State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shashi Bhushan Shori vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Direcotr, ... on 4 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 230 of 2012 Date of Institution : 09.07.2012 Date of Decision : 04.10.2012 Shashi Bhushan Shori, Proprietor, M/s Bhushan Fashion, SCO No.3, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Direcotr, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002. 2. Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, SCO No.11, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 3. Indian Overseas Bank, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.26, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.Krishan Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.C.S.Pasricha,Advocate for the respondents.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.6.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was sanctioned the Credit Facility of Rs.245.00 lacs with interest @ 14% p.a. vide sanction order dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure C-1) by the Opposite Parties. The credit facility was secured, by way of equitable mortgage of House No.189, Sector 4, Panchkula, measuring 350 sq.yards belonging to the complainant and his wife. Subsequent to the sanctioning of credit facility, the Opposite Parties arbitrarily procured additional security vide letter dated 12.2.2011 (Annexure C-2). The Opposite Parties further obtained two self-drawn cheques Nos.371553 in the sum of Rs.1.00 lacs and 371554, in the sum of Rs.10.00 lacs aggregating Rs.11.00 lacs, from the complainant, for the issuance of Fixed Deposit Receipts, in his favour, but the copies of same (FDRs) were not furnished to him, by them, despite repeated visits and requests. Even the certified copies of the cheques, in question, had not been furnished despite complaint having been made by the complainant to the Appellant Authority, under the Right to Information Act,2005. It was stated that the Opposite Parties had been debiting to the loan account of the complainant, from time to time, the amounts, without any authority, as mentioned in para no.4 of the complaint. The scrutiny of the statement of account further revealed that the Opposite Parties had debited to the loan Account of the complainant interest, at a rate higher than the one agreed to, between the parties, as depicted in para No.5 of the complaint.
It was further stated that the complainant had been requesting the Opposite Parties for more than three months, to regularize the account by reversing the unauthorized debits, raised in the same, and also reimburse the amount of excess interest charged in his account, but to no avail.
3. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties held Insurance Policies numbering 13, of the complainant. These Policies were to be encashed only on maturity, but the Opposite parties, without any authority and mandate from the complainant, got payment of the said Insurance Policies, before maturity. It was further stated that, thus, the Opposite Parties had jeopardized the life cover available to the complainant, and his family members. A legal notice was served upon the Opposite Parties calling upon them, as to how they got encashed the Policies, before maturity , but to no effect.
4. It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties was not befitting a Financial Institution, as they acted like a private trader and had been squeezing the blood of the complainant one way or the other and caused irreparable loss to him. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had become rich by looting and cheating the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed directing the Opposite Parties to reimburse Rs.11 lacs debited to the account of the complainant on 15.2.2011 and 4.3.2011 with interest ; reimburse interest more than Rs.2 lacs charged in excess on the loan account ; reimburse the amount of debits unauthorizedly raised to the tune of Rs.2 lacs; pay compensation in the sum of Rs.3.5 lacs for physical harassment, mental agony, discomfort and business loss incurred by the complainant, and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.33,000/-.
5. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complaint was bad for misjoinder of parties. It was further pleaded that the loan was obtained by the complainant, from the Opposite Parties, for commercial purpose, and utilized for commercial purpose. It was further pleaded that, as such, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer and the consumer complaint was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the complaint had been filed by the complainant with the sole object of delaying the process of recovery, in relation to the amount of Rs.2.5 crores, due against and payable by him. It was admitted that the Credit Facility was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant, as mentioned in the complaint. It was stated that, since the complainant was not routing the sale proceeds, through the Bank Account i.e. Cash Credit Hypothecation Account, and the same (Account) had been declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and proceedings under Securitization Act had been initiated, by Opposite Party No.3, for recovery of the outstanding dues. It was further stated that the Account, right from the inception, had not been operated, as per the financial discipline of the bank, and also as per the terms & conditions of the sanction letter dated 17.2.2011. It was further stated that the rate of interest, which was charged, was in accordance with the sanction letter and the terms & conditions of the agreement, executed between the parties. It was further stated that the interest was variable, in accordance with the change of market conditions from time to time. It was admitted that the complainant availed of the cash credit facility, by way of equitable mortgage of House No.189, Sector 4, Panchkula, measuring 350 sq.yards belonging to him and his wife. It was denied that the Opposite Parties, obtained two self drawn cheques of Rs.1.00 lac and Rs.10.00 lacs from the complainant for issuance of Fixed Deposit Receipts. It was further stated that the said cheques being self cheques, were duly signed by the complainant, and paid in cash, on 15.2.2011 for Rs.1.00 lacs, and on 4.3.2011 for Rs.10.00 lacs. It was denied that against the cheques, Fixed Deposit Receipts were to be issued to the complainant. It was further stated that the Insurance Policies had been assigned by the complainant, of his own accord, in accordance with the stipulation of the Regional Office. It was further stated that the Insurance Policies were securities, in addition to the security of residential house. It was further stated that the transactions, in the account of the complainant, had been made in accordance with the bank norms and also in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. It was denied that any unauthorized debits, had been made to the account of the complainant. It was further stated that the first transaction dated 20.12.2010 related to the cheque book charges. The second transaction dated 24.2.2011 related to processing charges which was as per the terms and conditions of the sanction. The third transaction dated 5.3.2011 related to the folio charges. The fourth transaction dated 14.3.2011, related to the vetting charges for documentation concerning the loan transaction. The transaction dated 30.3.2011 related to inspection charges. The transaction dated 19.4.2011 related to insurance charges. The transaction dated 19.1.2011 related to the legal opinion charges for checking the title of the property intended to be mortgaged for the purpose of loan transaction. It was denied that interest at a rate higher than the one, agreed to, between the parties, was debited to the account of the complainant.
It was further stated that the account of the complainant had become irregular, and after giving prior notice to him, Insurance Policies were encashed/ surrendered . It was denied that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint on merits, though did not touch the objection, which was taken by the Opposite Parties, in the written version, that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer as the loan was taken by him for commercial purpose and utilized for the said purpose.
8.. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, credit facility in the sum of Rs.245 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the complainant at the rate of 14% interest, but the Opposite Parties, of their own accord, charged higher rate of interest arbitrarily and, as such, debited excessive interest, to his account, as mentioned in para No.5 of the complaint. He further submitted that even other amounts were debited to the loan account of the complainant, as mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint, without any authority, by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the cheques were issued by the complainant for issuance of FDRs in his favour, but the same (FDRs) were not delivered to him. He further submitted that even the Insurance Policies, which were assigned, in favour of the Opposite Parties, were encashed/surrendered by them, without giving any notice to the complainant, as a result whereof, life of the complainant, and his family members was put to risk. He further submitted that the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer. He further submitted that the District Forum did not take into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, and evidence, on record, in proper perspective, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error in dismissing the complaint. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the credit facility in the sum of Rs.245 lacs was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant, for commercial purpose, and he utilized the same for the said purpose, and, as such, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. He further submitted that though a specific objection, in that regard, was taken, in the written version, yet the same was not even touched by the District Forum, what to speak of discussing, and deciding the same. He further submitted that, thus, the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable. He further submitted that interest was charged, as per the sanction letter, and the terms and conditions of the agreement, executed between the parties. He further submitted that interest was variable from time to time. He further submitted that no interest, higher than the rate, agreed to, between the parties, was charged. He further submitted that various amounts were debited to the loan account of the complainant, from time to time, as mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint, according to the Rules and Regulations and details thereof were recorded in the statement of account. He further submitted that two self cheques of Rs.one lacs and Rs.ten lacs were issued by the complainant, and the cash of the same was paid by him. He further submitted that the cheques were not obtained for the issuance of Fixed Deposit Receipts. He further submitted that since the account of the complainant was irregular, as he was not routing transactions, through the said account, he was given a prior notice, to the effect, that Insurance Policies would be encashed/surrendered, and only thereafter, these were encashed/surrendered. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were, neither deficient, in rendering service, nor, they indulged into unfair trade practice.
12. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer or not ? No doubt, this question was neither touched, nor discussed nor decided by the District Forum, though a specific objection, was taken in the written version, by the Opposite Parties in that regard. It is, however, the settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras, at any stage of the proceedings, are duty bound to decide of their own, the legal questions, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer; whether they (Foras) had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint ;
whether the complaint involved the consumer dispute; and whether the consumer complaint was maintainable. The complainant obtained Cash Credit facility of Rs.245 lacs, for commercial purpose i.e. for his business and utilized the same for the said purpose. In the entire complaint, the complainant did not make even a fleeting reference that he got the said facility for running his business, for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. However, in the prayer clause, he, claimed compensation for business loss also. Not only this, in the legal notice dated 5.11.2011 annexure C5, he specifically mentioned that, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, huge losses were suffered by the unit, and the very capital of the firm was eaten away. The Credit Facility was taken by the complainant for commercial purpose i.e. for business to earn huge profits. For proper decision of this question, the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) and Section 2(I)(o), defining the consumer and service respectively are extracted as under ;
(d) "Consumer" means any person who, -
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii)[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other then the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]; Added by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.2003.
[Explanation.
For the purposes of this sub-clause "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;] Section 2(1)(o) defines service as under:-
(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential 16[users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, Financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, 17[housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
13. According to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the consumer does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Section 2(1)(d)(ii), which was amended by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.2003, clearly lays down that the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration, for any commercial purpose, shall not qualify, as a consumer. In the instant case, the complainant/appellant, availed of the services of the Opposite Parties, by obtaining credit facility, in the sum of Rs.245 lacs, for commercial purpose. In other words, he took the credit facility for furthering his business, to generate huge profits, and, as such, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer. In Economic Transport Organization Vs.Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., & Anr., I (2010) CPJ 4 (SC), a four Judge Bench, of the Honble Apex Court, also held that, after the amendment of Section 2(d) of the Act w.e.f.15.03.2003, the services of the carriers, if had been availed of, for any commercial purpose, then the person availing of the services will not be a consumer. In Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. 2011 (I) SCC 525 and Sanjay D.Ghodawat Vs R.R.B. Energy Ltd. IV(2010) CPJ178(NC), a case decided by a full Bench of the Honble National Commission, similar principle of law was laid down. In Shushma Goel Vs Punjab National Bank 2011 Consumer Protection Judgments 270(NC), the complaint related to the operation of bank account maintained by a commercial entity for commercial purpose.
It was held that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. Since, the services of the Opposite Parties/respondents, in the instant case, were availed of, by the complainant/appellant, for commercial purpose for earning huge profits, he did not fall within the ambit of a consumer, and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable.
14. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Parties, charged interest, at a rate, higher than the one, agreed to, between the parties, vide sanction letter and the agreement executed between them.
Annexure OP-3/1 is the Credit Sanction Advice. Clauses 2.h.1, 2.h.2 and
2.h.3 of the said document read as under
;
2.h.1 In the case of borrowal accounts where interest rate is linked to PBLR(Benchmark Prime Lending Rate) or where fixed interest rate is specified by the Bank, changes if any, in the banks BPLR and/or the spread (viz.Plus or minus percentage factor to BPLR) or fixed rate specified by the Bank, shall beconveyed through Press Report or Publicity through media or a suitable Notice placed in the banking hall of the branch and such mode of communication shall be construed as sufficient Notice to you about the revisions effected in the interest rates.
2.h.2. the applicable interest rate/s will be charged with monthly/ quarterly/ half yearly/ annual rests, or such other rates and rests as may be notified by the Bank from time to time.
2.h.3.
the interest will be calculated and charged as per the daily balances, to your borrowal account/s until the same is fully liquidated and the interest so charged will be paid by you as per the terms agreed as and when demanded by the Bank.
