by them in the reply of the complaint. They were delivered to the complainant at Bathinda alongwith Invoice No. 18000303 dated 15.9.07. They were duly received by the complainant at the official address of her husband on payment of consideration of Rs. 87,546/- on online banking by crediting the said amount in the account of opposite party No. 3 through State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bathinda as per instruction of opposite party No.3 in its account. Opposite party No. 3 admits in so many words that it had got booked all the three tickets and they were sent at Bathinda. It has further been admitted in para no. 14 of the reply of the complaint that tickets were booked from Bathinda and delivered at Bathinda against payment crediting in its account on online payment. All this shows that opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 are virtually acting as inter-se like principal and agents. In such a situation, this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint at Bathinda. For this reference may be made to the authorities Kanshi Ram Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited & Others 1(1997) CPJ 144, Kapoor Farms Vs. Krishana Fabricators II(1998) CPJ 353, Anil Kumar Vs. Reliance Capital & Finance Trust Ltd. & Another II(1998) CPJ 361 and Union of India & Others Vs. K K Bhatt II(1991) CPJ 474.<br /> 18. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have averred in the reply of the complaint that deficiency in service is on the part of opposite parties No. 3 & 4 as it was their responsibility to provide seat in the Flight of Malaysian Airlines. Opposite party No. 3 alleges in the reply of the complaint that fault, if any, lies with opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4. As discussed above, complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 4. It was not involved in issuing Okay ticket to the complainant. It has not denied the service on Kula Lumpur to Singapore sector. Request for purchase of tickets was made to opposite party No. 3 which arranged the tickets through opposite parties No. 1 & 2. They aver that valid travel documents were issued and confirmed tickets were provided to the complainant by them. In this manner, opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 were instrumental in arranging and providing tickets for the complainant, her husband and her daughter. Since Flight No. MH-0605 of Malaysian Airlines was denied to the complainant on the basis of the ticket for sector Kula Lumpur to Singapore and she had to purchase another ticket for this Airlines, opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 cannot wriggle out of the situation and say that there is no deficiency in service on their part. No reply has been given by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 regarding the allegation of the complainant that the computer was flashing a message that “The ticket coupon was suspended by the agent” against the ticket of the complainant. When a fact is not specifically denied, it is deemed that it is admitted. Similarly possibility is there that there might be some communication error between the agent and Malaysian Airlines due to which earlier purchased ticket of the complainant for Sector Kula Lumpur to Singapore could not be tracked. Duty of opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 3 towards the complainant did not come to an end merely with the fact that Okay/confirmed ticket was delivered particularly when one of the allegations which has not been replied is that ticket coupon was suspended by the agent against the ticket of the complainant. Accordingly, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 is writ large.<br /> 19. Contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 that complaint is bad for non-joinder of Malaysian Airlines and as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed, is not tenable. No doubt, Malaysian Airlines was necessary and proper party to the complaint but this itself is no ground to throw away the complaint to the waste paper basket. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savita Garg Vs. Director National Heart Institute 2004(2) CPC 675 in which it was held that non-joinder or mis-joinder of party should not be made a ground for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 20. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to opposite parties 1,2 & 3 to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% PA. From 26.9.07 till payment. Complainant is also craving for damages/compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. Act and conduct of opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 must have caused her mental tension, agony, harassment and botheration as all of a sudden she was told by Malaysian Airlines that they are unable to track her ticket for Flight No. MH-0605. She had to purchase another ticket to board in Flight No. MH-0605 from Kula Lumpur to Singapore. In our view apt and appropriate amount of compensation is Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 21. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 22. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It is dismissed against oposite party No. 4. Opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 26.9.07 till payment.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act. <br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act would carry interest @9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 09-04-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member