BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD
CC NO. 88 OF 2016
Between :
- Abhishek Singh S/o Mr.Manmohan Singh
Aged about 33 years
- Mrs Abha Singh W/o Abhishek Singh
Aged about 32 years
Both are R/o Flat No.204, Aparna Cyber Commune
Nallagandla, Hyderabad
…Complainants
A N D
- M/s. Aliens Developers (P) Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director
Mr. Hari Challa, S/o Mr. CVR Chowdhary &
Mr. C. Venkat Prasanna, S/o Mr. CVR Chowdhary,
Respectively, O/o Flat No. 910, Teja Block,
My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur,
Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500081.
- Mr. Hari challa, S/o Mr. CVR Chowdhary,
Managing Director, M/s. Aliens Developers (P) Ltd
O/o Flat No. 910, Teja Block,
My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur,
Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500081.
- Mr. C. Venkat Prasanna, , S/o Mr. CVR Chowdhary,
Joint Managing Director, M/s. Aliens Developers (P) Ltd
O/o Flat No. 910, Teja Block,
My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur,
Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500081.
(Present addresses of parties s.no. 1 to 3 are at
Aliens space station, Tellapur post,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal,
Medak Dist, Hyderabad – 502032
- The Branch Manager
Central Bank of India
Gachibowli 2-48-12, Behind Policy
Commissioner Office, Telecom Nagar
Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500034
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainants : Sri V.Appa Rao
Counsel for the Opp. Parties No.1to3 : M/s P.Raja Sripathi Rao
Counsel for the Opp. Party no.4 Sri Maganti Satyanaryana
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
The complaint is filed u/s 17(1),A(i) of C.P. Act for recovery of amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum amounts to Rs.8,64,000/- for the period 03.06.2013 to 31.05.2016 and EMI’s paid into home loan amounts to Rs.5,38,424/- with interest @ 24% amounts to Rs.2,58,000/- a on 31.05.2016 and subsequent interest thereon w.e.f. 01.06.2016 @ 24% per annum; to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The case of the Complainants in brief, is that the Opposite party company represented to them that they are engaged in the business of constructing multi-storied apartments situated at Tellapur village, Ramchandrapur Mandal, Medak district to construct high rise apartments under the name and style of ‘Aliens Space Station’ and they would provide all amenities therefor, would give possession by 30.09.2014 and on such representation of the opposite parties, the complainants entered into agreement of sale dated 18.06.2013 for purchase of flat No.482 on 4th floor at Space Station-14, having super built-up area of 1402 sft with one car parking along with undivided share of land of 24.13 sq.yds for a total sale consideration of Rs.62,29,356/-. Subsequently the complainants approached Central Bank of India, Bachibowli i.e., opposite party no.4 for sanction of home loan thereby the said bank sanctioned home loan amount of Rs.49,83,000/- and released an amount of Rs.48,54,103/- thereby complainants paid in total an amount of Rs.60,54,103/- as against total amount of Rs.62,29,356/-. On such payment the complainant approached the opposite parties for registration off alt however the developer company in connivance with home loan banker did not bother to register the flat in favour of the complainants. However, vide letter dated 24.06.2013 it is informed that there has been wrong mention of flat in the agreement of sale dated 18.06.2013 thereby suggested to execute another agreement of sale. As there has been no alternative the complainants agreed to execute another agreement of sale dated 25.06.2013 in respect of flat no.1982 in Station 13 in 19th floor. In case the flat is not completed within the stipulated period, the developer company have to pay penalty amount of @ Rs.3/- per sft of super built up area per month w.e.f.,01.10.2014 however failed to do so thereby committed deficiency of service. Moreover, the opposite party no.4 also not released the home loan in accordance with the provisions of the AP Promotion construction and Ownership of Apartments Act, 1987 however in collusion with the developer company released the home loan in total thereby the complainant compelled to pay EMIs without having any flat in their favour. Meanwhile the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have sold Flat No.482 and also 1982 to the third parties. Therefore the complainants cancelled the booking of the flat and sought for refund of the contribution amount of the complainants of Rs.12,00,000/- paid to the opposite parties . Due to the fraudulent action on the part of the opposite parties , complainants suffered with mental agony, escalation of cost and physically by wandering in and around the office of the opposite party for the past few years, for which, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. The Opposite parties promised to deliver the possession of the flat to the Complainants as prescribed in the agreement of sale with some grace period. Having agreed to purchase the above flat, Complainants entered into Agreement of sale with the Opposite parties paying the earnest money. The complainants has lost the hope on the opposite parties and came to a conclusion to demand the opposite parties for refund of the amounts paid by him and as such demanded the opposite parties to pay Rs.12,00,000/- with interest, compensation and costs. Hence, prayed to allow the complaint as prayed for in paragraph no.1 supra.
3. The Opposite parties no.1 to 3 resisted the claim on the premise that the complainants filed the complaint to gain out of their breach of contract and the complaint is not maintainable in view of there being no consumer dispute and the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement of sale providing for settlement of disputes by means of arbitration process.
4. The Opposite parties submitted that originally the land in Sy.No.384 was an agricultural land and they filed application for conversion of the same into non-agricultural land on 23.10.2006 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006. Permission was granted on 14.04.2007 for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the Opposite parties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone.
5. It is averred by opposite parties that Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in Sy.No.384 as residential use zone. The project could not be commenced in view of proposed road under Master plan, until realignment of the proposed road without affecting the land in Sy.No.384 is made. Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008. Opposite parties have obtained NOC from the A.P. Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and subsequently it was reduced from 91.40 meters to 90.40 meters. After following due procedure and process, the Opposite parties obtained NOC from Airports Authority on 10.07.2009.
6. It is further averred that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 floors and release of building permission upto 29 floors is awaited. In view of arbitration clause in the agreement the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same has to be referred for arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That they have taken necessary steps to complete the project. The project is a massive project and due to reasons beyond their control, the Opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame and they informed the complainants that the project required sanction from statutory authorities and mentioned the same as ‘force majeure’ in the agreement of sale. It also agreed to pay compensation at agreed rate to maintain goodwill and relationship with the customers.
7. It is stated that for the delay, the Opposite parties have agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sq.ft. in terms of clause VIII(g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and they agreed to adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainants. The delay was only due to Telangana agitation, Sakala Janula Samme, etc. The complainants filed the complaint with ulterior motive to defame the opposite party. The Complainants shall file relevant receipts and documents to prove the payments.
8. They denied to have not given any response. The Opposite parties are taking all necessary steps to deliver the flats at the earliest. The Complainants is not entitled for any compensation and their claim is illegal. The complainants are not entitled for refund of amount and interest thereon and any compensation and costs. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The opposite party no.4 filed its written version denying the allegations made in the complaint and contended that the complainants approached the opposite party no.4 for financing a part of the purchase consideration of flat from the opposite parties. The agreement of sale dated 18.06.2013 was entered into between the complainants M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd., (Developer) and they are the authors of various terms and conditions of the said agreement including the schedule of payment to be made towards purchase consideration. The opposite partyno.4 after thorough scrutiny of the title to the property and after approving the tie up arrangement with the builder for extending home loans to the intending purchasers in the project has sanctioned an amount of Rs.49,83,000/- and released an amount of Rs.48,54,103/- to the complainants accounts. Since the flat proposed to be purchased is only under construction stage opposite party no.4 insisted the builder to join in execution of a tri-partite agreement taking responsibility for the disbursed loan till the sale deed is executed in favour of the complainants and till the equitable mortgage is created in favour of the bank. It is only because of the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale and the tripartite agreement the Builder has returned back the money received from the bank and not for the reasons as wrongly alleged by the complainants. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. During the course of enquiry, the Complainants got filed the evidence affidavit of the complainant no.1 and also got marked the documents as Exhibits A1 to A11. On behalf of the opposite parties, the opposite party no.2 filed his affidavit and got marked the documents Exs.B1 to B19 (though Exs.B1 to B19 were stated to have been marked but only Exs.B1 to B18 were found in the file). On behalf of the opposite party no.4, the Branch Manager has filed his affidavit and got marked the documents as Exs.B20 to B39.
11. The counsel for the Complainants and the Opposite parties no.1 to 3 had advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version in addition to filing written arguments on behalf of Complainants. No representation on behalf of the opposite partyno.4. All the parties have filed their respective written arguments. Heard the counsel for the complainants and the opposite parties no.1 to 3.
12. The points for consideration are :
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of arbitration clause in the agreement of sale ?
ii) Whether the complaint is not a ‘consumer dispute’?
iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party?
iv) To what relief ?
13. POINT NO.1 : Initially, the Complainants entered into “Agreement of Sale” dated 18.06.2013 with the Opposite party no.1 for purchase of flat no. 482, 4th floor, Station No.14 with super built up area of 1402 sft with one covered parking area besides undivided share of land of 24.12 sq.yds for the consideration of Rs.62,29,356/- and paid a part of amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. Thereafter the opposite parties vide letter dated 24.06.2013 informed the complainants that there has been wrong mention of flat in the said agreement and requested the complainants to execute another agreement of sale for the flat no.1982. As such the complainants were compelled to execute another agreement of sale in respect of flat no.1982 . The agreement of sale was entered into between the Complainants and the Opposite party no.1 in respect of the said flat. Thereafter, the Complainants by availing loan from the opposite party no.4 paid an amount of Rs.48,54,103/- besides an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the opposite parties. The agreement of sale provides for reference to arbitration. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have contended that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Complainants cannot maintain the complaint before this Commission.
For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.
14. In the arguments, counsel for Complainants reiterated the same facts as averred in the complaint besides stating that the Opposite parties 1 to 3 ought to have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act & Rules, 1987 while undertaking such agreements and hence pleading ‘force majeure’ does not arise.
15. On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite parties 1 to 3 in the arguments submitted that as per agreement, if the Complainants wants to cancel the booking of the flat, they shall forego 10% of the total flat cost as charges which is agreed by them. In the case on hand, there is no provision for refund of earnest money. Admittedly, on failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreed terms by the Opposite parties 1 to 3, the Complainants sought for refund of the amount. Hence, this Commission does not find any merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for Opposite parties 1 to 3.
16. POINTS No.2 & 3 : The Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered into Development Agreement with the land owners of the land admeasuring Ac.19.26 guntas in survey numbers 383, 385 and 426/A situate at Tellapur village of Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district and they agreed to deliver the residential flat to the Complainants in accordance with the terms & conditions agreed upon and consented thereof and as per specifications given thereto.
17. In pursuance of the development agreement, the opposite parties have obtained permission for construction of the residential building on the land and admittedly there has been abnormal delay in completion of the project in so far as this complaint is concerned. The opposite parties have attributed the delay to the authorities concerned in granting permission and NoC etc., as to the cause for delay in completion of the project. The opposite parties would contend that the cause for delay is beyond their control which is force majeure. The Opposite parties 1 to 3 stated the reasons for the delay in completion of the construction of the residential complex as under:
“The reasons, for delay is, project required clearance from statutory bodies which are necessary for execution of the project. The said fact was informed to the complainant and even mentioned in the agreement of sale under clause No.XIV and described as “force majure”. The above referred facts mentioned squarely fall under the said clause. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Commission as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party in executing the project and if the complainant wants to cancel her booking she can do so in conformity with terms of agreement only.”
18. The complainants have submitted that owing to failure of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in completing the construction of the flats, they opted for cancellation of the agreement of sale of flat and the opposite parties 1 to 3 have contended that in order to maintain cordial relations with the complainants, they agreed to pay compensation in terms of the agreement which they entered into in normal course with other customers. The complainants also got issued notice setting forth series of events of delay and negligence and false promises made by the Opposite parties 1 to 3 seeking for refund of the amount on the premise of inaction on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.
19. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have promised to complete construction of the flat and hand over its possession to the complainants as prescribed in the agreement of sale with certain grace period as agreed and on their failure to perform their part of contract, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have proposed to pay rents but failed to pay the same. However, there is no communication from the side of the opposite parties in this regard and the opposite parties have not filed a piece of paper to show their readiness to pay compensation and adjust the same towards the dues payable by the complainants.
20. Not keeping promise to complete construction of the building and failure to deliver possession of the flat constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have two options left for recovery of the amount, either by filing suit in court of law or by way of filing complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in view of the amount claimed falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. The contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable is not sustainable.
21. The complainant contends that contrary to the terms of agreement and also various guidelines for releasing loan amounts, the bank has released the entire amount in one go without considering the stages of construction to the detriment of his interest. The bank can directly pay the amount to the developer as agreed upon but not whole of the amount without even verifying the stages of construction and existence of property. It could not have released the amount without verifying the progress of construction jeopardising their claims. By referring to project programme guide lines where there was specific reference that the developer should be in business for not less than 5 years and the builder/developer has history of due completion of 3 projects and it should have completed at least 1,00,000 sft. of built up area, and that without satisfying the eligibility criterion, the bank could not have sanctioned Advance Disbursement Facility (ADF for short).
22. The OP No.4 bank contends that by virtue of tripartite agreement, the developer has to indemnify the bank in cases of this nature, where under, it was specifically mentioned that :
“The Builder agrees to demand payment from the Bank towards the cost of the Flat strictly as per the stage of construction of the Flat agreed to be sold to the Borrower and it will be responsibility of the Borrower to verify the stage of construction.
Immediately upon receipt of the loan amount sanctioned to the Borrower, the Builder agrees to execute and register a valid conveyance in favour of the Borrower and deliver the original Sale Deed after its registration directly to the Bank. In this context, the Borrower irrevocably authorises the Builder to deliver the original Sale Deed directly to the bank.”
The developer and complainants are jointly liable for any of the claims for the loan amount disbursed. In the light of above clause, they are estopped from making any claim. In order to get over the payment of the amount towards EMI they were impleaded as parties. It is only a financial institution facilitating funding of the project and purchase thereof. It has nothing to do with the completion of construction.
23. In contravention of the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and tripartite agreement, the bank disbursed the loan amount. It is not known why the bank had taken such a stance when the guidelines stipulate to release the amount stage wise. The fact remains that the bank released the amounts to the developer contrary to guidelines.
24. There would be no meaning in releasing the entire amount in one go, without watching the progress of construction work. This would cause unjust enrichment to the developer, and loss to the complainant. The terms of the agreement in between three parties were made in order to see that no party suffers from non-implementation of terms of the agreement. The bank cannot act at its own whims and fancies, and release the amount.
25. If the bank acts contrary to the guidelines, the complainant is not liable to refund the amount paid to the developer. The bank can as well recover from the developer by recoursing the above clauses. The courts will not come to the rescue of the party which violates the terms and conveys benefits to one party in preference to another. It intends to cause loss to a genuine borrower by unduly favouring a defaulting and unfair customer. All this amounts to unfair trade practice.
26. However, the very property which the complainants sought to purchase was a non-existent property kept as primary security. It also extended the loan on deposit of equitable mortgage though there was a mention that if equitable mortgage is not possible it would be by registered mortgage deed. The bank alleges that loan was sanctioned taking the property as security which the complainant intends to purchase from the developer besides on the instruction of the complainant. When the bank knew fully well that the property was non-existent and no doubt document was executed in favour of the complainants by the developer in order to create equitable mortgage, disbursing the loan amount to the developer cannot be said to be valid. Considering the nature of transaction between the parties, we are of the opinion that the bank could not have disbursed the amount without taking proper care and caution to find out the non-existence of the flat for which loan was sanctioned.
27. The banks and financial institutions promising to lend monies or sanctioning loans and the borrower investing in the project will be clothed by the principles of Promissory Estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an evolving doctrine, contours of which are not yet fully and finally demarcated. Being an equitable doctrine, it should be kept elastic enough in the hands of the court to do complete justice between the parties. If the equity demands that the promissor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands that the promissor should be precluded in the light of things done by the promisee on the faith of representation from resiling and that he should be held fast to his representation, that should be done. It is a matter holding scales even between the parties to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine vide State of H.P. Vs. Ganesh Wood Products reported in 1995 (6) SCC 363.
28. It is legally open to the bank to take a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bonafide discretion as to whether it was safe to make advances of public monies to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining the relevant facts and circumstances. The bank did not act in good faith nor had it exercised bonafide discretion while releasing the funds.
29. Recourse can be had to a decision in Nannapaneni Venkata Rao Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 2003 AP 515 (DB) it was held :
“Refusal on the part of the respondent bank to pay interest on the ground that opening of such account and crediting of the interest is not in accordance with the guidelines of RBI is not tenable as the respondent is solely responsible for suppressing the fact while entering into the contract.”
30 This Commission can take judicial cognizance of the fact that the OP No.4 bank had financed the builder obviously in view of reputation the developer was having by then, and the bank contrary to the terms of the agreement as well as guidelines, disbursed the amounts keeping the interests of the complainants in jeopardy. The banks are picking and choosing certain clauses and contending that the very complainant have given authorization to them to release the amount and therefore they have released, forgetting the fact that the very financing of the project was contrary to the scheme issued in this regard. Evidently, the bank as well as the developer benefitted from these transactions. The developer has taken the amount without constructing the flat, and equally the bank has been collecting the amounts from the complainant towards EMI. It is a case of double jeopardy. Necessarily all this amounts to unfair trade practise as well as deficiency in service on the part of developer as well as the bank. Necessarily the complainant is to be compensated. Since terms of the agreement enable the bank to collect from the developer, it can as well recover the same. The bank by violating its own rules cannot take advantage and recover the same from the complainant.
31. The bank has undoubtedly violated the guidelines and released the amount even without bothering to verify as to the stage and nature of construction. In other words, the bank financed a non-existent project or incomplete project, duping its own customer. If the bank releases the amounts contrary to the guidelines, it has to suffer for the consequential losses. Whatever loss caused thereby it could as well approach appropriate forum for recovery of the amount from the developer, to which it has released the amount in one go. The bank under the terms entitled to recover from the developer to which it had paid the amounts. It cannot turn round and claim against the complainant. It is not under original stipulation that the bank had to pay the entire amount to the developer. The developer also agreed to refund the amount if there are cancellations of the agreements or failure to fulfil its commitments. The agreement that was arrived at earlier was fair and no party would benefit from the lapses or mistakes of the other. Therefore, the complainant is not liable to pay the equated monthly instalments. The bank has to collect the loan amount plus whatever interest and other legally permissible charges from the developer and credit it to the complainants’ loan account. It shall not collect further EMI’s nor entitled to any more amount except the amount, if any, remained unpaid by the complainants towards loan granted to him. On the other hand the complainants also committed mistake by addressing letter dated 19.06.2013 marked as Ex.B23 to the opposite party no.4 which reads as under:
With reference to the booking of the above Flat, this is to request to arrange for the payment of Rs.48,54,103/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred and Three Only) towards bank 1st disbursement and Transverse slab So please release the said payment favouring M/s Aliens Developers PVt. Ltd., (Central Bank of India, Hyderabad.
Please do the needful at the earliest.
32. Therefore, from the abhovbe letter it is clear that the complainant no.1 himself wrote letter to the opposite party no.4 for release of the loan amount of Rs.48,54,103/- favouring M/s Aliens Develpers Pvt Ltd., and hence the complainants also equally liable for the for the acts of the opposite party no.4 in releasing the amount. Had the complainant no.1 not requested for release the loan amount and yet the opposite party no.4 released the amount, then the matter could have been different. But here the complainants also committed mistake in requesting the opposite party no.4 for release of the loan amount. Hence, the opposite party no.4 is not liable to refund the EMIs amount already paid by the complainants. For the reasons stated supra, the Points No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties no.1 to 3.
33. In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly holding that the Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the Complainants.
- In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainants.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 27.11.2017
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainants : For Opposite parties :
Affidavit evidence of Mr.Abhishek Singh Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf
Complainant no.1 of Ops
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainantss :
Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of Sale dated 18.06.2013 executed by the Op1 in favour of the complainants
Ex.A2 Copy of agreement of Sale dated 25.06.2013 executed by the Op1
in favour of the complainants
Ex.A3 Copy of receipt dated03.06.2013 for Rs.12,00,000/-
Ex.A4 Copy of receipt dated 21.06.2013 for Rs.48,54,103/-
Ex.A5 Copy of undated letter of Op1 to the Op No.4
Ex.A6 Copy of home loan statement of account dated 04.04.2015
Ex.A7 Copy of order in CC No.202 of 2013 dt.27.06.2014
Ex.A8 Copy of legal notice dated13.05.2016 issued to the Ops No.1 to 3.
Ex.A9 Copy of legal notice dated 13.0-5.2016 issued to Op4
Ex.A10 Postal receipts and Postal acknowledgements
Ex.A11 Copy of Form
For opposite parties
Ex.B1 Copy of Lr.No.252931/4/2007 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Vice, Chairman, HUDA, Hyderabad for change of land use.
Ex.B2 Copy of G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (I1) Department, dated 03.04.2008 (HMDA revised master plan).
Ex.B3 Copy of (report) Lr.No.D1/3601/2007, dated 05.05.2007 addressed by District Collector, Medak to Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, HUDA along with map.
Ex.B4 Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for HUDA area held on 29.02.2008 at 3-00 pm in the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + Ground + 13 Upper Floors).
Ex.B5 Copy of Lr.No.1927/Misc/Plg/H/2008, dated 31.03.2008 addressed by HUDA to the Principal Secretary to Government for 30 meters road alignment in Sy.No.384 & 385.
Ex.B6 Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HUDA/2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to OP No.1 approving 4 basements + Ground + 13 upper floors).
Ex.B7 Copy of Lr.No.621/Pr/Plg/HUDA/ 2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments.
Ex.B8 Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for MSB in HUDA area held on 05.06.2008 at the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + ground + 29 upper floors).
Ex.B9 Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HMDA/2008, dated 14.10.2009 addressed by HMDA to the Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments (4 basements + ground + 20 upper floors).
Ex.B10 Copy of Lr.No.SEIAA/AP/MDK-14/08, dated 12.08.2008 addressed by State Level Enviornment Impact Assessment Authority, Hyderabad to according environmental clearances to Opposite parties.
Ex.B11 Copy of Lr.No.19038/I1/2009, dated 24.11.2009 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Ops (clearance of GOMs.No.111).
Ex.B12 Copy of letter addressed by Opposite parties, dated 08.10.2010 to the HMDA, Hyd (revised application and plans for building permission consisting of 3 basement + ground + 29 upper floors).
Ex.B13 Copy of Lr.No.10186/MP1/Plg/HMDA dated 28.03.2011 addressed by HMDA to the Ops to pay publication charges for change of land use from residential to commercial.
Ex.B14 Copy of cash acknowledgement receipt bearing No.825631 for Rs.1,000/- in File No.2011-2-431 for new water connection.
Ex.B15 Copy of Certificate of best compliments issued by Indian Green Building Council in favour of the Opposite parties company.
Ex.B16 Copy of certificate of best compliments awarded by Cityscape in favour of the Opposite parties company.
Ex.B17 Copy of letter addressed by the Opposite parties to the purchaser by name S.Pragathi intimating to take possession of the flat, dated 02.11.2015.
Ex.B18 Copies of photographs of flat occupants occupying the completed flats.
Ex.B19 Copy of Tripartite Agreement (stated to have been filed but not found in
file)
Ex.B20 Copy of loan application form dated 15.06.2013
Ex.B21 Copy of Declaration of Assets and Liabilities dated 15.06.2013
Ex.B22 Copy of No Objection Certificate dated 18.06.2013
Ex.B23 Copy of Demand Letter for release of first disbursement executed
by complainants to Op4 dated 19.06.2013
Ex.B24 Copy of Demand Letter for release of first disbursement executed
by Op1 to Op4 dated 19.06.2013
Ex.B25 Copy of receipt for Rs.12,00,000/- dated 19.06.2013
Ex.B26 Copy of housing loan proposal of complainant dated 20.06.2013
Ex.B27 Copy of letter dated 21.06.2013 of Op4 to Op1
Ex.B28 Copy of demand promissory note for Rs.49,83,000/-
Ex.B29 Copy of Consent clause to be included in the documents
To be executed by borrowers dated 21.06.2013
Ex.B30 Copy of letter of waiver for Rs.49,83,000/-
Ex.B31 Copy of Loan Agreement dated 21.06.2013
Ex.B32 Copy of Tripartite Agreement
Ex.B33 Copy of Change of Flat No. in agreement dated 22.06.2013
Ex.B34 Copy of confirmation on the change of flat no.482 to 1982
Ex.B35 Copy of receipt for sum of Rs.48,54,103/- dated 26.06.2013
Ex.B36 Copy of EMI deduction from complainant dated 04.01.2014
Ex.B37 Copy of change of flat no. in sale agreement executed by Op no.1
Ex.B38 Copy of legal notice dated 13.05.2016
Ex.B39 Copy of reply notice dated 21.06.2016
PRESIDENT MEMBER