15. A bare reading of the above Clauses, clearly establishes, that the rate of interest was not fixed, but variable from time to time. It was to be charged with monthly/quarterly/half yearly/ annual rests, or such other rates, and rests notified by the Bank, from time to time. No doubt, at the time of grant of credit facility to the complainant, the rate of Interest was B.R.+4.50 i.e. 14.00%, [being present BR is 9.50 vide Annexure OP-3/1, which was, later on changed. The same was intimated to the complainant vide demand notice dated 5.3.2012 AnnexureOP-3/2, wherein, the rate of Interest was mentioned as Base Rate + 4.75% i.e. 15.25% at present. In this very notice Annexure OP-3/2, it was specified that:-
*Further interest at contractual rates+ penal interest ie; 17.25% will be charged from 12.12.2011 and will become payable from the date mentioned above till date of payment.
16. Not only this, it was also made clear in the demand notice Annexure OP-3/2, in para nos. 3 & 4, which read as under :-
3. Consequent upon defaults committed by you in payment of principal debt and interest as per terms, your loan account has been classified as non-performing asset on 01.03.2012 in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India directives and guidelines. Despite our repeated requests and demands you have not repair the overdue loans including interest thereon.
4. Since you have failed to meet your liabilities in respect of the credit facilities duly secured by various securities mentioned above, and classification of your account as a non performing asset, we hereby recall our advances to you and give you notice under sub-section (2) or section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and call upon you to pay in full and discharge your liabilities to the bank aggregating Rs.245.00 lacs (Rupees Two Hundred and forty Five Lacs Only), as detailed in Para 1 above, with further interest @17.25% p.a., with monthly rests, from the date mentioned above i.e. 12.12.2011, within 60 days from the date of notice. We further give you notice that failing payment of the above amount with interest till the date of payment, we shall be exercising all or any of the rights vested in us, under sub-section(4) of section 13 of the said Act.
17. Since, as per the sanction letter, and the agreement executed between the parties the rate of interest was not fixed, but variable, the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the same. The interest was charged by the Opposite Parties, from the complainant, and debited to his account, on the basis of the terms and conditions, referred to above. It could not, therefore, be said that the Opposite Parties, charged interest at a higher rate, than the one, agreed to, between the parties. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same is rejected.
18. The next question, that falls for determination is, as to whether, the amounts mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint, were illegally debited to the account of the complainant. The perusal of the statement of account annexure C4 does not go to reveal that any amount was illegally debited to the account of the complainant. The first transaction dated 20.12.2010 related to the cheque book charges. The second transaction dated 24.2.2011 related to processing charges which were as per the terms and conditions of the sanction agreement. The third transaction dated 5.3.2011 related to the folio charges. The fourth transaction dated 14.3.2011 related to vetting charges for documentation relating to the loan transaction. The transaction dated 30.3.2011 related to the inspection charges. The transaction dated 19.4.2011 related to the insurance charges. The transaction dated 19.1.2011 related to the legal opinion charges for checking the title of the property intended to be mortgaged for the purpose of loan transaction. The transaction dated 23.4.2011 was an RDP opened on 23.4.2011 for an amount of Rs.2 lacs which was closed prematurely on 29.4.2011, and an amount of Rs.92,000/- was credited to the account, and fresh RDP for reduced amount of Rs.1,08,000/- was made, and the same was credited to the account on 2.11.2011, alongwith interest total amounting to Rs.1,12,173/-. The transaction dated 21.5.2011 related to the cheque book charges. The transaction dated 30.5.2011 related to the charges for insurance of stock/secured asset as per the terms and conditions of the sanction/agreement and the cover note for the same was available in the bank records and the same was well within the knowledge of the complainant. The transaction dated 1.6.2011related to an amount wrongly debited on 1.6.2011 which had been reversed on the same date, without any loss to the account holder. The transaction dated 6.9.2011, related to the inspection charges, levied by the bank, for the purpose of stock, secured assets etc. The information was provided regarding further queries of the complainant, vide letter dated 9.2.2012 annexure OP-3/4, by the Opposite Parties. In these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the debit entries were made, in the account of the complainant, unauthorizedly. Thus, debit entries were made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, executed between the parties, and sanction letter. In these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same is rejected.
19. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the cheques in the sum of Rs. One lac and Rs.Ten lacs were issued by the complainant for the purpose of preparation of Fixed Deposit Receipts, in his favour, but the same were not issued. It may be stated here, that the cheques for Rs.1.00 lac and Rs.10.00 lacs, aggregating to Rs.11 lacs, were self cheques, duly signed by the complainant, and paid in cash on 15.2.2011 ( for Rs.one lac), and on 4.3.2011 (for Rs.10 lacs). The said cheques were never issued for issuance of the FDRs. Before filing the complaint, the complainant did not, state, in any letter, having been sent to the bank, that these cheques were issued , for the purpose of preparation of Fixed Deposit Receipts to be issued in his favour. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit is rejected.
20. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the Insurance Policies, which had been assigned, in favour of the Opposite Parties as collateral securities, were illegally encashed/surrendered by them, without any notice, to the complainant. It is evident from the record ,that the account of the complainant had become irregular. Annexure P-3/5 is the notice dated 2.11.2011, which was sent by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant. The letter reads as under ;
Sub:
IRREGULARITY IN LOAN ACCOUNT We refer to the above subject account and regretfully convey that inspite of our various discussion and letter you have neither serviced the monthly interest due since August-2011 and routed any business transactions in the account for which your account is showing irregularity and likely to be NPA.
The following 13 policies are as under lien to us;
Sr.No. Policy No. Company Amount fv
1.
436519631 Max New York Life Rs.429968/-
2. 439050212 Max New York Life Rs.307645/-
3. 436519649 Max New York Life Rs.502322/-
4. 439050220 Max New York Life Rs.547457/-
5. 111464530 LIC Rs.30,000/-
6. 111463629 LIC Rs.25,000/-
7. 121120340 LIC Rs.50,000/-
8. 121128369 LIC Rs.30,000/-
9. 112857688 LIC Rs.25,000/-
10. 12089260 1 LIC Rs.100,000/-
11. 112282049 LIC Rs.25,000/-
12. 111799545 LIC Rs.50,000/-
13. 121119018 LIC Rs.25,000/-
As your account is irregular we have left with no option but to surrender the same to recover our dues. Please note that in case the account is not regularized within7 days we shall surrender the policies at your risk and responsibility.
21. Thus, a prior notice of 7 days, was given to the complainant, to regularize his account, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be left with no alternative than to encash/surrender the Policies, at his risk and responsibility. The LIC Policies which had been assigned by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties were encashed/surrendered on 14.11.2011, and the amount had been credited to the account on 23.11.2011 and 28.11.2011 respectively. The Policy of Max New York, was surrendered on 15.1.2002, and the amount was credited on 22.2.2012. Since the Policies were additional securities, apart from the security of the residential house, and, as such, the Opposite Parties were well within their rights to pre-maturely encash/surrender the same after giving advance intimation, to the complainant as his accounts had become grossly irregular. As stated above, advance notice dated 2.11.2011 was given to the complainant, but even then he failed to regularize his account. Under these circumstances, left with no alternative, the Opposite parties had to encash/surrender these policies prematurely. The Opposite Parties did not commit any illegality, in this regard. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is rejected.
22. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
23. Since neither the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, nor the consumer complaint was maintainable, nor, thus, the question of deficiency in rendering service or indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties arose.
24. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed , with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. The appellant/complainant shall, however, be at liberty to resort to any other legal remedy, which may be available to him.
25. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
26. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
October 4,2012 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Js STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No. 230 of 2012) Argued by: Sh.Krishan Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.C.S.Pasricha,Advocate for the respondents.
Dated:October 4, 2012 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT