State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Home Finance Ltd. vs Jarnail Singh on 12 February, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 667 of 2017
Date of Institution : 20.09.2017
Date of Reserve : 19.01.2018
Date of Decision : 12.02.2018
ICICI Home Finance through its Chairman/ Managing Director/
Principle Officer Service through its Branch Office at District
Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Adjacent Vishal Mega Marg,
Amritsar through Shri Dinesh Garg, Manager, Legal.
....Appellant/Op
Versus
Mr. Jarnail Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh, resident of 10-A, Khalsa
Avenue, Nagar Nigam Ward No. 40, Amritsar, aged 48 years.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
7.8.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
For the respondent: Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate with
Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 2 The appellant/Op (hereinafter referred as Op) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 7.8.2017 passed in consumer complaint No. 577 dated 16.9.2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the observations that Op has not charged the interest as per RBI prescribed rates, accordingly, direction was given to the Op to charge the interest at the rate prescribed by the RBI and return the amount charged as late payment charges at the exorbitant rates alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment till realization. The Op was further directed to pay compensation to the complainant on account of mental and physical harassment Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the Op on the averments that the complainant had taken a housing loan from Op jointly with his wife and son by mortgaging his property with the Op having account No. NHAMT00000732055. The Op had issued the sanction letter dated 23.5.2008 wherein it was settled that the loan will be disbursed @ 13.75% per annum and the nature of the interest will be floating rate of interest. The amount was to be repaid in equal monthly installments. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Op started charging exorbitant rate of interest @ 17.45%, which is against the RBI guidelines and also started charging the late payment penalty @ First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 3 24% per annum and charged Rs. 91,558/- for the said late payment. The complainant when approached Op, apprised them of charging exorbitant rates, the official of the Op did not relent and stated that they are charging interest as per RBI guidelines followed by their own bank. The Op despite request failed to reconcile the account of the complainant as per the agreed terms. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of Op, the complaint was filed by the complainant against the Op seeking directions to charge interest at RBI prescribe rates and return the amount charged as late payment charges alongwith interest @ 12% per annum thereon, pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lac and adequate cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice, Op appeared and filed the written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer as he had taken a loan and had not purchased the goods or availed any services; the complainant committed prolonged defaults and under the compelled circumstances, the Op started proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of mortgaging property in order to recover its outstanding loan. Once proceedings under the SARFAESI Act started, no Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint; the complainant filed by the complainant is not maintainable being based upon connected story only to grab the amount, which is public money and that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, it is admitted that complainant is borrower of the Op and availed the First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 4 loan facility. The complainant is well aware that he himself opted for floating rate of interest according to which he was liable to pay the rate of interest applicable from time to time; complainant had availed the loan facility in the year 2008 i.e. 7 years back and in the due course of banking, the rate of interest had increased and decreased several times, therefore, the interest charged by the Bank is quite justified. It was denied that RBI prescribed the rate. In fact the bank prescribed the rates of interest. It was denied that the Op charged exorbitant rate of interest, therefore, there is no merit in the complaint and complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and documents Exs. C-2 to C-6. On the other hand, Op had tendered into evidence affidavit of Ajay Prinja, Area Manager Ex. Op-1 and documents Ex. Op-2 to Op-13.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by the Op, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was disposed of as referred above.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
8. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant/Op that the complaint filed by the complainant is bad for non-joinder of First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 5 parties. It is an admitted fact that housing loan was obtained by the complainant alongwith his wife from the Op but the wife of the complainant is not a party to the complaint. In this regard, he has referred to the judgment 2015 (3) CPJ 507 "ICICI Bank (Home Lona) & Anr. Versus Ganga Singh Shekhawat", decided on 24.2.2015 wherein it was observed that in case loan was taken by husband and wife then both are required to be a party. Whereas counsel for the complainant argued that Act is a beneficiary statute. It is not to be shackled with intricacies and niceties. The proceedings under the CP Act are simple and summary in the nature and provisions of CPC and specifically Order 1 Rule 9 thereof in particularly are not attractive. A reference has also been made to Section 13(4), the procedure under CPC will be applicable in respect of the following matters:-
"(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;
(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits; First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 6
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness, and
(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed."
Therefore, Order 1 Rule 9 CPC is particularly not applicable to the Consumer Complaints summary in nature. Each case is to be determined on the basis of facts of that case. In the present case, what has been challenged by the complainant is that the Op had charged excessive rate of interest, otherwise, so far as the payment of the loan amount is concerned, it has not been challenged. Even if the complaint has been filed by only one borrower, he is duly affected with regard to the rate of interest charged by the Op and only rate of interest is to be decided and not the question whether the amount is not to be paid by the borrower. In that eventuality, the matter in question can be decided even in the absence of the complainant. Therefore, keeping in view the matter in question involved in the complaint, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
9. The next point raised by the counsel for the appellant/Op is that once the notice under SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, then under Section 13(4), proceedings can be initiated against the borrower First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 7 and the Civil Court does not have any right to entertain the complaint under Section 34 of the said Act. In this regard, he has referred to Revision Petition No. 995 of 2012 titled as "Harianandan Prasad versus State Bank of India" decided on 31.5.2012. However, the counsel for the complainant stated that as referred in the commentary under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act wherein it has been observed that bar of the Civil Court applies to all such matters, which may be taken cognizance of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, apart from those matter in which measures have already been taken under Sub-Section 4 of Section 13, if any aggrieved person had got any grievance against any measures taken by the secured creditor under Sub-Section 4 of Section 13, the remedy open to him is to approach the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal or not the Civil Court. But it is difficult to hold that a Civil Court jurisdiction is completely ousted and in this regard judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been referred i.e. "Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited versus Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation" Civil Appeal No. 4796 of 2009, decided on 29.7.2009 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that under the Act, it is only the claims of the Banks and financial institution that can be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. The liabilities and rights of the parties have not been created under the Act but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the substantive right of debtor to institute even a preemptive civil proceeding, which cannot be referred to the DRT under Section 13. It has been further observed that Civil Court is First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 8 free to decide such issues as lie within its jurisdictional competence and the Civil Court must decide an issue seized by it and within its competence and if there be an unavoidable conflict between the findings of the Civil Court and DRT and findings of the Civil Court would override and supersede the findings of the DRT. Section 34 of the Act in explicit terms does not taken away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The Civil Court can exercise the jurisdiction within the limited extent, more particularly, when the ingredience under Section 17(1) of the Act is not satisfied. It cannot be said in absolute terms that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is taken away under the SARFAESI Act, merely if the Op had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The notice Ex. Op-2 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is to clear the balance amount of Rs. 19,90,938/-, failing which Ops will take possession of the Secured Assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the secure assets, take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale and realize the secured asset, appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor, require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. Therefore, under the First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 9 notice it is only the demand of the balance payment amount and failing which to take possession of the assets of the borrower. To that extent, right of the Op has not been challenged by the complainant. To challenge the rate of interest by the complainant, is not the subject matter of the notice issued by the Op under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for the appellant/Op that the complaint is barred by provision of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
10. It has been further argued by the counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the District Forum is not enforceable because the interest rates are not prescribed by the RBI and there is no RBI prescribed rate, therefore, to that extent the order passed by the District Forum is not enforceable. No doubt the interest rates are fixed as per the guidelines of the RBI. In this regard, master circular of the RBI No. RBI/2014-15/65 dated 1.7.2014 can be referred and according to Clause 2.1.1 of the same, it has been referred as under:-
"2.1.1 Banks should charge interest on loans / advances / overdrafts or any other financial accommodation granted / provided / renewed by them or discount usance bills in accordance with the directives on interest rates on advances issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time."
