Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/31/2014

SMTI ARUNA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

SRI BISWAJIT BARUAH

16 Nov 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,

AT DIBRUGARH

C.P. CASE NO. 31/14

Present :- Dr. Nitendranath Das

    President

    Dist. Consumer Forum Dibrugarh.

   Dr.Manashi Dutta

   Member

   Dist. Consumer Forum Dibrugarh.

   Sri Jadav Gogoi

   Member

   Dist. Consumer Forum Dibrugarh.

 

SMTI. ARUNA DEVI,

Wife of Sri P.K. Sharma,

Resident of Pragati Path, Nr. Union Church,

P.O., P.S. Duliajan, District – Dibrugarh,

Assam,PIN – 786 602.

                                          ......................... Complainant

               Vs.

                NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

( A subsidiary of GIC of India)           ........................ Opposite Party

Represented by :

1. The Branch Manager,

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Gar Ali, J.P.R.Road,

Jorhat – 785 001, Assam.

2. The Divisional Manager,

New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

 Rotary Road, Dibrugarh – 786 001, Assam

(Local business office of the O.P.)

Date of Argument : 18.11.2014

Date of Judgment : 29.05.2015

This C.P. case has been filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming Rs.2,00,000/- being the agreed sum insured against loss of motor boat with interest  @ 24% w.e.f. 257-2009 and compensation of Rs.75,000/- for giving mental and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs.30,000/- as cost of filing the case.

 J U D G  M E N T

         The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was the absolute owner of the private Motor Boat/ speedboat, namely ‘KETEKI’, the hull of which 4.88 metre length and 0.91 metre breadth and 0.40 meter in depth. Said boat was propelled by 40 H.P. 0BM engine bearing No. 421325. The boat was  duly registered at the port of Guwahati, Assam who allotted Govt. Registration No. ASSAM- 477 of 2000/Guwahati. The said  Motor boat KETEKI was duly insured with Insurer i.e. OPs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jorhat Branch for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The policy was valid from 30.07.2008 to midnight of 29.07.2009 and premium was  paid Rs.2386/- against the receipt No.530108/81/08/0000001265 dated 25.07.08 under Boatman Comprehensive Package Policy Schedule being No.530108/48/08/58/00000226  given without policy clauses or terms and conditions. The insurance was done with the OPs on the advice of the Govt. Office after OPs provided benefits of BCPI  Policy with assurance of prompt and clean service to the Registering Authority i.e. the  Director, IWT, Govt. of Assam.

          On 23.07.2009 at about 1:00 PM while the motor boat was being driven by the competent operator and coming from Bosagaon in Tinsukia District towards Jorhat through the river Brahmaputra the said Motor boat met with an accident by knocking against hard object and sank in the water near AFALA  under disangmukh Outpost of Sivasagar  Police Station, District Sivasagar, Assam. Fortunately, there was no loss of life as the persons on the board  swam safely to the bank. The complainant on the next day i.e. 24.07.2009 made an extensive search of the boat under water but not found. He also lodged a F.I.R. at Disangmukh outpost, Sivasagar and Disangmukh Out Post made G.D. Entry as No.339 dated 24.07.2009. Copy of above F.I.R. were sent to Director, IWT, Guwahati, Commissioner of Transport Deptt., Govt. of Assam and others for information. Subsequently, matter was also reported to Dhakuakhana P.S. of Lakhimpur District located at opposite bank of the site of accident and Gaurisagar P.S. of Sivasagar. On 25.07.2009 the complainant also informed the matter to the OPs and also lodged a claim. But, OPs slept over the matter for a long time and thereafter on persuasion one Sri Tapan Gohain, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed, who, by a letter dated 14.08.2009 asked the complainant to submit some documents including claim form. After receiving the said letter, the complainant immediately submitted all the relevant documents along with claim form to the surveyor. The receipt of all the relevant documents have been acknowledged and admitted by the surveyor in his letter No.TG/NIAC/Misc/14 dated 10.10.13. But, for  four years the OPs slept over the matter of settlement of claim and remained mum, in spite, of cooperation and prompt compliance of all the requirements. Repeated reminders were sent to the OP till 15.5.2013 when the Insurance Company again appointed another Investigator Mr. Tarun Goswami. The Investigator visited the house of complainant and asked to furnish a statement about the loss as well photo vide his letter dated 22.5.13. The complainant extended full cooperation to the Investigator and requirements were immediately complied on 27.5.13. Thereafter, the OPs again continued to remain silent. The complainant after waiting for four months finding no alternative served a legal notice on 23.9.13 for settlement of the claim. The OP No.2 answered to the said notice on 11.10.13 and disclosed that they have closed the claim of the complainant without assigning any reason. The OPs intentionally and deliberately dragged the claim and lastly closed the claim as NO CLAIM on some imaginary ground to escape from the contractual liability whereby  the OP committed deficiency in service. As such, the complainant suffered mental, physical harassment caused by OP. So the complainant has been forced to institute the instant case.

          After registering the case notice having been served on the OPs who have contested the case by filing written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable either in law or in facts, the complaint petition is barred by U/s. 24-A of the Law of Limitation and this Forum is not the proper Forum for the redressal of grievances of the complainant. The OPs in their statement stated that the alleged accident is false, fabricated and concocted and has been made for wrongful gain. The complainant without following the guideline as per terms of the policy failed to inform promptly to the insurer about the alleged accident. The complainant never cooperated with the investigation. The OP duly appointed an Investigator namely Mr. Tapan Gohain, Surveyor/ Loss Assessor to investigate and to submit his report on the alleged accident. But though the Investigator proceeded to make his investigation due to non-cooperation  of the complainant  the investigation could not be completed. Several correspondences were made with the complainant by the Investigator for submitting the requisite documents but the complainant has failed to submit the necessary documents. The OPs have also tried several times to contact with the complainant but complainant was never found at her residence. Some of the letters posted to her residence returned back with remarks “ Incomplete address”. Subsequently, OP came to know that complainant has changed her residential address from Jorhat to Duliajan which was not informed to the OPs but as per terms of the policy it was necessary to inform. As such, the complainant violated the terms of the policy and is not entitled to any claim whatsoever. The OPs finding no other alternative closed the claim of the complainant. The alleged accident of submerging a vessel is serious incident and requires investigation to ascertain genuineness of the claim. Mere filing a FIR before the police do not prove the genuineness of the alleged incident until and unless the matter is duly investigated. The wreckage of the alleged drawn vessel has not been recovered. The complainant failed to comply with the terms of the policy and also failed to cooperate in the necessary investigation for which it appears that the alleged accident was false, fabricated and concocted. There is no deficiency in service at any point of time by the OP and as such, there is no cause of action to file the instant case. The complaint petition filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

           In this case the complainant examined himself as CW-1 and exhibited as many as 50 (fifty) documents in support of his claim. On the other hand, OPs have examined one Sri Nagen Chandra Gogoi, Divisional Manage, New India Assurance Company Ltd.,Divisional Branch, Dibrugarh as DW-1 and exhibited 6 (six) documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

