CC Nos.564 to 573/2015

Filed on:27.03.2015

    Disposed on:30.12.2016.

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE – 560 027.                                

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NOs.564/2015 to 573/2015

PRESENT:

Sri.   H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, B.Sc., LL.B.

                            PRESIDENT

                   Smt. L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                           MEMBER

                                          V/S

COMMON ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1.      These complaints are filed by the different Complainants against same Opposite Parties i.e.,                        M/s R.S.Ram Properties (P) Limited and Mr.S.Seshachala and the relief claimed in these complaints are one and the similar.   Hence, in order to avoid repetition of work and conflict of order, the common order has been passed in these cases.

2. The Complainants in CC.No.564/2015 to 573/2015 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.9,183/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in each cases and other reliefs.

3. The brief facts of the complaints can be stated as under:

In these complaints, the Complainants alleges that the 1^st Opposite Party entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the 2^nd Opposite Party for construction of an apartment on the property bearing Khatha No.643/216/2A situated at Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk vide Joint Development Agreement dt.13.03.2008.  As per the Joint Development Agreement coupled with power of attorney, the Opposite Party No.1 was empowered to enter into Sale Agreement with prospective purchasers of the apartments to be constructed as per the plan sanctioned from BBMP in respect of the share of the Opposite Party No.1 as determined in the sharing agreement entered into between the Opposite Parties and Opposite Party No.1 was empowered to enter into construction agreement with such prospective purchaser for construction of the apartment.  As per the Joint Development Agreement, the Opposite Party No.1 would be constructing the apartment as per the plan sanctioned by BBMP and would be providing with 24 hours power back up, lift, concealed power cables, BWSSB water connection apart from bore well provided water source and after completion of construction would ensure conveying of the fully occupational flat by arranging for execution of Absolute Sale Deed either by the first and second Opposite Parties jointly, or by Opposite Party No.1 as the attorney of the Opposite Party No.2 depending upon whose share the flat comes under in terms of the sharing agreement entered into by the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties would facilitate bifurcation of Khatha for the individual flats either in the name of the purchasers or in the event of the Opposite Parties retaining flat would be provided with separate Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract in order to ensure that each owner of the flats would be vested with marketable title over the flats owned by him or her.  The Complainants entered into a Sale and Construction Agreement with the Opposite Parties.  After receipt of the entire sale consideration from the Complainants, the Opposite Party No.1 represented to the Complainants that the work relating to construction of the apartments are completed and the flats are ready for occupation and all the facilities contemplated under the Joint Development Agreement has been provided and with that assurance, the Complainant in CC.No.564/2015 the Opposite Parties conveyed the flats bearing Numbers, CG 01 in Block “C” on Ground Floor under a sale deed dt.30.01.2013 registered as document No.2808/2012-13, the Complainant in CC.No.565/2015, No.BF 04 in Block “B” on First Floor under a sale deed dt.03.08.2011 registered as document No.2437/2011-12,  the Complainant in CC.No.566/2015, No.BS 06 in Block “B” on Second Floor under a sale deed dt.11.03.2011 registered as document No.5817/2010-11, the Complainant in CC.No.567/2015, No.AF 04 in Block “A” on First Floor under a sale deed dt.30.12.2010 registered as document No.4476/2010-11, the Complainant in CC.No.568/2015, No.CF 03 in Block “C” on First Floor under a sale deed dt.29.11.2010 registered as document No.3906/2010-11, the Complainant in CC.No.569/2015, No.BF 01 in Block “B” on Ground Floor under a sale deed dt.08.09.2010 registered as document No.2628/2010-11, the Complainant in CC.No.570/2015, No.BG 02 in Block “B” on Ground Floor under a sale deed dt.22.03.2013 registered as document No.3551/2012-13, the Complainant in CC.No.571/2015, No.CS 05 in Block “C” on Second Floor under a sale deed dt.25.03.2011 registered as document No.6124/2010-11, the Complainant in CC.No.572/2015, No.CG 02 in Block “C” on Ground Floor under a sale deed dt.30.01.2013 registered as document No.2807/2012-13, the Complainant in CC.No.573/2015, No.BG 02 in Block “B” on Ground Floor under a sale deed dt.20.05.2011 registered as document No.915/2011-12.  As per the provisions contained in the Karnataka Ownership Flats Act, 1972 and Rule 1975 and as per the conditions contained in the license issued by BBMP for construction of apartments, Opposite Party No.1 was required to ensure procurement of Occupancy Certificate for the flats constructed by them before conveying the same to the purchasers, execute deed of declaration, facilitate procurement of Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract for individual flats in the name of the purchasers, get the electricity meter transferred in the name of the individual purchasers, assist in formation of an Apartment Owners Association and hand over the original documents relating to the entire property on which the apartment is constructed to the president of the Association so that the work relating to the maintenance of the apartments that would have been undertaken by Opposite Party No.1 till the formation of the Association is handed over to the Association. At the time of taking possession of the flats the Complainants pointed out that the following work relating to the completion of the construction of flat is pending.

e) Providing 24 hours power back up.

f) The Electrical Cable passing through the common passages is not properly covered/canceled including near the main switch board which is a major threat to the occupants and also ELCB is not provided and proper grounding is not done resulting in threat of short circuit.

g) Fire extinguisher required to be provided as per the provisions of the Apar5tments Rules is not provided.

The 1^st Opposite Party assured to provide all the above facilities and complete the un-finished work within a couple of months.  Even after lapse of more than four years the 1^st Opposite Party failed to complete the un-finished work mentioned above and also did not comply with the following measures which were mandatory on the part of the builder. 

1. The Opposite Parties did not arrange for getting khatha Certificate and Khatha extract for the flat sold to the Complainant even after a lapse of four years even though the first Opposite Party collected fee for this purpose.  It is a well-known fact that without individual Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract the Complainants have not acquired marketable title in as much as the Complainants is not able to alienate the property.
2. The Opposite Parties have not procured occupancy Certificate nor executed any deed of declaration for bifurcation of Khatha in the individual name of the flat owners.
3. The Opposite Parties have not facilitated formation of Apartment Owners Association as contemplated under Section 10 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and Transfer) Act, 1972 and Rule 1975.
4. The first Opposite Party has been all along collecting maintenance charges from the Complainant and other flat owners but has failed to maintain the apartment in as much as, Opposite Party No.1 has not provided continuous security arrangement and at times Opposite Party No.1 has occasionally provided the security guard but has not paid the salary, on several occasions, the Complainant along with other flat owners have pooled funds and paid the security guard his salary.  The Opposite Party No.1 has not paid the water charges to BWSSB resulting in disconnection of water supply by BWSSB and no alternate arrangement is made for providing water even though the Opposite Party undertook maintenance and collected maintenance charges refusing to form Apartment Owners Association and hand over the maintenance work to the Association and hand over the original title deeds relating to the Apartment complex to the Association.  Opposite Party No.1 has on several occasions not paid the electricity charges for the common areas for which separate meter is provided resulting in disconnection of electricity supply to the apartment by BESCOM.

Following are the areas of deficiency of service including work relating to maintenance undertaken by Opposite Party No.1 resulting in great hardship to the Complainant and other occupants of the apartment.

1. Non procurement of Khatha Certificate and Khatha extract in the name of the Complainant in respect of the flat purchased by him.
2. Failure to ensure that the Electricity meter is transferred in to the name of the owners of the flat in most of the cases even though the amount is collected several months back.
3. Failure to arrange for formation of Apartment Owners Association and hand over the original documents relating to the entire apartment building to the president of the Association. 
4. Failure to ensure that the electricity cable that is not adequately covered in the common area walls in each floor in each block and also near the main switch board is got property concealed and covered immediately which has become a major threat to the occupants of the flat.
5. Failure to ensure that the three lifts provided to the apartment is made functional as they are out of order since several months.
6. Failure to ensure to provide 24 hour power back up as contemplated in the Joint Development Agreement by providing and installing standard proper rating DG set.
7. Failure to ensure that the dues towards BESCOM and BWSSB is paid up to date.
8. Not providing detailed account of the maintenance expenses incurred by the Opposite Party No.1 till date visa-vis the amount collected by Opposite Party No.1 for maintenance.
9. Failure to replace the existing faulty drainage connections that have been put up un-scientifically without proper slanting which has resulted in clogging of the drainage and seepage of the drainage on the basement of the apartment.
10. Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 10 and 11 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and Transfer) Act, 1972 and Rule 1975.
11. Failure to install CCTV Cameras at vantage points as a security measure.