First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 10Therefore, this Clause is clear that the rate of interest is fixed by the Bank in accordance with the directions issued by the RBI from time to time. Further the loan was granted on 23.5.2008 and w.e.f. 1.7.2010 the BPLR was shifted to BASE RATE and beyond Rs. 2 Lacs banks were free to determine rate of interest. Similar is the provision in Master Circular of the RBI/2005-2006 dated 1.7.2005 and according to that beyond Rs. 2 Lacs banks were free to determine the rate of interest. A point has been raised by the counsel for the complainant that no doubt that the loan was taken by the complainant at floating rate and floating rate can be changed by the Op but with the consent of the complainant. In this regard, counsel for the Op has referred to the judgment II (1994) BC 613 (SC) "Corporation Bank versus D.S. Gowda and Anr." wherein it has been observed that the Courts cannot reopen any account maintained by bank relating to transaction with its customers on ground that rate of interest being charged is excessive under Section 21-A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. However, in the same judgment it has been observed that if rate observed is in violation of RBI direction then Court can disallow such excess interest and then can give relief to the party. Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 can be referred, which reads as under:-
"35-A. Power of Reserve Bank to give directions.-- (1) Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that -
(a) in the public interest; or
(aa) in the interest of banking policy; or
First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 11
(b) to prevent the affairs of any banking company being
conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the banking company; or
(c) to secure the proper management of any banking company generally, it is necessary to issue directions to banking companies generally or to any banking company in particular, it may, from time to time, issue such directions as it deems fit, and the banking companies or the banking company, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions. (2) The Reserve Bank may, in representation made to it or on its own motion, modify or cancel any direction issued under sub-section (1), and in so modifying or cancellation shall have effect."
and that question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case "Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Ors.", (2002) 1 SCC 367 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observes as under:-
"50. Though we have answered the question of law before us, but we cannot leave the matter at that alone without sounding notes of caution, lest our view of the law should be misconstrued and misapplied. Before we do so, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in 'Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda' in some detail. First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 12
51. The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 empowers the Reserve Bank, on it being satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest or in the interest of depositors or banking policy so to do, to determine the policy in relation to advances to be followed by banking companies generally or by any banking company in particular and when the policy has been so determined it has a binding effect. In particular, the Reserve Bank of India may give directions as to the rate of interest and other terms and conditions on which advances or other financial accommodation may be made. Such directions are also binding on every banking company. Section 35-A also empowers the Reserve Bank of India in the public interest or in the interest of banking policy or in the interests of depositors (and so on) to issue directions generally or in particular, which shall be binding with effect from 15-2-1984. Section 21-A has been inserted in the Act, which takes away power of the court to reopen a transaction between a banking company and its debtor on the ground that the rate of interest charged is excessive. The provision has been given an overriding effect over the Usury Loans Act, 1918 and any other provincial law in force relating to indebtedness."
11. In para No. 55 of the judgment, it was further observed as under:-
"(5) The power conferred by sections 21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is coupled with duty to act. First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 13
The Reserve Bank of India is the prime banking institution of the country entrusted with a supervisory role over banking and conferred with the authority of issuing binding directions, having statutory force, in the interest of the public in general and preventing banking affairs from deterioration and prejudice as also to secure the proper management of any banking company generally. The Reserve Bank of India is one of the watchdogs of finance and economy of the nation. It is, and it ought to be, aware of all relevant factors, including credit conditions as prevailing, which would invite its policy decisions. RBI has been issuing directions/circulars from time to time which, inter alia, deal with the rate of interest which can be charged and the periods at the end of which rests can be struck down, interest calculated thereon and charged and capitalised. It should continue to issue such directives. Its circulars shall bind those who fall within the net of such directives. For such transaction which are not squarely governed by such circulars, the RBI directives may be treated as standards for the purpose of deciding whether the interest charged is excessive, usurious or opposed to public policy.
and ultimately, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the law as under:-
"(a) the Apex Court has noticed instances of unscrupulous, unfair and unhealthy dealings without generalising the same.
The Court has specifically observed that instances of First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 14 unscrupulous, unfair and unhealthy dealings can be multiplied. But such issues are left open to be adjudicated upon in appropriate cases as and when they actually arise for decision. The present case is an instance of charging usurious rate of interest, which is unfair trade practice.
(b) The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 empowers the Reserve Bank to lay down the policy in the public interest and it has binding effect on the banks. The Reserve Bank of India is entitled to give directions as to rate of interest to be charged and other terms and conditions on which advances or other financial accommodation may be made.
(c) The power conferred by sections 21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is coupled with the duty to act. The Apex Court considered the RBI as a watchdog of finance and economy of the nation, and presumed that it ought to be aware of the relevant factors including the prevailing credit conditions, which would invite its policy decision.
(d) Charging of interest should be reasonable. Further, penal interest can be charged only once for one period of default and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be capitalized. It would be opposed to public policy.
(e) The Court has specifically stated that unscrupulous banks may resort to charging of interest even on monthly rests. It is, therefore, required to be clarified that such First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 15 unscrupulous banks should not be permitted to charge interest on credit cards on monthly rests.
(f) The Court has observed that most of the banks press into service long-running documents wherein the borrowers fill in the blanks, at times without caring to read what has been provided therein, and bind themselves by the stipulations articulated by the best of legal brains. In our view, such practice also would be an unfair trade practice.
(g) Further, despite our repeated suggestion, the learned Counsel for the RBI failed to find out what could be considered as usurious rate of interest on the basis of which the RBI had issued circulars to banks. There was no response except to say that with regard to rate of interest RBI has deregulated the same."
12. This RBI has issued its circulars from time to time, how the rate of interest is to be charged. In its circular No. DBOD.Dir.BC.5/13.03.00/2006-07 dated 1.7.2006, the loans up to Rs. 2 lakh carry the prescription of not exceeding the Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (BPLR) and on loans above Rs. 2 lakh, banks are free to determine the rate of interest subject to BPLR and spread guidelines. In the same circular dated 1.7.2006, it has been mentioned how the interest rate of loans are to be fixed, is referred as under:-
"Banks have the freedom to offer all categories of loans on fixed or floating rates, subject to conformity to their Asset- Liability Management (ALM) guidelines. In order to ensure First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 16 transparency, banks should use only external or market- based rupee benchmark interest rates for pricing of their floating rate loan products. The methodology of computing the floating rates should be objective, transparent and mutually acceptable to counterparties. Banks should not offer floating rate loans linked to their own internal benchmarks or any other derived rate based on the underlying. This methodology should be adopted for all new loans. In the case of existing loans of longer/ fixed tenure, banks should reset the floating rates according to the above method at the time of review or renewal of loans accounts after obtaining the consent of the concerned borrower/s."
13. It was argued by the counsel for the respondent/complainant that methodology of computing the floating rate should be objective, transparent and mutually acceptable means consent of the consumer, in case any rate is enhanced by the bank from the agreed rate of interest. It was argued by the counsel for the Ops that it is applicable at the time of renewal of loan in which the consent of the borrower is required. Even if it is taken the loan case of the borrower is reviewed when the rate of interest is increased. This question has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment "ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Maharaj Krishan Datta and Ors." Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2015, decided on 3.8.2015, and the order was passed by the Hon'ble National Commission on the following facts:- First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 17
"(a) The complainants/respondents herein availed home loan to the extent of Rs. 13,35,100/- from the Appellant bank for purchase of a flat in Zirakpur. The loan was sanctioned vide letter dated 14.11.2005 and it carried an interest @ 7.25% per annum. Later, it was confirmed by the bank that w.e.f.
April, 2006 the loan would carry an interest @ 7.75% per annum. (b) It was further case of the complainants/respondents that an additional loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned on 30.10.2006 with an obligation to pay interest @ 8.75% per annum. The grievance expressed by the Respondents was that instead of charging interest at the agreed rate, the bank had charged the same @ 11.25% per annum for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, besides charging interest during pre-EMl period @ 9.5% per annum. Hence, the complainants/respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in the service provided by the Appellant bank to them. (c) Such complaint was resisted by the Appellant bank on the ground that loan was sanctioned on the floating rate of interest, which at the time of sanction was 8.75% per annum and could be enhanced as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and in accordance with the agreement between the parties. (d) The District Forum passed an order in the matter directing the Appellant bank to charge interest @ 7.25% per annum till 31.03.2006 and thereafter @ 7.75% per annum from 01.04.2006 to First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 18 30.10.2006 and thereafter @ 8.75% per annum. It further directed that the enhanced rate of interest shall not be more than the rate at which loan is advanced to the new borrowers. It further directed to pay compensation, as a result whereof, the bank preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, by its order dated 19.03.2010, permitted the Appellant bank to vary the rate of interest only as per the variation allowed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, granting the complainants benefit of minus 1.5% of the FRR. (e) the State Commission held that in view of the agreement between the parties, payment of interest @ minus 1.5% of the prevalent FRR, which could be reset by the bank based on the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It was further held that the intimation of such resetting should be given to the complainants/constituents. The State Commission also affirmed the payment of compensation as well as the cost of litigation as assessed by it. In these circumstances, the Appellant bank filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission and the National Commission dismissed the said petition."
14. In para No. 10 of the above judgment, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that they find that the grounds advanced before us by Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, in our opinion, have to be accepted and accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the order so passed by the National First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 19 Commission and confirmed the order so passed by the State Commission, in which it was held that intimation of resetting of the interest should be given to the complainant. However, counsel for the complainant referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission "M/S IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs Subhash Chand Jain & Anr.", decided on 15 October, 2012 in which, it was observed that the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest.
15. Ops placed on the record certain documents to prove the revision of rate. In this regard a reference has been made to Exs. Op-4 to Op-10 but counsel for the Op was unable to refer to the mode of dispatch of these notices to the complainant. No postal receipt has been placed on the record how it was dispatched to the complainant. No dispatch record of the Op has been placed on the record that these notices were duly dispatched to the complainant. Therefore, without sending the reset letter and consent of the borrower, the interest rate cannot be resettled by the Op. Further RBI guidelines for increase in CRR (REPO) rate and consequently, the instructions issued by the Op bank to increase the interest rate from which date, has not been placed on the record. Therefore, the Op will be entitled to charge interest on the agreed rate of 13.75% p.a. Therefore, in case the floating rate of interest has been increased by the Op without any notice/consent of the complainant, the same is not legal in view of First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 20 the observations made above. In these circumstances, the Op cannot charge enhanced rate of interest without any intimation/consent from the borrower.
16. No other point was argued.
17. Sequel to the above, we partly accept the appeal. The order passed by the District Forum that Op will charge the interest from the borrower at the RBI prescribed rate is set-aside. In the case in hand, Op will charge the interest at the agreed rate of interest i.e. 13.75% per annum from the borrowers and accordingly, re-casted statement of account will be issued to the complainant within a period of 45 days after the receipt of the copy of the order. In case any outstanding amount is due towards the complainant, the complainant will be liable to pay the same to the bank, otherwise, Op is at liberty to take the proceedings as provided under the SARFAESI Act. In case any excess amount has been charged by the Op then that amount will be refunded to the complainant. Op is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses as determined by the District Forum on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of Op.
18. Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and RS. 15,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. These amounts along with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the certified copy of the First Appeal No. 667 of 2017 21 order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court; for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
19. The counsel for the parties/parties are directed to collect free certified copy of the order from the office of the Commission within a period of 15 days from the date of pronouncement.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER February 12, 2018.
as