      Upon going through the evidence of both the parties and after going through the documentary evidence and written arguments of both the parties it is found that the complainant Smti. Aruna Devi was the owner of the private Boat/ speedboat namely ‘KETEKI’ which was propelled by 40H.P. 0BM engine bearing No.421325 and the Registration No. of the Boat was  ASSAM 477 of 2000/Guwahati, which was used for movement of her forest product such as bamboo, cane, thatch and etc. From Ext.1 registration certificate it appears clear that the complainant was the owner of the  above Motor Boat/speedboat namely ‘KETEKI’  which is also not denied by the OPs. The Motor Boat ‘KETEKI’ was duly insured with the Insurer, that is, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Guwahati for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide Policy No.530108/48/08/58/00000226. The validity of the policy was from 30.07.2008 to midnight of 29.07.2009. Ext.2 & 3 are the Insurance Policy which is also not denied by the OPs. On 23.7.09 at about 1:00PM while the motorboat was being driven by the competent operator coming from Bosagaon of Tinsukia district towards Jorhat by river Brahmaputra through National Waterway No.2. Said motorboat suddenly knocked against some hard object and met with an accident and sank in the water near Afala under Disangmukh OP of Sivasagar P.S., Sivasagar, Assam. Both the operators somehow managed to come to the bank of the river by swimming. On the next date i.e. 24.7.09 the complainant arranged to search the boat and also lodged FIR at near police station i.e. Disangmukh OP, Sivasagar. Vide Ext-3 FIR was duly registered as Disangmukh OP G.D. Entry No.339 dated 24.7.09. Ext-6 is the extract of GD Entry. On the basis of FIR police of Disangmukh OP alongwith complainant made enquiry and searched the boat but failed to trace out the boat. Accordingly, a note was made in the G.E. Entry No.339. Ext-15 is the certificate of above note. Subsequently, SP, Sivasagar vide Ext.16 informed to the complainant that Disangmukh OP could not trace out the boat and also no any information has been found till date. The complainant immediately on 25.7.09 informed about the above accident to the insurer i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd vide Ext.7 and 8 and also lodged a claim. Ext-7 and 8 through which the complainant intimated about the accident to the OP No-1. Meanwhile, complainant made several queries about the tracing of her boat but found no trace of positive reply. Ext.13,16,17,18,19,21 and 22 are those letter through which the complainant came to know that boat could not be traced. As such, complainant came to know that there is less chance to trace her boat. The complainant informed about the above accident to all concerned. The village head Sarvashree Timuram Mili and Tanuram Mili of village Shitoladubi issued certificates vide Ext.20 and 21 as to the proof of missing of the boat which clearly established that the motor boat sank in the river which could not be traced out, from the above documents as well as evidence given by the complainant it has been established beyond doubt that on 23.7.09 at about 1:00 PM the machine boat belongs to the complainant  had been sanked due to accidental strike with some hard object under water which could not be seen properly due to breeze and wavy condition. It is to be noted that on 25.7.09 immediately after the occurrence complainant informed the matter to the insurer i.e. OP but the insurer remained silent for long time. However, after persuasions by the complainant a surveyor and loss assessor Sri Tapan Gohain was appointed by the OP who vide his requisition dated 14.8.09 asked the complainant to submit some document including claim forms. Ext-23 is the said requisition letter. The complainant immediately after receiving the said requisition letter submitted all the documents to the surveyor vide Ext-25. Ext-24 is the claim form, Ext-27 is the receipt by which the Ext.25 and documents were sent. The receipt of all the documents have been acknowledged and admitted by the surveyor Sri Tapan Gohain by his letter No.TG/NIAC/MISC/2013/14 dated 10.10.2013. The surveyor specifically in para 5 of Ext.44 while sending the above letter to the complainant mentioned that he has received claim form, operator’s licence, operators statement, occupants statement, insured statement, certificate from village headman’s of the locality in origin, Xerox copy of the police report, Police information lodged before Gaurisagar P.S. and Dhakuakhana P.S. and Xerox copy of the letter written to the Director of IWT, Guwahati and to IWT Department, Disangmukh and Dhakuakhana etc.  The OP thereafter for about four years slept over the matter and did not settle the claim. Meanwhile, the OP again appointed one Mr. Tarun Goswami as Investigator vide letter No.530100/IMB/NCG/2013-14 dated 15.5.2013 requesting the Investigator to verify the identity of the complainant. Ext-39 is the said letter by which any Investigator was appointed. The above Investigator vide his letter dated 23.5.13, Ext.38 visited the complainant and asked her to furnish a statement about the lost of the boat as well as photo. The complainant extended her full cooperation to the said Investigator and submitted all the relevant documents as required by the Investigator on 27.5.13 vide Ext-40. Even then the OP remains silent and lingered the settlement. The complainant after being disgusted and being neglected issued legal notice on 23.9.13 vide Ext-42. While the OP No.2 gave reply of the legal notice vide Ext.43 dated 11.10.13 disclosed that they have closed the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant have not disclosed officially the change of her address. However, from the discussion as mentioned above it appears that the complainant all along have been cooperating with the OP, surveyor and loss assessor. The OP intentionally  and deliberately dragged the claim and closed the claim as ‘NO CLAIM’. Though the claim was genuine the OP concealed the fact of closure of the claim even after sending an Investigator until the service of legal notice. The act of the insurer in secretly closing the claim and concealing the said fact and disclosing it only after threat of legal action amount to gross deficiency in service.

         The complainant leaving the hope of recovery of said motor boat prayed to  Registering Authority for cancellation of registration of the boat. Accordingly, the authority after due enquiry and having found genuineness of the occurrence after completion of all the official formalities cancellation of registration was granted. Ext.45, 46 and 47 are the documents of cancellation of the registration and proof of surrender of original registration certificate.

       Now the point to be considered whether the OP genuinely closed the file as ‘NO CLAIM’ or it was arbitrary act of Op to deprive the genuine claim of the claimant ?

         In support of the contention of the OP, OP examined one Sri Nagen Ch.Gogoi as DW-1 who in his evidence stated that the claim of the complainant is fake for his wrongful gain, there was no accident as alleged by the complainant. Further, it is stated that the complainant was not prompt to inform the insurer about the alleged accident nor did the complainant ever cooperated in the investigation or followed the guidelines as per terms of the policy and guidelines laid down by IRDA. The OP duly appointed Investigator namely Mr. Tapan Gohain, surveyor/loss assessor to investigate and submit his report. The Investigator though proceeded to make his investigation but due to non-cooperation of the complainant investigation could not be completed. Several correspondences were made to the complainant  by the Investigator and also by the Insurer for submitting the requisite documents necessary for investigation. But the complainant has always failed to submit the necessary documents. In support of the above the DW-1 exhibited some documents such as A,B,C,D. The OP tried to contact complainant several times at her address provided in the policy but the complainant was never found at her address. Some of the letters posted at her address returned back with remark “Incomplete address”. Ext-E is the said envelop returned with report.  The complainant has also not informed to the OPs regarding the change of her address. As such, the OP finding no other alternative closed  the claim of the complainant as because it is not possible for insurer to keep the claim file open for an indefinite period.

          In respect of the above statement made by DW-1 it is pertinent to mention here that on 23.7.09 at about 1:00 PM the accident took place near Afala under Disangmukh Outpost of Sivasagar P.S. The complainant on the next day on 24.7.09 made extensive search of the boat alongwith the police after filing the FIR with Disangmukh OP. Disangmukh OP made a G.D. Entry No.339 on 24.7.09. The matter was also reported to Dhakuakhana P.S. of Lakhimpur District located at opposite bank of the site. On 25.7.09 the complainant informed the matter to the OPs and also lodged a claim whereas, OP slept over a long time and thereafter on persuasion of the complainant one Sri Tapan Gohain, surveyor and loss assessor was appointed by OP who by letter dated 14.8.09 asked the complainant to submit some documents including claim form. The complainant immediately after receiving the said letter from Tapan Gohain submitted all the documents to the surveyor vide Ext-25. Ext-24 is the claim form, Ext-27 is the receipt by which all the documents were sent to the surveyor by speed post. The receipt of all the above documents have also been acknowledged and admitted by the surveyor Sri Tapan Gohain by his letter No.TG/NIAC/Misc/2013-14 dated 10-10-2013. The surveyor specifically in para-5 of Ext-44 while sending the above letter to the complainant mentioned that he has received claim form, operator’s licence, operators statement, occupants statement, insured statement (complainant), certificate from village headman’s of the locality in origin, Xerox copy of police report, police information lodged before Gaurisagar P.S. and Dhakuakhana P.S. etc. Further, in the said letter the surveyor Tapan Gohain acknowledged that one Mr. Bezbaruah, authorised representative of the complainant met the surveyor who gave all the documents to the surveyor. In view of the above as alleged by the evidence i.e. DW-1 that the complainant is not cooperating with the OP and failed to submit necessary documents in the investigation is totally false. Further, regarding the address of the complainant it appears from Ext.16(1),17,18,19,21,24 (claim form), 25,27,29,31,33,35 all these documents correspondences were made from Duliajan, District Dibrugarh. Further, the Insurance Company vide Ext-39 while appointing Mr. Tarun Goswami, Investigator also cited the  address of the complainant as Duliajan. In all other correspondences either by complainant or by OP mentioned the address at Duliajan and as such, the question of not knowing the address of the complainant is not believable. Further, it may be stated that the complainant has not informed the change of her address. The OP vide Ext-A,B,C,D stated that those documents were not issued to the complainant as for not getting the complainant at Jorhat. Whether those letters were sent to the complainant or not is doubtful as because there is no report from the Postal department. The OP could furnish only one envelop i.e. Ext.E(1) with the letter returned un-served. Except this the OP failed to show any evidence that the letters posted to the complainant returned back with remark “Incomplete address”. Under the circumstances closing the claim as ‘No Claim’ by OP is nothing but arbitrary act to deprive the genuine claim of the claimant.

             While submitting written argument by the learned counsel for the OP submitted that  the claim petition of the complainant is barred U/s.24-A of the Law of Limitation of the C.P. Act,1986 and the cause of action arose on 23-7-09 when the alleged accident took place and as such, the limitation is over on 22.7.11 after the completion of two years. He submitted that once the cause of action started it continues to run and never halt. In support of his submission he referred the case law of  Saroj Texfab India Pvt Ltd  vs. The New Indian Assurance Company Ltd, Complaint Case No.CC/12/128, State Commission, Maharashtra, 14^th June, 2012. On perusal of the above case law it is found that Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra hold that the cause of action took place on the date of fire i.e. the date on which the party becomes entitled for insurance claim and once the cause of action starts, continues to run and never halt. Therefore, the cause of action in the above case commenced on 14.10.08, the date on which fire took place and two years period is over by 30-10-10. Within this period complainant has not filed the case. In the above decision Hon’ble State Commission made a distinction between General Limitation Act and Limitation Act U/s.24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. There are two points mainly, date of cause of action and secondly the repudiation of claim. Repudiation of claim and cause of action cannot be equated with each other. It was observed that repudiation of claim may be one of the bundle of facts for the cause of action but the repudiation of claim itself cannot be complete cause of action for the purpose of section 24-A of the Act. As such, it is held that repudiation of claim cannot be the cause of action.

            In this respect we may refer the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in the same case while Saroj Taxfab India Pvt. Ltd preferred appeal against the judgment of National Commission the appellate court observe that the limitation will start running from the date of repudiation and not from the date of fire and set aside the above order of the State Commission, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. G.N. Sainani (1997) 6 SCC 383 and on the judgment of National Commission in original petition No.91 of 1995 Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd vs. National Insurance Company Ltd decided on 19^th May,1997. Obviously, it is to be mentioned here that till the final repudiation was made the correspondences between the parties continued and the claimant is always in a hope that his claim will be settled. Therefore, in our view it is only just and fair that the final date of repudiation should be taken as starting point for considering the question of maintainability of the petition filed by the complainant. In the present case the occurrence took place on 23.7.09, surveyor was appointed on 25.7.09, the complainant was on assumption that her claim will be settled by the OP but, subsequently, when a legal notice was sent by threatening to the OP, the OP showing a vague reason informed through the reply of the notice on 11.10.13 vide Ext.43 that the claim of the complainant had closed as ‘No Claim’ just to deprive the claimant from her due claim. Before this letter the complainant was not intimated anything about the closure of her claim as ‘No Claim’. Under the circumstances, it appears that the limitation will start from 11.10.13 and the case was filed on 10.1.14 which is within the period of limitation.

         Learned counsel for the OPs further submitted that the present case involves determination of substantial fact which is not possible to determine by this Forum and as such, this fact can be properly determined in civil court. Learned counsel for the OPs cited a case of New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. John Fernandes decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi on 24.4.96. In the referred case it is found that there was a discrepancy regarding the date of occurrence. The Investigator while investigating found that the casualty occurred on 1.8.91 at Palolem and not on 3.8.91 as reported by the insured. The fact of casualty on 1.8.91 was reported in the Marathi and English Dailies and the clipping of the Dailies are also on the record. Police report was lodged on 2.8.91 at Canacoma P.S. The date of casualty is given as on 2.8.91 between 8:00AM- 9:00AM as declared by the owner and the crew members on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. The complainant in his complaint has also mentioned that on 2.8.91 of Agonda/Canacoma caused the F.T. ‘AURELIANA’ sank after developing troubles. The crew managed to reach the beach by dingee and empty diesel cans due to strong sea current the  boat with purein net had to be abandoned.  The copy of the police report shows that the vessel ventured on 2.8.91 at 6:00 AM in the Betul sea shore and while fishing the trawler reached near the sea shore at Palolem one big wave suddenly came and dashed against the trawler thereby the plan was damaged and the water started entering in the trawler and ultimately sank. With this set  of material on  record it is not possible to come to a conclusion without a regular trial in a suit to whether the accident occurred on 1.8.91 or 2.8.91 or 3.8.91 and whether the claim made by the complainant is fraudulent  with the connivance of the officials of the Vijaya Bank or it is a genuine claim. Such question can only be properly determined in a civil suit after affording an opportunity to the parties to substantiate their claim and versions. It is not possible to investigate such claim in the summary jurisdiction in the Consumer Forum. Whereas, in our case is quite different from the above case. There is no any confusion about the occurrence as discussed above. The claimant made a genuine claim and no controversy. The complainant adduced her evidence and submitted all the relevant documents as required. The Insurance Company without making any investigation closed the file as ‘No Claim’ which is clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The OPs did not examine the matter at length and also did not apply its mind and whimsically repudiated the claim of the complainant as such, there is deficiency in service by the OP Insurance Company under C.P. Act. It is to be noted that the OP has not applied their mind and had not thoroughly made the investigation. The investigation report is not available with the record. OP in their argument stated that they have duly appointed Investigator to investigate and submit his report but the Investigator though proceeded to make his investigation into the matter but due to  non-cooperation of the complainant the investigation could not be completed. However, in this respect we have already discussed in details in earlier paragraph and found that the  complainant has cooperated with the Investigator and submitted all the documents as required by the Investigator. But the Investigator failed to submit report. The OP though adduced one evidence but failed to rebut and impair the evidence of complainant whereas, the complainant by adducing evidence and by exhibited documents duly proved the case of the complainant which, appears therefore having sufficient deficiency in service by OP. In the present case the OP did not apply its mind fully and carefully before repudiating the claim of the complainant. The Investigator has not made any investigation. As such, it has been carefully considered the material placed before us and has been found that the Insurance Company have not made thorough investigation and also not submitted the report and as such, there is doubt about the genuineness as to the investigation as well as correspondences made by the Investigator and not settling the claim under the policy is sufficient to say there is deficiency in service or negligence. The decision was taken by the OP arbitrarily and without due application of mind of the relevant fact and the circumstances or otherwise in good faith. As such, being the possition and circumstances there is deficiency on the part of OP.

          In view of the above, it appears that  the said motor vessel ‘Keteki’ with its Hull and machinery was duly insured and the Insurance policy of the boat was renewed with the Insurer/ OP No.1 New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Jorhat Branch office within the policy period from 30.7.08 to midnight of 29.7.09for a sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/- after acceptance of  Insurance proposal form and on receipt of premium of Rs.2386/- against the policy. As such, an order can rightly be passed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- by the OP against the lost of motor boat alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim till realisation. OPs are also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for giving her mental harassment and agony. Further, the Forum ordered OPs to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of filing the case and above order shall be complied within two months from the date of this judgment through this Forum.

    Send  copy of this judgment to OPs for compliance.

              Dictated by

(Dr.Manashi Dutta)                                                       Dr. Nitendranath Das

       Member                                                                           President

Dist. Consumer Forum                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum

       Dibrugarh.                                                                        Dibrugarh.

(  Sri Jadav Gogoi )

          Member

Dist. Consumer Forum

          Dibrugarh.