Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/169/2016

Gurmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emaar MGF Land Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Sobti, Adv.

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	169 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.09.2016

 

Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, r/o House No.726, Sector 2, Panchkula 134109.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Managing Director.  
2. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, ECE House, #28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, through its Director.

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh.  Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.  Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Parties made a number of assurances through various newspapers and telemarketing with regard to launching of their residential project under the name and style of “Mohali Hills” in Sector 105, SAS Nagar, Mohali. As per the assurance made by the Opposite Parties, the complainant booked the plot in the project of the Opposite Parties and he was allotted plot No.105-CP-283-300 in the project of the Opposite Parties i.e. “Mohali Hills”, Sector 105, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab vide provisional allotment          letter dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure C-1) and the total consideration of the unit was fixed as Rs.88,68,300/- including EDC and PLC. The complainant paid the booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque, with regard to the unit, in question. Thereafter, Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 11.06.2013 (Annexure C-3).   As per Clause 8 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons beyond the control of the Company, the physical possession of the fully developed residential plot was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 18 months but not later than two years from the date of execution of the said Agreement and in case of delay in handing over of possession, the Opposite Parties should be liable to pay compensation/penalty @Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month for such period of delay. As such, possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainant latest by 10.06.2015. It was stated that the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.87,25,800/- through the Banker (HDFC Ltd.), from which, the complainant got his plot financed. Copies of the payment of receipts and statement of account issued by the Opposite Parties are Annexure C-4 to C-8 & C-9. It was further stated that the complainant repaid the entire loan amount to his banker and the copy of NOC dated 12.12.2015 is Annexure C-10. It was further stated that after receipt of the huge amount, the Opposite Parties intimated the complainant vide letter dated 07.06.2014 that they should commence the handing over process within 60 days as the plot was ready for possession but the Opposite Parties put off the matter on one pretext or the other as they could not develop the project, at all. It was further stated that the complainant visited the site in December, 2014 and he was surprised to see that there was no development because the basic amenities like water, sewerage, roads and street lights were not available, at the site, which the Opposite Parties were bound to provide before handing over of possession. It was further stated that the complainant many a times visited the office of the Opposite Parties to enquire about the project/possession but to no avail. Ultimately, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties in July, 2015 to refund his amount, as they failed to hand over possession of the plot upto 10.06.2015, as per the terms of the Agreement and the letter dated 07.06.2014 regarding intimation of possession sent by the Opposite Parties just to receive more money from him. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to make available the necessary approval/completion certificate of the Punjab Govt. or GMADA or any other competent authority for developing the housing project but they again failed to give satisfactory reply.   It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.           The Opposite Parties, in their written version, have taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and also they separately, moved an application u/s 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taking a specific objection in this regard for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement.  It was stated that this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the Agreement was executed at Mohali ; property is also situated at Mohali and registered office of the Opposite Parties is at Delhi. It was further stated that the complaint is barred by limitation, as the consumer complaint can be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action and in the present case, the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant for seeking possession/refund arose after 3 years from the date of Buyer Agreement, as such, the cause of action arose in the year 2013 and the present complaint now being filed is barred by limitation. It was further stated that in case the complainant seeking refund of the amount then forfeiture clause would be applicable, as per the Agreement. It was admitted regarding the booking of the plot ; total consideration of plot was Rs.88,68,300/- and execution of the Buyer’s Agreement between the parties. It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to endeavour and try to handover the unit within 2 years from the date of signing of the Agreement and in case of any delay, there was sufficient safeguards in the Agreement to protect their interests. It was further stated that it is well settled principle of law that in cases of sale of immovable property, time is never regarded as the essence of the contract. It was further stated that the term “proposes” duly indicated that there was no definitive commitment to hand over possession within two years, as time was not essence of the contract. It was admitted that the Opposite Parties received an amount of Rs.87,25,800/- against the unit, as is evident from statement of account (Annexure R-1). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties offered possession of the plot vide letter dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure R-2) within the agreed timeline, but the complainant did not take the same. It was further stated that the development is complete in all respects and possession has only been offered subsequently. It was further stated that despite various reminders and notices being sent by the Company, the complainant failed to complete the formalities and take possession. It was further stated that Partial Completion Certificate has also been applied for and obtained by the Opposite Parties (Annexure R-3). It was further stated that the complainant intentionally avoided to make payments and the Opposite Parties issued reminder to make the payments as well as final notice for termination of Agreement was also sent to him. Copy of letter/reminder as well as final notice dated 25.08.2014 alongwith postal receipt are Annexure R-4(Colly.). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.           The complainant filed replication to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

4.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

6.           Admittedly, plot No.105-CP-283-300 was allotted to the complainant vide provisional allotment letter dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure C-1). It is also the admitted fact that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 11.06.2013 (Annexure C-3) and as per the Agreement, total consideration of the unit, in question, was Rs.88,68,300/-, out of which, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.87,25,800/-, as is evident from the statement of account (Annexure R-1). It is also the admitted fact that letter of intimation of possession at “Mohali Hills” Mohali was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure C-11).

7.             The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration Act 1996, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It may be stated here that the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, deserves rejection, in view of the judgment passed by this Commission in Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, wherein this issue was dealt, in detail, while referring various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; the National Commission, New Delhi, and also Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ultimately it was held by this Commission that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It was also so said by the National Commission, recently, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra.  In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others  - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.  [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.” 

            In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, passed by the National Commission and this Commission, the arguments raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, stands rejected.

8.           Another frivolous objection was taken by the Opposite Parties, by stating that the Agreement was executed at Mohali ; property is situated at Mohali and registered office of the Opposite Parties situated at Delhi, as such, this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

              According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainant(s), before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction, whereof a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, Plot Buyer’s Agreement, in respect of the plot/unit bearing No.105-CP-283-300, was executed between the parties at Chandigarh on  11.06.2013 (Annexure C-3).  Not only this, perusal of record reveals that provisional allotment letter dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure C-1), receipt (Annexure C-2), acknowledgment-cum-receipts (Annexures C-4 to C-8), letter of intimation of possession dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure R-2), notice/payment request reminders (Annexure R-4 colly.), were sent by Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties, as the same had the address “Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO 120-122, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017”. It means that a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission. This Commission has, therefore, got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, also stands rejected.

9.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether,  offer of possession made by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, vide letter dated 07.06.2014  (Annexure R-2), in respect of the plot/unit, could be said to be genuine offer or not. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project had been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed is on the builder. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. It is very strange that not even an iota of evidence has been placed, on record, by the Opposite Parties, to prove that when offer was made to the complainant, in respect of the unit, in question, development work was complete and that all the basic amenities were in existence. On the other hand, in case, all the development activities, had been undertaken, and completed at the site, by the said dates, then it was for Opposite Parties, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but they failed to do so. The Opposite Parties were also required to produce on record, a copy of the Completion Certificate (if obtained), having been issued by the Competent Authority, which could be said to be best evidence, to prove their case, but they miserably failed to do so. It is well settled law that before offering/delivery of possession of unit, in a project, it is mandatory to obtain completion certificate, from the Competent Authority(s), failing which the purchaser is at liberty to say no, to such an offer.

              However, the main grouse of the complainant is that, despite receipt of the huge amount from him, actual physical possession thereof, was not offered to him, whereas, on the other hand, paper offer was made to him, vide letter dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure R-2), because when he visited the site in December, 2014, after receiving the said letter, to see development and basic amenities, the complainant was surprised to see that there were no development and even the basic amenities like water, sewerage, roads and street lights were not available at the site, which the Opposite Parties were bound to provide before handing over possession of the plot. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have placed on record  Partial Completion Certificate dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure R-3) to prove regarding the completion of the amenities at the site. No doubt, a plea is taken by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that since the Opposite Parties have already obtained Partial Completion Certificate (Annexure R-3) in respect of the project, in question, as such, it could very well be said that the development at site was complete and that the Opposite Parties were in possession of all the necessary approvals/sanctions and was ready to offer/deliver possession of the unit to the complainant. It may be stated here that perusal of Partial Completion Certificate dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure R-3)  clearly goes to show that the same was issued subject to certain conditions i.e. the Opposite Parties shall abide by all the necessary permissions/sanctions/approvals from the PSPCL, PPCB, etc.   It is the duty of the Opposite Parties to comply with all the conditions, mentioned in the Partial Completion Certificate, before seeking final completion certificate. It is pertinent to note that a bare perusal of Partial Completion Certificate shows that the Opposite Parties had applied for Partial Completion Certificate with the competent authority on 03.09.2015, much after the issuance of the letter of intimation of possession dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure R-2). It is also pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties in the intimation of possession letter dated 07.06.2014 (Annexure R-2) stated that “We are pleased to inform you that the process of handing over of the plots in Sector-105, Mohali Hills shall commence within 60 days of this letter, as your plot is ready to be handed over for possession.” So, it is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties have only sent the letter of intimation of possession and not offered the possession of the plot to the complainant. Even the Opposite Parties failed to place on record even a single document to establish that the development was complete when the offer of possession was made to the complainant on 07.06.2014.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant came to know from one of the allottee that the entry points of the project, in question, had been sealed by the Forest Department, as the Opposite Parties failed to take requisite permissions from it. To prove this facts, the complainant has also placed on record the information obtained by one of the allottee i.e. Sh.Navneet Misra under RTI from Forest and Wildlife Protection Department, Punjab (Annexure C-13). The relevant portion of the said information reads thus :-

“1. For the approval under FCA, 1980, the case has been applied.

2. The entry points of Sector-105 project of M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. have been sealed by barbed wired and digging trenches by the Forest Department.

3. The abovementioned entry points have been sealed due to the reason that the user agency has not got permission to use Forest Department’s land under FCA, 1980 from Government of India.

4. Subject to final approval from the Government of India, the entry points will be opened.

5. x xx x x x x xx”

So, in view of the afore-extracted information obtained under RTI, it is proved that the Opposite Parties had not taken permission from the Forest Department, which fact was not disclosed by them, in their written version, filed before this Commission. In this view of the matter, it is held that the act of the Opposite Parties, in offering paper possession of the unit, in question, vide letter dated 07.06.2014, in the absence of basic amenities at the site; non-obtaining of completion certificate, and also entry points of the project being sealed/closed by the Forest Department, amounted to deficiency in providing service and also adoption of unfair trade practice. It is therefore held that the offer of possession made by the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 07.06.2014 is nothing, but a paper possession, which is not sustainable, in the eyes of law.

10.             The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not.  It may be stated here that since it has been frankly admitted by the Opposite Parties, in number of paragraphs of their written statement that offer of possession of the plot (which has been held to be paper possession), given to the complainant, in the manner explained above, was made on 07.06.2014 (Annexure R-2), he could file the complaint, within 2 years, from those dates, as such, even if the date 07.06.2014, is taken as first cause of action according to the Opposite Parties, the complaint having been filed on 28.04.2016,  is filed within the limitation, as prescribed under 1986 Act.

                   Not only this, since it has been held by this Commission, that offer so made by the Opposite Parties, was nothing but a paper possession, and till date the complainant  is empty handed as neither actual physical possession of the plot was delivered, complete in all respects, as also the entry points had been sealed by the Forest Department and they  failed to take requisite permissions/sanction from it nor amount deposited was refunded to him alongwith interest, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant, in view of principle of law laid down, in  Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal  Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for  the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.          Another objection raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that since it was mentioned in the Agreement that the Company shall endeavour to deliver possession of the plot within a maximum period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, and the term ‘proposes’ duly indicated that there was no definitive commitment to hand over possession within a maximum period of 24 months, as time was not the essence of the Agreement, is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that it was clearly mentioned in Clause 8 of the Agreement that possession of the plot will be delivered by the Opposite Parties, within a maximum period of 24 months, subject to force majeure circumstances or reason beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties did not raise any force majeure circumstances, if any, encountered by them. In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by the Opposite Parties or any other valid and legal reason beyond their control, the stand taken by them, in this regard, for condonation of delay in delivery of possession of the unit, to the complainant, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, under these circumstances, since as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver possession of the unit, within a maximum period of 24 months from the date of execution of the same, as such, time was,  unequivocally made the essence of contract.

12.          Even otherwise, the Opposite Parties cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since the word tentative/ proposed/tentative was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. Non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement, is an unfair trade practice, on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof.  It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of the Opposite Parties in this regard also stands rejected.

13.          The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of the plot/unit, was to be given to the complainant. According to Clause 8 of the  Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-3), subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Company, it was to deliver possession of the unit, in question, within a maximum period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement and the said period has already expired on 10.06.2015. Moreover,  the Opposite Parties already received a huge amount of Rs.87,25,800/-, towards the said unit, as is evident from the statement of account (Annexure R-1). By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within a maximum period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties failed to abide the commitments, as such, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

14.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.87,25,800/-, deposited by him. It is an admitted fact that the  Opposite Parties are unable to deliver  possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated time frame, as mentioned in the Agreement and firm date of delivery of possession of the unit, could not be given to him (complainant). The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of actual physical possession of the plot purchased by him. The  Opposite Parties, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant, deposited towards price of the unit, in question. The complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by him. In view of above facts of the case, the  Opposite Parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to him.

15.          It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the  complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.87,25,800/-, was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the Opposite Parties, for their own benefit. The  Opposite Parties were charging heavy rate of interest (compounded quarterly @24% p.a.) as per Clause 3 of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of installments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the  complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, to the tune of Rs.87,25,800/- alongwith interest @15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits till realization. 

16.           As far as the plea taken by the Opposite Parties, regarding forfeiture clause is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not their (Opposite Parties) case, that they were ready with possession of the plot, to be delivered to the complainant, complete in all respects, as per terms and conditions contained in the Agreement, by the stipulated date but it was he (complainant) who wanted to rescind the contract, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/ financial constraints or for any personal reason, and is seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the Opposite Parties, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that since the complainant himself is rescinding the contract, as such, he is entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of some amount, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.

17.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

18.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed, as under:-

1. To  refund   the  amount Rs.87,25,800/-, to  the complainant, alongwith interest compounded quarterly @ 15%, from the respective  dates of deposits onwards, within 45 days, from   the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this   order.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment, to the complainant, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
4. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest compounded     quarterly @18%, instead of interest compounded quarterly @ 15%, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest compounded quarterly @15%, on the  amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

19.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

September 22, 2016.                               Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb