STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | 73 of 2012 | Date of Institution | 01.03.2012 | Date of Decision | 11.09.2012 |
LIC Housing Finance Ltd., through its Area Manager and authorized officer, C/o SCO 2445-46, 1st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus [1] Satish Kumar Saini s/o Sh.Baldev Raj Saini, R/o #1089, Phase IX, Mohali. …..Respondent/Complainant. [2] Mrs. Jasbir Kaur w/o Sh. Kuljit Singh, R/o #1507, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. [3] Smt. Ram Piari w/o Sh. Chattar Pal, R/o Vill. Bhankarpur, Backside Allenzer Factory, Ramgarh Road, Derabassi, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. [Service of Respondent No.3 dispensed with vide order dated 27.04.2012). ….Proforma Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, Respondent No.1 in person. Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for respondent No.2. Service of Respondent No.3 is already dispensed with vide order dated 27.04.2012. First Appeal No. | 75 of 2012 | Date of Institution | 02.03.2012 | Date of Decision | 11.09.2012 |
Mrs. Jasbir Kaur w/o Sh. Kuljit Singh, R/o #1507, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.2. Versus [1] Sh. Satish Kumar Saini s/o Sh. Baldev Raj Saini, R/o #1089, Phase IX, Mohali. ……Respondent No.1/Complainant. [2] LIC Housing Finance Ltd., through its Area Manager and authorized officer, C/o SCO 2445-46, 1st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. [3] Smt. Ram Piari w/o Sh. Chattar Pal, R/o Vill. Bhankarpur, Backside Allenzer Factory, Ramgarh Road, Derabassi, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. [Service of Respondent No.3 dispensed with vide order dAted 27.04.2012). …..Performa Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. Argued by: Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, Respondent No.1 in person. Sh. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Service of Respondent No.3 is already dispensed with vide order dated 27.04.2012. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, bearing F.A. No.73 of 2012 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and bearing F.A. No.75 of 2012 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 against the order dated 02.02.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, qua Opposite Party No.1 only i.e. LIC Housing Finance Limited, complainant and directed it as under: - “17] In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that once OP No.1-LIC Housing Finance Limited had issued No Due Certificate (Ann.A-4) that nothing is due, then they were legally bound to execute/issue Sale Certificate in favour of the complainant in respect of the properties as mentioned in Ann.A-4. By not doing so, they certainly remained deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and also indulged into unfair trade practice. Therefore, the present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP No.1- LIC Housing Finance Limited is directed to issue the Sale Certificates in favour of the complainant alone in respect of the properties as mentioned in Ann.A-4 and to further register the same in the office of Sub-Registrar, Derabassi. OP No.1 (LICHFL) is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony & physical harassment, apart from Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. 18] This order be complied with by OP-1 (LICHL), within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 28.3.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 19] However, the complaint qua Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 stands dismissed being not maintainable.” 2. The brief facts of the case, are that the complainant and Opposite Party No.2, in response to the Sale Notice of Opposite Party No.1, dated 19.6.2007 (Annexure A-1), for the sale of six residential properties, situated at Derabassi, showed their interest in purchasing the same on 15.3.2008. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2, changed her mind, and backed-out of the aforesaid proposal dated 15.3.2008. It was further stated that resultantly, Opposite Party No.1, entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant on 15.4.2008 (Annexure A-3). It was further stated that the complainant paid the entire consideration amount to Opposite Party No.1, whereupon it issued ‘No Due Certificate’, in his favour on 31.3.2009 (Annexure A-4). It was further stated that as per Clause 4 of the agreement to sell, on receipt of the entire consideration amount, Opposite Party No.1, was supposed to issue and execute the Sale Certificate, in favour of the complainant, which it failed to do, despite repeated requests. It was further stated that the complainant had further executed an agreement to sell, in favour of Opposite Party No.3 on 7.2.2011 (Annexure A-5), and the last date for execution of the sale deed, in his favour was 30.4.2011. It was further stated that the complainant could not execute the sale deed in favour of Opposite Party No.3, for want of sale certificate, which was to be issued by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant sent a representation to Opposite Party No.1 on 14.3.2011 (Annexure A-6) and then a legal notice on 17.3.2011 (Annexure A-7) for registration of the sale certificate was also sent, but to no avail. 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, he filed a complaint, before the District Forum praying for directions to Opposite Party No.1, to issue the sale certificate, in his favour, get registered the same, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Derabassi well before 30.04.2011, and pay compensation for mental agony etc. 3. Opposite Party No.1, in its reply pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer and, as such, the consumer complaint was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2, never backed-out of the proposal executed on 15.3.2008, and rather it wrote various letters to the answering Opposite Party, showing her interest to get the sale deed registered, in her name. It was stated that the Opposite Party No.2, had paid an amount of Rs.8.00 lacs, to the Opposite Party No.1, vide Bank Draft dated 29.04.2008, out of the total consideration amount, of Rs.12,75,770/-. It was further stated that the complainant had manipulated the original documents, as Opposite Party No.1, had already issued the full and final payment certificate, dated 18.4.2009, in the joint names of the complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2, and, as such, the certificate placed, on record, by the complainant as Annexure A-4, was a manipulated one. It was further stated that the agreement to sell, dated 15.4.2008, was also a forged and fabricated document. However, it was clarified that various sale certificates, in the joint names of the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 were ready, but they did not turn up to receive the same. Opposite Party No.1 denied all other allegations, contained in the complaint, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Opposite Party No.2, in her reply, stated that there was no occasion for her to back out of the deal. It was further stated that she was the co-owner in the property to the extent of 2/3rd share, as she had paid a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.12.55 lacs, whereas, the complainant had paid only an amount of Rs.4.55 lacs. It was categorically stated that the agreement to sell, dated 15.4.2008 and No Due Certificate, dated 31.03.2009, were forged and fabricated documents and the complainant had played a fraud, not only with her, but also with Opposite Party No.3, by executing the document on 7.2.2011, showing himself as the sole owner of the property in question, knowing fully well that he was only a co-owner/co-sharer in the said property. Opposite Party No.3 denied all other allegations, made in the complaint, and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 5. Opposite Party No.3, initially, appeared in person, before the District Forum, but, subsequently, did not turn up and hence, she was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 26.4.2011. 6. The complainant filed separate rejoinders to the replies, filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. 7. The parties led evidence in support of their case. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as mentioned, in the opening para of this order. 9. Aggrieved against the order, passed by the District Forum, the instant appeals have been filed, one by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and the other by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, for setting aside the impugned order. 10. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, as well as the written submissions of respondent No.1/complainant, carefully. 11. Before going into the merits of the case, we propose to dispose of three miscellaneous applications, filed by the respective parties. In its appeal bearing No.73 of 2012, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has moved an application dated 20.03.2012, for placing on record the affidavit of Sh. Vinay Thapa, the then Area Manager and Authorised Officer of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1. 12. Reply to this application, was filed by respondent No.1/complainant on 27.04.2012, wherein he took the objection that since the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 had already filed reply alongwith detailed evidence by way of affidavit, so, at this stage, the prayer of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 for leading additional evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Vinay Thapa, cannot be acceded to. 13. On perusal of the affidavit of Sh. Vinay Thapa, sought to be placed, on record, by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, it is evident that the deposition made in the same is the reiteration of pleadings, of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, which were fully supported by the affidavit of Smt. Poonam Gupta, Deputy Manager of Opposite Party No.1. In this view of the matter, there is no need to take, on record, the affidavit of Sh. Vinay Thapa, which was sought to be placed on record by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, at the appellate stage. Accordingly, this application, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is dismissed. 14. Respondent No.1/complainant, has also filed an application for allowing lawful proceedings, under Section 193 of IPC, or any such appropriate law, against Mr. Vinay Thapa son of Sh. D. D. Thapa for intentionally giving false and fabricated evidence, in his affidavit dated 20.03.2012. 15. Since, the application filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, for placing the affidavit of Sh. Vinay Thapa, dated 20.03.2012, has been dismissed, in the foregoing para, so this application filed by respondent No.1/complainant, stands dismissed, as having been rendered infructuous. 16. In appeal bearing No.73 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, an application was moved by respondent No.1/complainant for, dismissing the same (appeal), at its preliminary stage. 17. Since, both the appeals, one filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and the other filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, have been heard, on merits, so, this application, is also dismissed, as having been rendered infructuous. 18. In the appeal bearing No.73 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 assailed the order of the District Forum and submitted that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because he purchased the aforesaid six properties, under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second Ordinance, 2002 (Ord.3 of 2002), as is evident from the joint affidavit dated 31.03.2008 (Exhibit OP-1/4), furnished by the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. Moreover, this fact has never been rebutted by the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant. Thus, it is established that the complainant along with Opposite Party No.2 purchased the property, in question on “As is where is basis”. Therefore, there was no hiring and availing of services of the seller/lessor. Since, the properties purchased by them, are “immovable properties” as defined in Section 3(26) of General Clauses Act, 1897, and cannot be considered as “goods” as defined in Section 2(7) of The Sales of Goods Act, 1930, the sale price or lease premium paid by them, is a consideration for the sale or lease, and not a consideration for any alleged services, or for provision of any amenity. Hence, it is established that the complainant is not a consumer. The principle of law settled in the case of Chandigarh Administration & Another Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Others, Civil Appeal No.1995 of 2006, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.03.2009 was that where any person purchases the property on “As is where is basis”, then, he is not a consumer. The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of P. Shri Nivasa Verma Vs. State Bank of India., 2012 (1) CPC, 233 (NC). 19. Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, further submitted that the complainant purchased all the six properties, along with Opposite Party No.2, for earning profits, and, he indulged into commercial activity, as it is nowhere mentioned, in the complaint, that he purchased the said properties for earning his livelihood. In support of his contentions, the Counsel placed reliance on the case of “Jag Mohan Chhabra And Anr. vs DLF Universal Ltd.” reported as IV (2007 ) CPJ 199 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Dehli, held in Para No.2, interalia, as under: - 2. We have heard Mr. K.P.S. Rao for the complainants on admission. Evidently, ground, first and second floors in Town Houses and apartment No. 308B in Hamilton Court were purchased by the complainants for earning profits and transaction is thus relatable to commercial purpose and complainants not being the "consumers" within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint itself is not maintainable under the Act. Moreover, for adjudicating the claim made, voluminous evidence will be needed and the complaint, therefore, cannot be decided in summary procedure under the Act. Hence, the complaint is disposed of with liberty reserved to the complainants to approach the Civil Court to seek the recover for the amount claimed from the opposite party.” 20. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P filed against the order of Hon’ble National Commission, and upheld the view, taken by the Hon’ble National Commission. He further cited the case of “SMV Agencies Private Limited Vs. Kanta Rani” reported as 2009(2) CLT 111, of this very Commission, wherein also, seven flats were booked by the complainant, and her family but he failed to indicate any acceptable or logical reason to confirm that these flats were actually needed by the family for the living of its members and not for sale. The next case cited by the Counsel is Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HUDA & Ors, reported as 2008 (2) CLT 377, wherein the complainant purchased five dwelling units and the transaction was relatable to service for commercial purpose. This Commission held that since the transaction was relatable to service for commercial purpose, which is excluded from the purview of the definition as given by Section 2(1)(d) (ii) w.e.f. 15.03.2003, the complainant was not the consumer and the complaint itself was not maintainable under the Act. 21. From the perusal of sale certificates (Exhibit OP-1/6 to OP-1/11), it is evident that the complainant along with Opposite Party No.2, purchased six properties, in question, under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second Ordinance, 2002 (Ord.3 of 2002). In the complaint, the complainant, nowhere, mentioned that he purchased these properties, for earning his livelihood, and, not for carrying on any commercial activity. Even the complainant has already entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the properties in dispute, in favour of the Opposite Party No.3. Thus, the complainant, bought the properties, in question, for commercial purpose i.e. for sale to earn profits. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer. Our view is fully supported by the law laid down, on this point, in the cases, discussed above. 22. The next issue raised by the Counsel for the appellant/OP No.1 is that the complainant committed fraud and the document Annexures A-3 i.e. agreement to sell, placed on record of the District Forum, is forged and fabricated and has no validity in the eyes of law, as the same was not executed on a valid stamp paper. He further submitted that the first page of this agreement does not bear the signatures of the seller and it only bears the signature of the purchaser, whereas the second page, bears the signatures of both the seller as well as the purchaser. He further submitted that nobody attested this agreement, as the space for incorporating the names of the witnesses, under the heading “Witnesses”, is blank. He further submitted that even the full and final payment certificate dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure C-4), placed on record, was never issued in the name of the complainant by Opposite Party No.1, as the original of the same is not on the record. It is important to mention here that the receipt has been printed on the reverse of the first page of the agreement to sell (Annexure A3), the genuineness of which is doubtful. Therefore, this receipt cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that the complainant was DSA with it, and was not performing his functions well and due to numerous complaints, his agency was terminated on 19.02.2010 (Annexure OP-1/2). He further submitted that after receiving a Bank Draft No.708406 dated 29.04.2008 for an amount of Rs.8 Lacs , from Opposite Party No.2, out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,55,000/- and also after receiving a sum of Rs.4,55000/- from the complainant, Sale Certificates (Exhibit OP-1/6 to OP-1/11) were duly prepared in the joint names of the complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2, and were kept ready, but they never came together to receive the same. 23. In the cross appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, the Counsel for the appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the complainant had played fraud with Opposite Party No.2, with the motive to grab the property, in question. He further submitted that the complainant cheated her intentionally, by concealing the true facts as well as by forging Annexures A-3 and A-4 and by further entering into an Agreement to sell dated 07.02.2011, fully knowing well that he was not alone the owner of property in question. However, the complainant in his rejoinder, has not rebutted the allegations of Opposite Party No.2. He further submitted that regarding this fraud, a complaint was duly lodged and a DDR was recorded against the complainant, which is annexed at running Page 124 of the complaint file. He further submitted that the complainant has not approached the Consumer Fora, with clean hands and therefore, he cannot derive any benefit out of his own wrongs. 24. The Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, while denying the submissions made by Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, submitted that, the Opposite Party No.1 was now illegally including the name of Opposite Party No.2 along with the complainant, with the intention to defraud him. He further submitted that the complainant had paid the entire consideration amount to Opposite Party No.1 and agreement to sell dated 15.04.2008, was executed in his favour only but now, at the time of issuance of sale certificate, Opposite Party No.1 is illegally involving Opposite Party No.2 as purchaser with the complainant. 25. Since serious allegations of fraud, cheating and fabrication of material documents have been leveled by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 against the complainant, which require examination, cross examination and re-examination of the witnesses, in detail, as also the production of voluminous documentary evidence, and, as such, the Consumer Foras, cannot decide such complicated and disputed issues, in summary proceedings. Such complicated and disputed issues, can only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 26. The next issue raised by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is that Annexure A-3 is only an agreement to sell and the remedy available to the complainant, is to file a suit for specific performance, of the same. Since, for the purchase of properties, on ‘as is where is basis’, the complainant did not hire the services of Opposite Party No.1, for provision of any facility or amenity, in case there was any breach of contract i.e. agreement to sell (Annexure A3), by Opposite Party No.1, then the only remedy with the complainant was to file a suit for specific performance, in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The consumer Complaint, was, thus, not maintainable. 27. As regards the next question, raised by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, that the complaint is time barred, a query was put to him, as to why this objection was not raised before the District Forum. He submitted that the provision relating to limitation in Section 24-A of the Act is not merely procedural, in nature, but is a substantive provision of law and objection regarding limitation can be raised at any time during the pendency of the case. In rebuttal, the Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complaint is not time barred as the cause of action arose to the complainant for filing the present complaint, from the date i.e.31.03.2009, when the full and final payment certificate was issued to him by Opposite Party No.1, and he filed the complaint on 28.03.2011 i.e. within two years of limitation, as prescribed under the Act. We find sufficient merit in the submission of the Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant. In our considered view, the cause of action definitely arose to the complainant on 31.03.2009, when Opposite Party No.1 issued full and final payment certificate to him. Therefore, this objection of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has no force and is rejected. 28. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties. 29. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the District Forum being illegal and perverse, needs interference of this Commission. Therefore, both the appeals filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, are liable to be accepted and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 30. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing No.73 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 i.e. LIC Housing Finance Limited, and No.75 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Mrs. Jasbir Kaur, are accepted, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order dated 02.02.2012, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. 31. Respondent No.1/complainant shall, however, be at liberty to resort to any other remedy available to him, under the provisions of law. 32. Certified copies of the order be placed in First Appeal No.75 of 2012. 33. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Pronounced. 11th September, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad
STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.73 of 2012) Argued by: Sh. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, Respondent No.1 in person. Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for respondent No.2. Service of Respondent No.3 is already dispensed with vide order dated 27.04.2012. Dated the 11th day of September, 2012. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, three miscellaneous applications, have been dismissed, whereas, this appeal and FA No.75 of 2012 have been accepted, vide the same detailed order, with no orders as to costs, as per directions. (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT | |
Ad
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | 75 of 2012 | Date of Institution | 02.03.2012 | Date of Decision | 11.09.2012 |
Mrs. Jasbir Kaur w/o Sh. Kuljit Singh, R/o #1507, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.2. Versus [1] Sh. Satish Kumar Saini s/o Sh.Baldev Raj Saini, R/o #1089, Phase IX, Mohali. ……Respondent No.1/Complainant. [2] LIC Housing Finance Ltd., through its Area Manager and authorized officer, C/o SCO 2445-46, 1st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. [3] Smt. Ram Piari w/o Sh. Chattar Pal, R/o Vill. Bhankarpur, Backside Allenzer Factory, Ramgarh Road, Derabassi, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. [Service of Respondent No.3 dispensed with vide order dted 27.04.2012). …..Performa Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, Respondent No.1 in person. Sh. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Service of Respondent No.3 is already dispensed with vide order dated 27.04.2012. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No.73 of 2012 titled “LIC Housing Finance Limited Vs. Sh. Satish Kumar Saini & Others”, vide which this appeal has also been accepted, with no orders as to costs. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 11th September, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER AD
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
