STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CC NO.40 OF 2015
Between :
1) A.Rajshekar S/o A.Radha Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 39 years,
2) A.Naga Lakshmi W/o A.Rajashekar,
Aged about 35 years,
Both R/o H.no.3-6-300, VI, SBH Colony,
LB Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 074.
(Present address Magnolia-84, L & T
Serene Colony, Telecom Nagar,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad).
… Complainants
AND
1) M/s Hill County Properties Ltd.,
Formerly known as M/s Maytas Properties (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr.Muralidhar Khattar S/o Jugalram Khattar,
Aged about 75 years, O/o Customer Support
Department, Hill County, Bachupally,
Miyapur, Hyderabad – 500 072.
2) Mr.Muralidhar Khattar S/o Jugalram Khattar,
Aged about 75 years, Managing Director
M/s Hill County Properties Ltd.,
O/o Customer Support Department,
Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,
Hyderabad – 500 072.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas
Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s K.Vishweshwar Reddy
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Fourth day of January
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is a complaint filed under Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Opposite parties and seeking direction to register and handover the possession of flat on completion in all aspects as agreed in terms of agreement of sale besides obtaining necessary occupancy certificate; to pay interest on home loan from the due date of handover amounting to Rs.31,28,000/- from 01.11.2009 to 31.01.2015; to pay compensation of Rs.5/- per square feet per month over super built-up area of 1579 sqft from 01.11.2009 to 31.01.2015 amounting to Rs.63,160/- in terms of agreement of sale and fair rental value of Rs.10/- per sft from 01.07.2010 to 31.01.2015 amounting to Rs.8,68,450/- and till handing over the flat, to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards causing mental agony and suffering; to pay costs of the complaint at Rs.50,000/- and award any other reliefs.
2. It is the case of Complainant that OP No.1 as Developer and OP No.2 being its Managing Director made believe the Complainants that they undertook the development of landed property admeasuring Ac.85.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.192/P, 193/P, 194/P, 196/P, 197/P, 198/P, 201/P and 282/P, situated at Bachupally village, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy district under Development Agreement-cum-GPA bearing No.102/2006, dated 30.12.2005. They informed that they obtained necessary permissions for the lay-out as well as building construction of residential independent villas/houses over the said land vide letter No.5876/MO2/Plg/H/2005, dated 21.03.2006 and 5871/P4/Plg/HUDA/2007, dated 29.08.2007 and that they have got absolute rights over the residential flat No.8D, type-5 on 8th floor in Shimla block comprising of 1579 square feet super built-up area besides 226 square feet of garden deck, with covered car parking and undivided share of land measuring 80 square yards.
3. Believing the version of Ops, Complainants agreed to purchase the residential flat No.8D, type-5 on 8th floor in Shimla block comprising of 1579 square feet of super built-up area besides 226 square feet of garden deck, with a covered car parking thereon and undivided share of land admeasuring 80 square yards out of total land of Ac.16.95 guntas in the project M/s Hill County in Survey Nos.194/P, 196/P and 197/P situated at Bachupally village, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy district, for a sale consideration of Rs.64,50,616/- and entered into an agreement of sale dated 22.01.2007. In pursuance of the agreement, the Complainant paid 88% of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.56,55,409/- by 21.07.2008 by availing loan of Rs.43,15,659/- from ICICI bank Ltd., Hyderabad and by own contribution of Rs.13,39,750/- and agreed to pay the balance amount at the time of handing over the possession of flat by completing in all aspects as per the specifications agreed thereto. As per agreement, Ops agreed to complete the construction of the Apartment in 24 months from the date of agreement with a grace period of 3 months.
4. Though much time had elapsed, the Ops failed to complete the construction and handover the flat to the Complainant. The Ops failed to apprise about the position of flat to the complainants with regard its stages of construction and reason for cause of delay in completion. As such, complainants were compelled to pay interest over the home loan and sustained loss to the tune of Rs.31,28,000/- for the period from 01.11.2009 to 31.01.2015. As there was no response, the Complainants got issued a notice dated 24.12.2014 expressing their readiness to take possession of the flat if the same is complete and ready for occupation, to which, there is no response. However, there has been a publication in daily newspaper that there exist a civil dispute over the land in survey Nos.192/P, 193/P, 194/P, 196/P, 197/P, 198/P, 201/P and 282/P situated at Bachupally village, Qutbullapur mandal, Rangareddy district.
5. Complainant is interested to have possession of the flat on transfer of the title of the flat on completion including amenities besides obtaining occupancy certificate from the concerned. Complainant incurred huge loss on account of non-completion of the flat. All this amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint with the prayer as stated, supra, in paragraph No.1.
6. The opposite party no.1 resisted the claim contending that the above consumer case is not maintainable on the grounds raised therein and is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no deficiency of service on their part. The Agreement for sale was entered into on 22.01.2007 and the unit was to be delivered on 22.04.2009 including grace period of 3 months. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 22.01.2007 but the Complainant lodged the present complaint after 6 years as an arm-twisting method to make this OP to come to their terms. Section 24A of C.P. Act clearly specifies time limit for filing a consumer complaint as 2 years from the date of cause of action. The complaint of the Complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That, the unit has been completed and the same was intimated to Complainant on 06.11.2013 itself and instead of taking possession, lodged the present complaint. It admitted to have agreed to sell the subject property for the consideration.
7. The OP No.1 is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, inter-alia, engaged in the business of construction and has changed the name from M/s Maytas Properties Limited to M/s Hill County Properties Limited. The project commenced as per schedule and was proceeding as per the projected rate but on a wholly incorrect understanding of its association with Satyam Group of Companies, various investigations and proceedings were instituted against it. The resulting adverse media reports and other reports led to doubts and wrongful perceptions about its independent and unrelated status. Resulting which, the investors and lenders who had committed to funding the Hill County project of OP No.1, sought to resile and withdraw from the project causing serious and acute shortage of funds.
8. Various attachments and court orders had also delayed the project. The various steps taken by it brought back the project on track. In compliance of the Company Law Board orders dated 13.01.2011 IL&FS, the new management of OP No.1 commenced the construction at Hill County project and infused about 1072 crores into the OP No.1 to complete Hill County project. The customers were also invited to visit for completing the final inspection of their respective units and Complainants were kept continuously informed about the status of construction, its completion apart from letters and e-mails.
9. The construction was initially delayed only because of the force majeure events which were beyond the control of the Ops and the new promoters of the OP No.1 have been inducted as strategic investor into the OP No.1 in order to complete the construction of the project. There is no willful default or deficiency of service on its part. As on date, 655 flats have been sold, of which, 505 have been accordingly handed over to the customers and the process of handing over balance units is continuing. The OP is committed to compensate all the customers including the complainant @ Rs.5/- per square feet for the entire period of delay in delivering the flat house. The fair rental value where the project is located, were much lesser i.e., only Rs.2.40 ps. per sft., from 2008 till end of 2011. Even now, the fair rental value is only Rs.4.28 ps. per sft., w.e.f. April, 2012.
10. That, on account of the fall out of the events following the enquiries against Satyam Computers Ltd., the Opposite party was subjected to series of compelling economic circumstances which derailed the Hill County project. Vide letters dated 06.11.2013, 06.12.2013 and 24.12.2014 intimated the Complainants about completion of construction of the subject flat and requested the Complainant to inspect the flat and clear all dues and to come forward for registration of it in their name. Vide notice dated 24.12.2014 again informed the complainants that in case the possession is not taken within a week, it would be constrained to invoke the arbitration clause and accordingly filed Arbitration application No.22 of 2015 before the Hon’ble High Court.
11. That, after completion of entire Hill County project and after a few customers had approached the consumer fora before the new management came into place, succeeded in their claim for refund of amounts paid by them and the complainant appears to have developed a wrongful motive and intention to make an immoral and unlawful gain and have therefore, filed the present complaint seeking refund of the amounts on untenable and illegal basis. In fact, Complainant was informed to take possession of the completed flat by letters dated 06.11.2013 and 06.12.2013 and, therefore, the present complaint seeking registration and handover of the flat is barred in law.
12. The Opposite party has completed construction of independent houses and apartments in Hill County with amenities like power sub-stations, permanent sewage treatment plants (STP), supply of manjeera water for 24 hours, storm water drainage, club house with banquet hall, library, swimming pool, tennis court, badminton court, library, mini-cricket stadium etc., gas pipeline connection, e-deck environment, internet, telephone, DTH, security systems. The Department of Income-Tax has lifted ban on registrations of flats/independent houses in compliance of order dated 05.12.2012 by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in WP No.11412/2012 which was filed by the Association named the Hill County Home Owners Welfare Association.
13. OP No.1 had obtained lay-out permission from HUDA, vide Letter No.5876/MP2 /PLG/H/2005, dated 21.03.2006. The Complainants are not entitled to any compensation and the alleged claim for payment of compensation is frivolous. In spite of intimation, the Complainants have not taken possession of the flat and are liable to pay the balance sale consideration. The present complaint is intended to gain wrongfully and to cause wrongful loss to the OP. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
14. Though OP No.2 served with notice, had filed an application seeking to strike him off from the array of the parties. Since the main complaint is being under consideration, consideration of the said application may not arise at this juncture.
15. On behalf of the Complainants, A.Rajashekar filed his affidavit as evidence and the documents Ex.A1 to A17. On behalf of the opposite parties, the authorised person of the Opposite party no.1 by name Neerav Kapasi filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B35.
16. The counsel on both sides filed written arguments. Heard both sides.
17. The points for consideration are :
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of barred by limitation ?
ii) Whether the complaint is not a ‘consumer dispute’?
iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?
iv) To what relief ?
18. The Complainant entered into “Agreement of Sale” on 22.01.2007 with the Opposite party No.1 for purchase of flat bearing flat No.8D, type-5 on 8th floor in Shimla block comprising of 1579 square feet super built-up area besides 226 square feet of garden deck, with covered car parking and undivided share of land measuring 80 square yards in Sy.Nos.194/P, 196/P and 197/P, situated at the project by name Hill County, Bachupally village, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy district for a sale consideration of Rs.64,50,616/- and paid 88% of sale consideration amounting to Rs.56,55,409/-, proposed to be constructed by the Opposite party No.1, which is not in dispute. The agreement of sale provides for completion of the construction of flat within 24 months from the date of agreement with grace period of 3 months, which concludes on 22.04.2009.
19. Unfortunately, the developer stopped construction and it has come to a standstill, when Satyam group of companies in which developer is one of the constituent company, went into liquidation. The developer resisted the complaint on the ground that, on account of ‘force majeure’ problems, the project could not be completed on time and thereafter they took every care to complete the project and in fact, they intimated the Complainant to take delivery of the possession of the flat No.8D through their letters dated 06.11.2013, 06.12.2013 and 24.12.2014, but the Complainant did not come forward for registration. There is no denial from the side of Complainant for the same.
20. As against the same, the counsel for Complainant would contend that the due date for completion of the flat is 22.04.2009 and as on the date of filing the complaint, the flat is not complete and not delivered, hence, it is a continuing cause of action and cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, the complaint is filed on 04.03.2015.
21. A perusal of letter dated 12.11.2013, 06.12.2013, 31.12.2013 would go to show that the subject flat is ready for fit-outs. However, the final coat of painting, plumbing fixtures, shower cubicles and modular kitchen would be completed after the fit-outs are carried-out, which mean the flat is not complete. Again, the OP No.1 got issued a notice dated 24.12.2014 requesting to take possession and comply with the formalities. However, complainants got issued the reply on 09.02.2015 stating that except letter dated 06.11.2013 no letter is received by them and clearly informed that without payment of proper compensation they would not take possession.
22. The condition No.7(d) of terms and conditions of Ex.A1 Agreement for sale, reads as follows:
“In the event of any further delay beyond the time stipulated in Clause 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c), the Developer and the Land Owner shall pay the Purchaser an amount of Rs.5/- per sft of contracted built-up area for every month of delay upto a maximum of 8 months.”
The Developer did not dispute to comply with the above provision. Admittedly, as per the OP No.1, the flat was complete and ready for handover as on 06.12.2013. As per the terms of Agreement of sale dated 22.01.2007, the flat was agreed to be constructed within 24 months from the date of agreement with a grace period of 3 months, which would conclude on 22.04.2009. Admittedly, the flat was stated to be complete and ready for handing over as on 06.12.2013 with a delay of nearly four years. However, in this regard, we may state that there were some items which were yet to be completed which necessitated the Complainant to file the present complaint. From the above discussions, it is clear that there is gross negligence on the part of the OP No.1.
23. In terms of the agreement of sale, the dispute has to be decided by means of arbitration. However, remedy provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and in the light of law laid in “National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506 wherein the maintainability of the complaint before consumer forum prior to the complainants having exhausted the other remedy was considered as under:
“The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower. Rather, it is an optional remedy. He can either seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Act. If the grower opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot, subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Act. However, if he chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act. Moreover, the plain language of Section 3 of the Consumer Act makes it clear that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”
24. Not keeping-up promise to complete construction of the flat within the stipulated period and failure to deliver possession of the flat constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the Developer. The contention of the Developer that the complaint is barred by limitation and that it is not maintainable is not sustainable. To the averment that complaint of Complainant is barred by limitation, the learned counsel for Complainant would contend that since the Developer failed to hand over the possession of the flat within the stipulated time, it is a continuing cause of action. In that regard, he relied on the Judgment reported in (2007) 3 SCC 142, decided on 22.02.2007 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Veljan Hydrair Ltd., wherein it is observed as follows:
“Limitation – Whether complaint barred by time – Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Held, limitation for an action would not start to run until there was a communication from Appellant, either informing about loss or expressing its inability to deliver or refusal to deliver, or until Respondent makes a demand for delivery or payment of value of the consignment after waiting for a reasonable period and there was non-compliance – Hence complaint not barred under Section 24A.”
25. The Complainants entered into agreement for sale dated 22.01.2007 for purchase of flat on their names for their occupation and enjoyment, as such, they fall within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act and the present dispute raised by the Complainants is a consumer dispute. As stated above, though the OP No.1 alleged to have made ready the flat for handing over on 06.12.2013, some items are yet to be completed, which constitutes cause of action which is continuing one. Admittedly, the complaint is filed on 04.03.2015, which is within limitation as the cause of action is continuing one. Hence, in view of the discussions made above, we answer the points (i) to (iv) in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite parties.
26. The counsel for OP No.2 would contend that there is no privity of contract between the Complainants and OP No.2 on the premise that OP No.2 was not even on the Board of Directors of OP No.1 company. The deficiency of service alleged was only being against the contracting party which is the OP No.1 company. There cannot be individual deficiency of service on the part of the Directors. There is no separate liability of the members or Directors. Admittedly, Ex.A1 was executed on 22.01.2007 and the last payment was made on 21.07.2008 by which time, the Opposite party No.2 was not on Board as is evident from the Form-32. Form-32 depicts that OP No.2 was appointed as Managing Director of M/s Maytas Properties Limited w.e.f. 24.12.2011. As such, there is no privity of contract between the Complainants and OP No.2 and as such, OP No.3 is no way liable and responsible for the acts of the OP No.1. However, by the time the complaint was filed, OP No.2 was the Managing Director of OP No.1 company, as such, he is also jointly liable.
27. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties No.1 and 2:
(a) to complete the construction of the flat bearing No.8D, type-5 on 8th floor in Shimla block comprising of 1579 square feet of super built-up area besides 226 square feet of garden deck, with covered car parking thereon and undivided share of land admeasuring 80 square yards out of total land measuring Ac.16-95 in Sy.Nos.192/P, 196/P and 197/P, situated at the project Hill County, Bachupally village, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy district in all aspects, execute the sale deed conveying the above property and also to handover the copy of Occupancy Certificate to the complainants
(b) to pay an amount of Rs.63,160/- (i.e., @ Rs.7,895/- per month for 1579 square feet as compensation for a period of 8 months);
(c) The Complainant shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,95,207/-, in addition to the stamp duty and registration charges to the Opposite party No.1.
(d) to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 04.01.2017
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainants : For Opposite parties :
Affidavit evidence of A.Raja Shakar Affidavit evidence of Neerav Kapasi
(on behalf of Ops 1 and 2)
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainants :
Ex.A1 is copy of Agreement for sale, dated 22.01.2007 executed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainants.
Ex.A2 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.6,35,590/-, dated 21.11.2006.
Ex.A3 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.6,74,382/-, dated 15.12.2006.
Ex.A4 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.8,38,896/-, dated 07.02.2007.
Ex.A5 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.8,38,896/-, dated 22.03.2007.
Ex.A6 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.8,39,215/-, dated 19.06.2007.
Ex.A7 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.1,50,000/-, dated 13.10.2007.
Ex.A8 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.8,39,215/-, dated 05.04.2008.
Ex.A9 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.8,39,215/-, dated 23.07.2008.
Ex.A10 is copy of loan account statement furnished by the ICICI Bank as on 06.02.2015.
Ex.A11 is copy of the letter dated 06.04.2007 addressed by OP No.1 to complainants.
Ex.A12 is copy of letter dated 06.11.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainants.
Ex.A13 is copy of notice dated 24.12.2014 got issued by the OP No.1 to the complainants.
Ex.A14 is office copy of reply notice, dated 09.02.2015 got issued by the Complainants to the counsel for OP No.1.
Ex.A15 is copy of detailed track events in respect of causing reply notice and also the original postal receipt of Ex.A14 reply.
Ex.A16 is copy of Fresh Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name of M/s Maytas Properties Limited to Hill County Properties Limited, dated 16.08.2013, furnished by the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.A17 is copy of Form-32 showing appointment of Murlidhar Khattar as Director w.e.f. 30.09.2011 and as Managing Director w.e.f. 24.12.2011.
For Opposite parties
Ex.B1 is copy of extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of M/s Hill County Properties Limited held on 24.08.2013.
Ex.B2 is copy of Fresh Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name from M/s Maytas Properties Limited to Hill County Properties Limited, dated 16.08.2013 furnished by the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.B3 is Photostat copy of the orders dated 05.03.2009 IN cp No.04/2009 in CA No.95/09, 96/2009 on the file of Company Law Board, Principal bench, new Delhi.
Ex.B4 is Photostat copy of Attendance-cum-Order sheet of hearing of Principal Bench of the Company Law Board on 13.01.2011 in CP No.04/2009.
Ex.B5 is Photostat copy of Form-32 in respect of the whole-time Director by name Byrraju Ramaraju, Director Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju and Director Datla Venkata Satya Subba Raju declaring to have not associated with Maytas Properties Limited w.e.f. 07.02.2011 and also Form-32 appointing Arun Kumar Saha, as Additional Director of Maytas Properties Limited w.e.f. 22.01.2011.
Ex.B6 is copy of Attendance-cum-order sheet of the hearing of Principal Bench of the Company Law Board on 12.03.2013 in CP No.04/2009.
Ex.B7 is copy of Attendance-cum-order sheet of the hearing of Principal Bench of the Company Law Board on 10.07.2013 in CP No.04/2009.
Ex.B8 is copy of letter dated 25.02.2011 addressed by OP No.1 to its customer apprising the stage of construction of the houses.
Ex.B9 is copy of letter dated 08.04.2011 addressed by OP No.1 to its customer apprising the stage of construction of the houses.
Ex.B10 is copy of letter dated 17.06.2011 and 28.07.2011 addressed by OP No.1 to the Hill County Home Owners informing the stage of construction of the apartment towards and independent houses.
Ex.B11is copy of letter dated 08.09.2011 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers informing the stage of construction of the apartment towards and independent houses.
Ex.B12 is copy of letter dated 25.10.2011 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers informing the stage of construction of the apartment towards and independent houses.
Ex.B13 is copy of letter dated 29.12.2011 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers informing the stage of construction of the apartment towards and independent houses.
Ex.B14 is copy of letter dated 02.03.2012 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers informing the stage of construction of the apartment towards and independent houses.
Ex.B15 is copy of letter dated 16.05.2012 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers informing the stage of construction of the apartment towards and independent houses.
Ex.B16 is copy of letter dated 26.09.2012 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers informing the stage of construction of the apartment towards and independent houses.
Ex.B17 is copy of letter dated 06.11.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainants for causing final inspection and to complete handover formalities of the unit.
Ex.B18 is copy of letter dated 06.12.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to the complainants to take possession for interior fit-outs and complete the handover formalities of the unit.
Ex.B19 is copy of legal notice dated 24.12.2014 sent by the OP No.1 to the complainants.
Ex.B20 is copy of letter dated 23.08.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to the customers apprising the progress of the work.
Ex.B21 is letter dated 20.07.2012 addressed by the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Bachupalli to the OP No.1 informing the fair rental values.
Ex.B22 are the copies of Occupancy Certificates in respect of the various blocks in the Hill County project of M/s Hill County Properties Limited, dated 05.08.2013, furnished by the Executive officer, Gram Panchayat, Bachupally.
Ex.B23 is copy of the orders dated 05.12.2012 in WP No.9227 of 2010 and batch on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.B24 is copy of letter dated 12.12.2012 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer apprising the progress of construction.
Ex.B25 is copy of e-mail dated 15.11.2014 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers.
Ex.B26 is copy of letter dated 31.05.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers apprising the progress of the project.
Ex.B27 are copies of letter dated 17.01.2014 and 27.05.2014 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers.
Ex.B28 is copy of letter dated 22.08.2014 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers.
Ex.B29 are copies of letters dated 16.05.2015 and 14.09.2015 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers.
Ex.B30 are copies of Occupancy Certificates dated 05.08.2013 of various blocks in the project Hill County, furnished by the District Panchayat Officer, Rangareddy district.
Ex.B31 is copy of the orders dated 02.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WVMP No.3074/2014 in WPMP No.31171/2014 in WP No.24914/2014.
Ex.B32 is copy of proceedings No.63/EO/BP/2015, dated 07.11.2015 issued by the Executive officer, Gram Panchayat, Bachupally regarding revised Occupancy Certificates.
Ex.B33 are the photographs of the unit No.8D (A386), Shimla tower at Hill County, showing completion of the flat.
Ex.B34 is the copy of legal notice dated 24.12.2014 got issued by the OP No.1 to the complainants.
Ex.B35 is copy of reply notice, dated 09.02.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Ex.B34 notice.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 04.01.2017
