State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Progressive Agro Farms & Ors. vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited & ... on 22 December, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 19.09.2007.
Date of Decision: 22.12.2011.
1. M/s Progressive Agro Farms, 44-B, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana, through
its partner Sh. Akhtiar Singh.
2. Akhtiar Singh s/o Sh. Harchand Singh, Partner of M/s Progressive
Agro Farms, 44-B, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana and resident of H.No. 183,
Vikas Nagar, Ludhiana.
3. Rajinder Singh s/o Sh. Surain Singh, partner of M/s Progressive Agro
Farms, 44-B, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana, and resident of B-XXXVI/236,
Vikas Nagar, Ludhiana.
4. Satwinder Singh Saini s/o Sh. Teja Singh Saini, partner of M/s
Progressive Agro Farms, 44-B, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana, and resident
of H.No.B-XXXVI-240, Vikas Nagar, Ludhiana.
.....Complainants.
Versus
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its Head Office at Oriental
House, Post Box No.7037-A, 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-100
002, through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office at Surindera
Building, 109-1011, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Regional
Manager.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 148, Industrial Area-A, Cheema
Chowk, opposite Allahabad Bank, Ludhiana through its Branch
Manager.
....Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
----------------------------------------------------------
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the complainants : Sh. K.S. Boparai, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Sh.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for
Ms. V.A. Talwar, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
M/s Progressive Agro Farms and others, complainants have filed this complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as "the Act").
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 2
2. Facts in brief are that the partners of the complainant firm are agriculturists, except Sh. Krishan Kumar Kundra and have joined hands with M/s Diverse Agro, 48-B, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana, a franchisee for Punjab, of M/s Nandan Biomatrix Limited, Hyderabad, for diversification of herbal farming in Punjab and constituted the partnership firm for carrying on farming under the name and style of M/s Progressive Agro Farms, 44-B, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana. One of the partners namely Sh. Satwinder Singh is B.Sc. in Agriculture from Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and the proposal of herbal farming was found to be very lucrative and viable.
3. The complainants took 20 acres of land on lease in village Hambran for two years for growing the crop of Safed Musli in collaboration with M/s Diverse Agro and as per their guidance, the land was prepared and sprinkler irrigation system' was installed. The complainants availed 'crop production loan facility' from HDFC Bank Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, for purchase of farming equipment, seeds, bio-fertilizers, vermin compost, neem powder etc. and a loan of Rs.45,00,000/- was sanctioned by the bank with the condition that the crop must be insured and the complainants got the crop insurance from the opposite parties.
4. The entire scheme was explained to the opposite parties and they studied the scheme thoroughly. Before insurance of crop, the expert opinion was also obtained by the opposite parties and the experts of the opposite parties visited the farm. When the insurance was obtained, the crop was standing in the fields which was approximately three months old. The team of experts of the opposite parties included its Regional Manager from Chandigarh, Branch Manager from Ludhiana and they satisfied themselves about the health of the crop and package and practices being followed by the complainants at the farm.
5. Sh. Bharpur Singh, partner of M/s Diverse Agro also explained everything to the team of the opposite parties and after satisfying from every angle, the crop was insured for Rs.38.00 lacs and a cover note was issued Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 3 with the remarks that the crop is hypothecated with HDFC Bank. The cover note was issued on 23.11.2006 after receiving the premium of Rs.1,46,587/-.
6. As per the scheme and the arrangement with M/s Diverse Agro, the yield was to be about 2000 kgs. per acre and the same was to be purchased by M/s Diverse Agro @ Rs.200/- per kg. The entire scheme was in the knowledge of the opposite parties and they agreed to insure the crop against the huge premium of Rs.1,46,587/-. The crop was inspected by the representative of the opposite parties from time to time and they were satisfied with the growth of the crop.
7. The crop was harvested in the presence of the representatives of the opposite parties as well as in the presence of the representatives of M/s Diverse Agro, but it was found that due to the attack of 'nematodes/root grub' the crop could not bring the desired fruits and the entire crop was assessed to the extent of Rs.3,66,000/- only much less than the expected. The experts of the M/s Diverse Agro declared the failure of the crop and the same was immediately reported to the opposite parties and the opposite parties appointed their surveyor to inspect the crop and the crop was checked out by digging at various places and the crop was found damaged and the entire crop was taken out in the presence of the representative of the opposite parties as well as of M/s Diverse Agro.
8. The surveyor appointed by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 11.05.2006, asked for certain queries and documents which were sent to him vide letter dated 26.06.2006 and the surveyor received the same on 07.07.2006. After about two months, the surveyor again asked for certain queries and the same were replied by the complainants vide their letter dated 29.09.2006 and all the formalities were completed, but the respondents did not bother to respond to the claim of the complainants till 16.11.2006 and on 17.11.2006, the complainants wrote a letter asking about the status of the claim.
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 4
9. Thereafter, the complainants issued a reminder on 18.12.2006, but no response was given by the opposite parties and thereafter, other reminders on 26.12.2006, 01.01.2007, 08.01.2007 were written. A letter dated 26.12.2006 despatched on 06.01.2007 was received from the surveyor of the opposite parties on 08.01.2007 by the complainants vide which, some more clarification and documents were sought from the complainants and the letter of surveyor was replied on 31.01.2007. The complainants visited the office of the Regional Manager, Chandigarh, who asked them to go to Branch Manager at Ludhiana and Branch Manager, Ludhiana on 18.01.2007 called the surveyor and asked him to submit the report and thereafter for about two months, no response was given and the complainants had to file the complaint before this Commission bearing no.12 of 2007 which was decided on 14.05.2007 and this Commission directed opposite party no.3 to take a decision on the claim of the claimants within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of the order.
10. The complainants received a letter dated 19.07.2007 from opposite party no.3 vide which the claim of the claimants was repudiated on false and frivolous grounds, as mentioned in the repudiation letter.
11. On account of non-settlement of the claim, the complainants are suffering a lot of harassment, inconvenience and mental tension because the bank is also pressurizing the complainants for settlement of their dues and they are charging interest @ 12% p.a. The bank has also issued a notice dated 17.03.2007 with a copy to SSP, Chandigarh Police, besides issuing auction notice regarding the sale of mortgaged property belonging to complainant no.2. This action has been initiated by the bank due to the default of the opposite parties in honouring the claim of the complainants. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as they failed to settle the claim and they are liable to pay the sum assured along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. It was prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the full amount of the crop Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 5 insurance i.e. Rs.34,34,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of claim with costs of proceedings to the extent of Rs.55,000/- and to pay Rs.10.00 lacs as compensation for causing tension, mental agony and harassment.
12. In the reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties, preliminary objections were taken that the complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint, as the claim of the complainants has been repudiated vide letter dated 19.07.2007 after getting the matter thoroughly investigated. The insurance was arranged on the advice of M/s Diverse Agro, when the crop had already been affected with the root grub. As per investigation, fake investigation reports were prepared by M/s Diverse Agro and the spoiled crop was got insured. The farmers were duped by M/s Diverse Agro and a fraud was committed with the insurance company.
13. The insurance is a matter of utmost good faith and the opposite parties were defrauded. The land/soil of Punjab is not suitable for Safed Musli plantation. The plantation was done on 10.07.2005 with the expected date of harvest April, 2006 and the insurance policy was obtained three months after the plantation on 31.10.2005 which was valid upto 30.10.2006. In fact, by 31.10.2005, the complainants as well as their technical consultants M/s Diverse Agro had already realized that the area was not suitable for growing such a crop and the production will be less and entrapped the insurance company. The inspection reports were manipulated and as per the inspection dated 29.09.2005, 88500 plants had died due to heavy rain and exposed tuber. In fact, the number of the plants per acre was 33500 and upto 29.09.2005, out of total crop of 637500 plants, roughly 88500 plants had died which was 40% of the crop. Next inspection was done on 30.10.2005 just prior to the insurance and as per that report, the number of the plants expected to be survived per season was mentioned as more than 80% and after insurance, again various inspection reports were filed and the same results were repeated till 19.04.2006. In the inspection report dated Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 6 03.05.2006, it was mentioned that there was heavy attack of 'nematodes' in the farm. The tubers were found rotten and in some places, there were no plants. Heavy loss was feared and the necessary sprays were recommended.
14. The complainants were estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present complaint. The case of the insurance company is that actually, the loss had occurred earlier to the date of insurance i.e. 31.10.2005 and the insurance company got the matter investigated from M/s Royal Associates, who submitted the detailed report Annexure-A1 and as per the report, the crop was damaged due to root grub. The weather and the soil of Punjab is not suitable for the crop of Safed Musli and the experts of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana never advised the farmers for plantation of Safed Musli in Punjab. The investigator returned a categorical opinion that the damaged crop was got insured. The root grub was found in the soil in the months of July-August and then M/s Diverse Agro advised the farmers to go in for insurance and shifted the liability towards the insurer by manipulating the things.
15. The insurance company has deputed its surveyor to assess the loss and M/s Suresh Vashishat & Co., who are the IRDA approved surveyor submitted their report, wherein the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,65,329.80. Report of the surveyor is a valuable and important document. The complaint has been filed on behalf of the partnership firm which has used the plantation for commercial purpose and the present complaint does not come within the purview of the Act. The complainants are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. The correspondence between the surveyor and the complainants on various dates is important and shows the manipulations. The surveyor also explained the delay in submitting the report and it was caused mainly by the complainants. The surveyor has assessed the loss @ 30% and worked out the compensation as Rs.3,65,329.80. No test report except of M/s Diverse Agro was submitted. The reports of M/s Diverse Agro were not even signed by the representatives and no test report of seed Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 7 plantation or its certification was produced and the insurance company took a decision to repudiate the claim.
16. On merits, it was further pleaded that in fact, Safed Musli plantation was done in 19 acres of land, rather than 20 acres and the complainants have mis-stated the facts. The insurance was got done by misrepresentation and on the day of insurance, the crop was already affected by the root grub. When the insurance was done, the crop was of three months age and it was not obtained at the time of sowing the crop.
17. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent-insurance company swung into action, but it was complicated case in the North Region, as the Safed Musli plantation is not common. The complainants also did not cooperate. On directions of the State Commission vide order dated 14.05.2007, the insurance company took a decision on 19.07.2007 and repudiated the claim, as the same was obtained by playing a fraud. All other allegations as contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
18. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed in which averments of the complaint were repeated and that of the written statement were denied.
19. The complainants in support of the complaint, tendered affidavit Ex.A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C27.
20. The opposite parties tendered into evidence, affidavit Ex.R/A and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16.
21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely examined the entire documents and other matieral placed on the file.
22. The admitted facts are that the complainants took about 20 acres of land on lease in village Hambran for two years for growing the crop of Safed Musli, in collaboration with M/s Diverse Agro. The crop was sown in the month of July, 2005 i.e. on 10th July, 2005 as per the inspection reports and the same was insured with the respondent Insurance Company on 31.10.2005 when the crop was more than three months old and cover note Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 8 Ex.C15 was issued on 31.10.2005 against the total premium payment of Rs.1,46,567/-. The policy covered other risks, including the risk of damage/destroy by pests and diseases. M/s Diverse Agro which is a franchisee of M/s Nandan Biomatrix Limited, also got the soil tested and Ex.C16 is the Soil Sample Report dated 05.05.2005 as per which, the texture of soil was 'Sandy Loam' and pH of soil was '7.6' and finding the soil to be fit, the cultivation of Safed Musli crop was recommended. As per Ex.C17, the pre-requisites for the cultivation of the Safed Musli crop were "sandy loam soil with good drainage, adequate water source, farmer's personal interest, attention & Monitoring and requisite and timely financial investment, expert advice and guidance". The pre-requisites were fulfilled and then the crop was sown. M/s Diverse Agro was the expert and guiding force and issued germination certificate Ex.C22, certifying that the percentage of germination was 92.75 and the germination result was 'Excellent'. This certificate was issued on 20.07.2005. Sowing Certificate is also part of the same. Ex.C23 is the Safed Musli Plantation insurance proposal form which is very material document and was filled at that time of obtaining the insurance and all the material informations like the source of seed material, source of irrigation and the expected crop was disclosed by the complainants and thereafter, the insurance cover and policy were issued.
23. Ex.C26 is the inspection report conducted by M/s Diverse Agro on 20th July, 2005 and at that time, the germination was found "Excellent". The farm was well maintained and earthing up was good. Again the inspection was conduced by M/s Diverse Agro on 14th August, 2005 and the germination was found "Excellent". Likewise, inspections were carried out on 29th September,2005, 25th October, 2005 and 30th October, 2005 and as per inspection report dated 30th October, 2005, the number of plants expected to be survive was 80% and the farm was well maintained and the earthing-up was good.
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 9
24. This date and the inspection is very important for the purpose of this case, because the insurance of the crop was obtained on 31st October, 2005. The perusal of the cover note Ex.C15 shows that the number of plants was also mentioned and SI per plant was also mentioned as 33500 and 5.97 respectively. An arguments was raised and the plea has been taken that the crop was already damaged and attacked by root grub at the time of taking the policy and the surveyor appointed by the respondents has also mentioned so in his report Ex.A2, but the surveyor never inspected the crop on 31st October, 2005, nor any officer/official of the respondent company pointed out at the time of accepting the premium that the Safed Musli crop had already been infected by root grub. It cannot be expected that the respondent Insurance Company will issue the cover note just at the asking of the complainants or the expert of M/s Diverse Agro, without inspecting the crop. The respondent-Insurance Company has number of field officers, experts at their command, who are supposed to verify the facts and report before any insurance cover/policy is issued, about the genuineness of the proposal and particularly, when the question of crop insurance is concerned, then it becomes more necessary to visit the spot and to know about the existing position of the crop and it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent- Insurance Company at the time of settling the claim, to say that the crop was infected by the root grub at the time of insurance. Rather, it reflects their working if the crop was insured without knowing its condition and without taking report from its field officers.
25. After obtaining the insurance, the inspections were again conducted by M/s Diverse Agro and the respondent-Insurance Company never found any fault or raised any objection against the said reports, nor even bothered to send its own experts to know about the condition of the crop. After obtaining the insurance, another inspection was conducted on 12th November, 2005 and the number of plants expected to survive were 80% and weeding was recommended to break up crust of the soil. Again, the Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 10 inspection was conducted on 15th December, 2005 and number of plants expected to survive were mentioned as 80% and the observations of the inspecting officer were that the tubers were healthy in growth and the farm was well maintained. Likewise, inspections were carried out on 12th January, 2006, 18th February, 2006, 2nd March, 2006 and 19th April, 2006 and the observations were that the farm was well maintained. In the inspection report which was conducted on 03.05.2006, the following observations were made:-
"Heavy attack of nematodes in the farm. Tubers are found rotten and in some places, there is no plant. Heavy loss is feared. Furadon (FMC) by placement/sprinkle method is being recommended at the earliest possible and harvesting of the crop within Ten days is also recommended after the spray".
26. As per this report, heavy loss was feared and as per bill dated 28.05.2006, Safed Musli wet material weighing 1830 kgs. was sold @ Rs.200/- per kg., for Rs.3,66,000/-/-.
27. The information of the loss was given to the respondent- Insurance Company vide Ex.C2 on 03.05.2006 itself and the request was made to depute the surveyor to inspect the harvesting operation and to assess the loss and thereafter, there was lot of correspondence between the complainants and the Insurance Company as well as surveyor, which is Ex.C3 to Ex.C12 on the record.
28. The respondent-Insurance Company appointed surveyor M/s Suresh Vashishat & Co. and as per the pleading, the surveyor conducted the survey on 03.05.2006 and on subsequent dates. The respondent-Insurance Company did not settle the claim and the complainants approached the Commission and this Commission vide order dated 14.05.2007, directed the respondents Insurance Company to take a decision on the claim of the complainants within a period of two months and ultimately, the respondents repudiated the claim of the complainants vide Ex.C14 on 19.07.2007.
29. Surveyor M/s Suresh Vashishat & Co. submitted report Ex.A2. The surveyor has also relied upon the inspection reports of M/s Diverse Agro Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 11 and observed that as per inspection, on 18th February, 2005, the number of plants expected to survive remained less than 80% and as per inspection dated 3rd May, 2006, there was heavy attack of nematodes in the farm and heavy loss was feared. The survey report has further mentioned the various stages of the plantation/policy and percentage of the sum assured which is reproduced below for the purpose of convenience:-
Stage of Plantation/Policy Percentage of Sum Assured Upto 2 months 5% Upto 3 months 10% Upto 6 months 30% Upto 9 months 60% Upto 11 months 100%
30. The investigator further calculated the number of plants and the cost per plant and after various deductions, ultimately assessed the loss, calculating the age of the plants as well as percentage to the tune of Rs.12,17,766.03 and further reduced it to 60% on imaginative calculations, to the extent of Rs.7,30,659.61. The surveyor has altogether lost sight of the fact that it was the total crop which was insured, including the plants. However, the area may be 19 acres instead of 20 acres. The respondents also got the investigation conducted from M/s Royal Associates, who gave the report Ex.A1 dated 12.06.2007 and gave the opinion that the damaged crop was got insured, the crop was not insured at the very outset and when it got damaged, M/s Diverse Agro advised the farmers to get the crop insured and the persons of M/s Diverse Agro, who conducted the inspections, were not technical experts. The investigator further observed that the expert of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana clearly stated that weather and soil of Punjab is not suitable for Safed Musli crop, but the said investigator has not placed on record any document or any certificate issued by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, certifying that the soil of Punjab was not fit for cultivation of Safed Musli crop, whereas M/s Diverse Agro got the soil tested and it was found fit for the Safed Musli crop as per report Ex.C16 and the respondent- Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 12 Insurance Company at the time of insurance did not get the soil tested, nor appointed any investigator to find out the quality of the soil nor asked the experts from Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, to test the soil to know whether Safed Musli crop was fit to be sown. As such, the report of the investigator cannot be taken into consideration and it is a manipulated and procured report by the respondents Insurance Company, just to frustrate the claim of the complainant.
31. From the above discussion, it is clear that 80% of the crop was quite healthy and the farm was well maintained till 2nd March, 2006 and the crop was to be harvested in April, 2006 and in the inspection report dated 19th April, 2006, although percentage of the number of plants expected to survive is not given, yet the observation was made that the farm was well maintained and no loss of any kind to the crop was reported, but on the next inspection which was conducted on 3rd May, 2006, heavy attack of Nematodes was found in the farm and harvesting of the crop within 10 days was recommended after the spray. Thus, it is proved and there is no rebuttal that about 80% of the crop was surviving before it was attacked and destroyed by Nematodes and the respondents are liable to compensate the complainants as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
32. Term-17 of the Safed Musli Plantation Insurance Policy Ex.C15 reads as follows:-
Total loss shall mean:-
Part-A- Total loss/damage to individual Safed Musli Plant or entire Safed Musli plantation or part thereof.
Part-B- Total loss/damage to all tubers of any individual plant or yield of entire farm or part thereof.
33. Under the 'Coverage', Part-A refers to the input cost incurred upto and during the policy period and Part-B refers to the market value of the standing tubers/crop at the time of occurrence of damage i.e. during tuber bearing stage. Part-B reads as follows:-
Stage of Plantation/Policy Percentage of Sum Assured Upto 2 months Upto 3 months -Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 13
Upto 6 months -
Upto 9 months 80%
Upto 11 months 100%
34. The surveyor assessed the loss on the basis of loss/damage to the plants, but has not taken into consideration the fact that the crop has already matured and it was at the stage of harvesting and the tubers were healthy in growth as per the inspections reports dated 15th December, 2005;
12th January, 2006; 18th February, 2006 and the farms were well maintained as per inspection reports dated 24th March, 2006, 19th April, 2006. It was only on 03.05.2006 that it was found that there was heavy attack of Nematodes in the farm and the tubers were found rotten and in some places, there were no plants and heavy loss was feared. The surveyor assessed the gross loss on 'sum assured basis' as Rs.14,00,782.89 and gross loss on 'actual loss basis' as Rs.12,17,766.03 and thereafter, considering the age of plants (above six months and below nine months), reduced it to 60% i.e. Rs.7,30,659.61. Thereafter, the surveyor on imaginative figures further reduced the loss without any basis thereof. The crop at the time of harvesting i.e. on 03.05.2006 was about 10 months of age and from nine months to eleven months, the percentage of sum assured was 100% and the surveyor has wrongly calculated the age of the plants and reduced the amount of the actual loss.
35. The complainants themselves vide letter dated Ex.C2 admitted that the loss is estimated to the tune of 30 to 40% of crop, subject to harvesting i.e. in the range of Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.14.00 lacs. Thus, the complainants themselves have written letter Ex.C2 to the branch manager of the respondent Insurance Company on 03.05.2006, when there was attack of Nematodes and root grub on the Safed Musli crop. The surveyor as per the cost of the plants also assessed the gross loss on 'sum assured basis' as Rs.14,00,782.89 and gross loss on 'actual loss basis' as Rs.12,17,766.03 and as stated above, there was no reason for the surveyor to reduced this amount.
Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2007 14
36. M/s Diverse Agro, who was the expert and guide for plantation of Safed Musli crop, made inspections from time to time from the date the seeds were sown till the crop was almost matured, but in the inspection reports dated 19th April, 2006 and 3rd May, 2006, no percentage of the plants expected to survive was mentioned, nor the condition of the tubers was mentioned but in vague terms, it was mentioned that the farm was well maintained. On 03.05.2006, when it was observed that there was heavy attack of Nematodes, at that time or even after harvesting the remaining crop which was not destroyed, the said M/s Diverse Agro did not assess the loss to the tubers. In this situation, the estimated loss by the complainants vide letter Ex.C2 has to be taken into consideration. Keeping in view the letter Ex.C2 and the survey report Ex.A2, we are of the opinion that the total loss can be taken to be Rs.12,17,766.03 and this amount is payable to the complainants and the repudiation of the claim by the respondents was illegal and without any basis.
37. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.12,17,766.03 (Rupees Twelve Lacs Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Six & three paisa) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on this amount from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization, and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as litigation expenses, to the complainants within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
38. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 15.12.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
39. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member December 22, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)