4. The Complainants have given several representations to the Opposite Party No.1, on 05.06.2012 again on 09.03.2014 to redress and set right the above listed deficiencies the grievance and attend to the maintenance work, provide power back up, get the lifts repaired and make it functional.  In spite of this, the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to attend these basic requirements which has resulted in hardship and legal injury to the Complainants.  The Complainants got issued a Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties and in spite of this, the Opposite Parties have not cared to address.   Hence these complaints.

5. The Complainants Amended the complaints and by inserting Para-8a) to 8c) and also prayer column (M).

8a) It is submitted that after issuing of legal notice and filing of this complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 completely stopped to attend to any of the maintenance work that was being partially attended to by him as a retaliatory measure and this necessitated the requirement to form an association of the flat owners to ensure maintenance of the apartment and as out of the eighteen flats that are constructed in the said apartment two were owned by the Opposite Party No.1/his relatives who refused to Co-operate, he remaining 16 flat owners joined together and took upon ourselves the maintenance work and from the month of May 2015 payment of maintenance charges to Opposite Party No.1 was stopped and the contributions for maintenance were pooled by the remaining 16 flat owns/occupants and I along with other fifteen flat owners/occupants took upon ourselves the maintenance of the apartment. 

8b) A notice dt.05.06.2015 issued in the name of Opposite Party No.2 in whose name BWSSB connection is procured was received by us from BWSSB that there was a huge arrears payable to BWSSB towards Cauvery water supply since several months right from the year 2013 onwards claiming a sum of Rs.1,42,114/- which is inclusive of interest amount of Rs.14,085/- and after enquiry, the BWSSB in the month of July gave the bill duly including the water charges for the month of June in a total sum of Rs.1,54,188/- which clearly showed that the total arrears was Rs.1,30,199/- and interest alone was Rs.14,085/-.  Basing on our representation, the BWSSB waived the interest amount of Rs.14,085/- and the amount of Rs.1,30,199/- was paid by sharing the same by all the sixteen flat owners/occupants. 

8c) A notice was received from BESCOM stating that the electricity charges in respect of the two separate meters provided for eh common areas like basement, staircase, lobby and other areas were in arrears and they threatened to disconnect the power supply to the common areas and this necessitated the payment of BESCOM arrears which was to the tune of Rs.9,873/- apart from the Bill for the month of April amounting to Rs.4,022/- total dues being Rs.13,895/- which was also paid by all the 16 flat owners sharing the expenses equally.  As such, they have paid in all a sum of Rs.9,183/- and this amount is payable to them by the Opposite Parties as part of deficiency of service”.

(M) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,183/- contributed by them as their share towards arrears of BESCOM and BWSSB.

6.      Even though notice was served on Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to put his appearance.  In response to the notice, the opposite party No.1 put his appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the Complaints are not maintainable either in law or on facts, the complaints are false, frivolous, vexatious filed with a malafide intention.  The nature of relief sought for in the complaints, does not come within the scope and ambit of the Act and the Complainants cannot invoke the original jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the relief mould cannot be considered, since Hon’ble Tribunal suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The Property bearing Khatha No.643/216/2A, situated at Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, belonged to the Opposite Party No.2 and in terms of the Joint Development Agreement, the 1^st Opposite Party has developed the Schedule Property in to a residential Apartment Complex comprising of several apartments and the 1^st Opposite Party has constructed the apartments in accordance with the terms of the Joint Development Agreement and the apartments apportioned to the share of the 1^st Opposite Party and the Prospective Purchasers have been put in possession.  There is no deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainants.  The 1^st Opposite Party has provide all the facilities and amenities as agreed and that the prospective purchasers have failed to pay the statutory deposits and VAT applicable.  The bifurcation and transfer of Khatha of the respective apartments has to be coordinate by the Association and the owners are required to obtain demand Drafts towards transfer fee and furnish copy of the documents and which is possible only after the Association is formed and that the apartment owners are not willing to accept the responsibility of being the office bearer and therefore there is no entity to receive the original documents from the owners and hence, the administrative and maintenance work has been affected and the same cannot be considered as deficiency of service.  The provisions of the Apartment Act has been complied and that the competent authority has not been constituted under the Act to initiate any action.   All the amenities including the lift were serviced and were operational and due to the non Co-operation of the Unit Owners, the Association has not been formed and hence the various facilities and amenities are not being managed even after more than four years of completion of the project and the Complainants and the other unit owners are to be blamed and the same cannot be termed has deficiency of service. The project was completed about four years ago and that the no defect liability period has lapsed and the 1^st Opposite Party cannot be held liable or responsible and the Complainants have to attend to the hairline cracks and maintenance of their respective apartments.   The project was completed in all respects and possession was delivered on execution of the Sale Deed and the owners are in settled possession and hence, the claim of deficiency of service is not establish.  The water connection and sewage system were in place and the Association has not been formed and therefore the unit owners are responsible for the same.   The Complainants are failed to establish there is deficiency of service.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaints.  

7.  After amending the complaints, the Opposite Party No.1 has filed additional version.  On the additional version pleaded that the 1^st Opposite Party was looking after the maintenance work in respect of the schedule property till May 2015.  The Complainants cannot seek any equitable relief against the 1^st Opposite Party, who has discharged his obligations and there is no deficiency of service as claimed by the Complainants.  Till today the Complainants have not paid the maintenance charges towards the Schedule Property.  The Complainants have failed to fulfill their obligation hence the Complainants cannot seek any equitable relief against the 1^st Opposite Party.  The 1^st Opposite Party has intimated the Complainants regarding the arrears of the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and the Bore well Charges in terms of the Statement stating that to pay Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Charges to avoid disconnection and the same has been acknowledged by the Complainants.  But the Complainants failed to fulfill their obligations towards the payment of BWSSB charges.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaints. 

8.     The Complainants have filed their affidavits by way of evidence and closed their side. On behalf of Opposite Party No.1, one Sri.Raghu Ram R has been filed his affidavit in Complaint Nos.564/2015 to 573/2015.   Heard the arguments of both parties.

9.      Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainants have proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainants are entitled?

10.   Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative  

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

11.   POINT NO. 1:-    As looking into the averments made in the complaints and also the version of the Opposite Party No.1, it is not in dispute that the property bearing Khatha No.643/216/2A, situated at Kodigehalli Hobli, belonged to the Opposite Party No.2 and also it is not in dispute that the 1^st Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party are entered into a Joint Development Agreement, in terms of the Joint Development Agreement, the 1^st Opposite Party has developed the Schedule Property in to a residential Apartment Complex comprising of several apartments and the 1^st Opposite Party has constructed the apartments in accordance with the terms of the Joint Development Agreement and the apartments apportioned to the share of the 1^st Opposite Party and the Prospective Purchasers have been put in possession.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainants in their sworn testimony, they reiterated the same and also produced the Sale Deeds executed by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 in favour of the Complainants.  From this evidence, it is clear that on 13.03.2008 the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 entered into a Joint Development Agreement.  In terms of the Joint Development Agreement, the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to developed the Schedule Property in to a residential Apartment Complex bearing Khatha No.643/216/2A, at Kodigehalli Hobli and as per the Sale Deeds dt.30.01.2013 Complainant in CC.No.564/2015, dt.03.08.2011 Complainant in CC.No.565/2015, dt.11.03.2011 Complainant in CC.No.566/2015, dt.30.12.2010 Complainant in CC.No.567/2015, dt.20.11.2010 Complainant in CC.No.568/2015, dt.08.09.2010 Complainant in CC.No.569/2015, dt.22.03.2013 Complainant in CC.No.570/2015, dt.25.03.2011 Complainant in CC.No.571/2015, dt.30.01.2013 Complainant in CC.No.572/2015, dt.20.05.2011 Complainant in CC.No.573/2015.  This evidence of the Complainants remains unchallenged.  To disbelieve the evidence of the Complainants, there is no contra evidence, therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainants that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are entered into a Joint Development Agreement dt.13.03.2008 and in terms of the Joint Development Agreement, the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to construct the apartments property Khatha No.643/216/2A of Kodigehally belongs to the Opposite Party No.2.  After the construction of the apartments, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 sold the apartments to the Complainants by executing the registered Sale Deeds.

12. It is further case of the Complainants, as per the Joint Development Agreement, the Opposite Party No.1 would be constructing the apartments as per the plan sanctioned by BBMP and would be providing with 24 hours power back up, lift, concealed power cables, BWSSB water connection apart from bore well provided water source.  The Opposite Parties would facilitate bifurcation of Khatha for the individual flats either in the name of the purchasers or in the event of the Opposite Parties retaining flat would be provided with separate Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract in order to ensure that each owner of the flats would be vested with marketable title.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainants in their sworn testimony, they reiterated the same and produced the Joint Development Agreement.  As looking into the Joint Development Agreement, no doubt it is the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 to obtained plans/licenses and necessary permission, sanctions, clearances, including the permission from Airport Authority of India, Pollution Board, P.W.D. Department, Fire Force Department, BESCOM, BWSSB, Urban Art Commission, Lift Inspectorate, Commencement Certificate, Completion Certificate, but in this Joint Development Agreement, the Opposite Party No.1 never undertaken to provide with 24 hours power back up, lift, concealed power cables, BWSSB water connection apart from bore well provided water source as alleged in the complaints.

13. It is contended by the Complainants, the Complainants pointed out the following work relating to the completion of the construction of flats in pending.  Providing 24 hours power back up. The Electrical Cable passing through the common passages is not properly covered/canceled including near the main switch board which is a major threat to the occupants and also ELCB is not provided and proper grounding is not done resulting in threat of short circuit.  No doubt, except the interested version of the Complainants, the Complainants have not produced any evidence to show that the Electrical Cable passing through the common passages is not properly canceled including near the main switch board and also providing 24 hours power back up.  Thereby, the Complainants have failed to establish the same. 

14. It is further case of the Complainants, even after lapse of more than 4 years the 1^st Opposite Party failed to complete the unfinished work and also did not comply with the following measures which were mandatory on the part of the builder.  The Opposite Parties did not arrange for getting Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract for the flats sold to the Complainants even after a lapse of four years even though the 1^st Opposite Party collected fee for this purpose. Even to this fact also except the interested version of the Complainants, the Complainants have not produced any evidence to show that the Opposite Party No.1 had collected the fee for getting the Khatha Certificate. 

15. It is further allegation of the Complainants, the Opposite Party No.1 has been all along collecting maintenance charges from the Complainants and other flats owners but has failed to maintain the apartments and not provided continuous security arrangements.  The Opposite Party No.1 has occasionally provided the security guard but has not paid the salary, on several occasions, the Complainants along with other flat owners have pooled funds and paid the security guard his salary.  The Opposite Party No.1 has not paid the water charges to BWSSB resulting in disconnection of water supply by BWSSB.  Even to this fact also except the interested version of Complainants, the Complainants have not placed any supporting evidence to show that the Opposite Party No.1 collected the maintenance charges from the Complainants.  In that event, the Complainants ought to have produced the receipts to show that they have paid the maintenance charges to the Opposite Party No.1, but the Complainants have not produced any such evidence, thereby, it is not proper to accept the contention of the Complainants that the Opposite Party No.1 failed to provide the security and the Complainants have pooled funds and paid the security guard salary and also the BWSSB Authorities disconnected the water supply.  To that effect the Complainants ought to have produced some evidence.  But there is no such evidence, thereby the Complainants utterly fails to establish that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 as alleged in the complaints.  In support of this, the Complainants have produced the Notice dt.05.06.2015, which is arrears up to June 2015.  This notice is issued to the Opposite Party No.2 and the said amount was paid by the Complainants.  As per the Joint Development Agreement Clause-25, it specifically mentioned that the future owners of units in the buildings shall bear and pay within seven days of demand the proportionate share of the following common expenses in respect of an unit as monthly maintenance fee as may be decided by the Managing Committee of the Owners Condominium and until its formation, the Opposite Party No.1 shall decide the monthly maintenance.  Accordingly, this evidence of the Complainants ought to have paid the monthly maintenance charges to the Opposite Party No.1 till the formation of the Owners Association.  But the Complainants have not produced any evidence to show that the formation of Owners Association till this day.  Thereby, it is bounded duty of the Complainants to pay the monthly maintenance charges to the Opposite Party No.1 but as stated earlier, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the Complainants have paid monthly maintenance charges to the Opposite Party No.1.

16. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 in their version taken specific defence that till this day the Complainants have not paid monthly maintenance charges towards the schedule property.  Even in support of this defence, the Opposite Party No.1 one Sri.Raghu Ram R in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same, this evidence of the Opposite Party No.1 is crystal clear that the Complainants have failed to pay the maintenance charges as per the terms of Joint Development Agreement, thereby, the Opposite Party No.1 failed to pay the water supply charges to the BWSSB, thereby, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  The Complainants failed to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and also Opposite Party No.2. Hence, this point is held in the Affirmative.

17. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaints are dismissed. No costs.

 Keep the copy of the order in Complaint No.565/2014 to 573/2015.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 30^th day of December 2016)

       MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT         

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainants:

1. Arun G.Kulkarni, Himanshu Sekhar Pal, Abhiram R.J,Narasimhan J.Iyengar, K.Charumathi, Vaishali Kulkarni, Leena, M.Malar Vizhi, Marthand G.Patil, and Nagesh Ramaswamy, who being the Complainants have filed their affidavits.

List of documents filed by the Complainants in Complaint No.564/2015 to 573/2015

1. Joint Development Agreement entered into between Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 dt.13.03.2008.
2. Power of attorney executed by Opposite Party No.2 in favour of Opposite Party No.1 dt.13.03.2008.
3. Power of attorney executed by Complainant in favour of his father in CC.No.566/2015.
4. Sale Deeds executed by Opposite Parties in favour of the Complainants dt.11.03.2001
5. Copy of Notice given by Complainants along with other flat owners to Opposite Party No.1 on 05.06.2012
6. Copy of Notice given by the Complainants along with other flat owners to Opposite Party No.1 on 09.03.2014
7. Office copy of Legal Notice issued to the Opposite Parties dt.08.03.2015.
8. Postal receipt.
9. Returned cover of Opposite Party No.2.

10. Copy of complaint given to Postal Authorities seeking confirmation of delivery of RPAD cover sent to Opposite Party No.1.
11. Copies of Photographs showing the Electricity Wires
12. Statement of Accounts

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

1. Intimation Letter dt.05.06.2015 issued by BWSSB demanding balance payment towards arrear of water charges to an extent of Rs.1,42,114/- Original
2. Meter ledger report issued by BWSSB showing arrears of water charges from January 2013 to June 2015 that is not paid Copy
3. Intimation Letter dt.01.07.2015 issued by BWSSB for settlement of arrears claim under Lokadalath to be held on 03.07.2015 Original
4. Copy of cheque through which Rs.1,30,199/-was paid to BWSSB by the Apartment owners on 06.07.2015 copy
5. Bill dt.26.07.2015 issued by BWSSB for payment of bill amount for Rs.1,30,199/-+Interest of Rs.14085/- total amount of Rs.154,288/- Original
6. Two Bills issued by BESCOM for two common meters provided for common areas of the apartment for the month of April & May 2015 Original
7. Letter circulated by flat owners for payment of arrears of Electricity charges for common meter that were not paid by the developer amounting to Rs.9,873/- original
8. Three receipts issued by BESCOM in respect of the two common area meter charges 05.06.2015 & 17.07.2015 (Two receipts) Originals.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 in CC.564 to 573/2015

1. Sri.Raghu Ram R, has filed his affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party NO.1 in CC.564 to 573/2015

1. Statements.

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT