STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

CC NO.226 OF 2014

Between :

P.Srinivasa Varma S/o P.R. Raju,

aged about 49 years, R/o Flat No.2110,

Srila Towers, Hyder Nagar,

Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 072.

… Complainant

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.

3)       Mr.Arun Kumar Saha S/o Brindavan

          Chandra Saha, aged about 60 years,

          Chairman/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

Tuesday, the Third 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 house on completion in all aspects besides obtaining necessary occupancy certificate; to pay the interest on home loan from the date of due date of handing over of house i.e., 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2014 amounting to Rs.57,46,014/- and subsequent interest till the handover of house duly registered as agreed; to pay fair rental value of Rs.10/- per square feet per month from the due date of handover till 31.07.2014 amounting to Rs.21,99,600/- and till handing over the house duly registered; to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony; 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 and OP No.3 being the Director of OP No.1 made believe her 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 Hill County, 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 hve got absolute rights over the Plot No.77 admeasuring 589 square yards, out of total land measuring Ac.85-36 comprising of 4274 square feet of super built-up area.

3.       Believing the version of Ops, Complainant agreed to purchase a residential villa/house bearing Plot No.294 admeasuring 359 square yards, for a total sale consideration of Rs.84,76,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale dated 27.04.2006.  In pursuance of the agreement, the Complainant paid 97% of the sale consideration of Rs.84,76,000/- by 31.03.2007 leaving a balance of Rs.2,54,280/- to be paid at the time of handing over the possession of house by completing in all aspects as per the specifications agreed thereto.  The Complainant by availing home loan of Rs.75,00,000/- from IDBI Bank, Hyderabad paid the said consideration amount.  As per agreement, Ops agreed to complete the house on or before 27.07.2008 including grace period of 3 months.

4.       After much persuasion, by letter dated 22.06.2012, the Ops agreed to handover the possession of house, however, they failed to come forward for registration.  Through e-mail dated 16.07.2014, the Ops agreed to handover the house and register with a condition to undertake an undated letter as per their wish, which the Complainant refused.  As there was no response, the Complainant got issued a notice dated 19.07.2014.  Having received the major part of sale consideration, Ops failed to handover the possession which amounts to deficiency in service.  Due to the laches on the part of the Ops, Complainant is compelled to pay the home loan EMIs as well as interest thereon, amounting to Rs.57,46,014/- as on 31.07.2014.  Hence, Complainant got issued the notice dated 12.04.2014. 

5.       Complainant is interested to have possession of the house on transfer of the title of the house on completion including amenities besides obtaining occupancy certificate from the concerned.  Complainant incurred huge loss on account of non-completion of the house.  All these 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 27.04.2006 and the unit was to be delivered on 27.07.2008.  The cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 27.07.2008 and the unit has been completed and possession was handed over to the Complainant on 22.06.2012 and since then, the Complainant is residing in the said Bungalow peacefully without any complaint and the present complaint is lodged after 3 years of residing in the house only as an arm-twisting to make this Opposite party to his terms.  Section 24A of C.P. Act clearly specifies time limit for filing a consumer complaint is 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.  It admitted to have agreed to sell the subject property for the consideration thereof.

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 which 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 Complainant was 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, 287 independent houses have been sold, of which, 262 houses 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 independent house.  The fair rental value where the project is located, were much lesser i.e., only Rs.2.40/- per sft., from 2008 till end of 2011.  Even now, the fair rental value is only Rs.4.28/- 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 letter dated 22.06.2012, the OP requested the complainant to inspect the completed independent house, to which complainant responded and visited the house and on the same day received and acknowledged the receipt of all the documents including all keys pertain to the said Bungalow vide separate letter dated 22.06.2012.  Vide e-mail dated 12.12.2012 OP No.1 had asked the complainant to come forward for registration of the house.  Vide e-mail dated 11.01.2013, this OP reminded complainant regarding registration of independent house and calculation of compensation for delay in delivery but the complainant came for settlement of compensation, it came to notice that the complainant defaulted the home loan and as such, the bank initiated SARFAESI Act proceedings by taking possession of the property and the same are pending vide OA No.601/2015 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

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 took possession of house long back on 22.06.2012 and therefore the present complaint seeking registration and handover of the house 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.  Complainant took possession of the house from OP No.1 on 22.06.2012, at which time.  The Complainant is not entitled to any compensation much less Rs.50,000/- per month and the alleged claim for payment of compensation is frivolous as per her own admission that, as per the Agreement for Sale, she is eligible for compensation @ Rs.5/- per sft.  The Complainant has taken possession of the bungalow in June 2012 without paying the balance 5% 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, has not chosen to file any written version, while, OP No.3 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.     The Complainant filed his affidavit as evidence and the documents Ex.A1 to A20.   On behalf of the opposite parties, the authorised person of the Opposite party no.1 by name P.Vasudeva Rao filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B35.

16.     The counsel for the Complainant filed written arguments along with citations.  Heard both.

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.     POINT NO.1 TO 3 :  The Complainant entered into “Agreement of Sale” on 27.04.2006 with the Opposite party No.1 for purchase of villa/house bearing Plot No.294 admeasuring 359 square yards comprising of 3055 square feet of super built-up area in Sy.Nos.192/P, 193/P, 194/P, 196/P, 197/P, 198/P, 201/P and 282/P, situated at the project by name Hill County, Bachupally village, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy district for a sale consideration of Rs.84,76,000/- and paid 97% thereof leaving balance of Rs.2,54,280/-, proposed to be constructed by the Opposite parties, which is not in dispute.  The agreement of sale provides for completion of the construction of house/ villa within 24 months from the date of agreement with grace period of 3 months, which concludes on 27.07.2008. 

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 delivered the possession of the villa No.294 and Complainant accepted the handover of house by taking one set of keys and all the link documents from OP No.1 vide letter dated 22.06.2012, at which time, but did not come forward for registration.  Except this assertion, nothing is brought on record by the OP No.1 to vouchsafe the same. 

20.     The Developer would also contend that the Complainant had already defaulted in paying the loan instalments (EMIs) to the bank and the Bank which sanctioned the loan had initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, by way of OA No.601/2015 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is not denied by the Complainant in his affidavit but contends that the loss occasioned to him is payable by the Opposite parties. 

21.     The Developer would further contend that after enjoying the possession of house/villa No.294 for more than 3 years, the present complaint is filed.  To that effect, the OP No.1 filed Ex.18.  A perusal of the same would go to show that all the works in the unit No.294 have been completed in all aspects except gas connection, security demonstration, front lawn, shower cubicle 1 no. in bath 4; duct lowers in terrace-2 nos and thereby asked the Complainant to make any functional complaints during 55 days period from the date of the letter and thereafter the company would fix on a chargeable basis.  This letter bears the signature of the Complainant.  Under Ex.B21, the Opposite party No.1 asked the Complainant to clear the balance dues and proceed for registration of the unit.  Again under Ex.B23, the OP No.1 sought the Complainant to confirm the registration of the unit.  Even otherwise, to the notice Ex.A17 dated 19.07.2014 got issued by the Complainant, the OP No.1 gave reply vide Ex.B29 on 11.08.2014.  The complainant would contend that by e-mail dated 16.07.2014 the Ops gave the official handover of the house and registration of house with a condition to undertake an undated letter. 

22.     On perusal of said e-mail dated 16.07.2014 marked as Ex.A16, it is clear that the Opposite party No.1 requested the Complainant to find the LOU for his reference and asked to sign on both the pages but instructed not to put the date anywhere in the document as it needs to be franked.  Nowhere it informed that the house is handed over to the Complainant.  However, in the same letter, it informed the complainant that if you do not sign the LOU, your right will be over and hence asked him to come to the office as per his convenience to do the needful.  From this letter, it is clear that only registration remained to be done and the house was handed over in the month of June 2012 itself, as is evident from Ex.B21 as also from the photographs marked as Ex.B34. 

23.     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 house was handed over to the complainant on 22.06.2012 under Ex.B21.  As per the terms of Agreement of sale dated 27.04.2006, the house was agreed to be constructed within 24 months from the date of agreement with a grace period of 3 months, which would conclude on 27.07.2008.  Admittedly, the house was handed over on 22.06.2012 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. 

24.     Not keeping-up promise to complete construction of the villa/house within the stipulated period and failure to deliver possession of the house 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 house/villa 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 Complainant entered into agreement for sale dated 27.04.2006 for purchase of villa on his name for his occupation and enjoyment, as such, he falls within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act and the present dispute raised by the Complainant is a consumer dispute.  As stated above, though the OP No.1 alleged to have handed over the house on 22.06.2012, some items are yet to be completed, which constitutes cause of action which is continuing one.  Admittedly, the complaint is filed on 14.08.2014, which is within limitation as the cause of action is continuing one.  Nothing is whispered by the OP No.1 during the course of arguments whether the left over items are completed yet or not.  Hence, in view of the discussions made above, we answer the points 1 to 3 in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite parties. 

26.     The counsel for OP No.3 would contend that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP No.3 on the premise that OP No.3 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 27.04.2006 and the last payment was made on 07.09.2007 by which time, the Opposite party No.3 was not on Board as is evident from the Form-32.  From-32 depicts that OP No.3 was appointed as Director of M/s Maytas Properties Limited w.e.f. 22.01.2011.  As such, there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP No.3 and as such, OP No.3 is no way liable and responsible for the acts of the OP No.1. 

27.     POINT No.3 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 and 2

(a)      to complete the construction of the villa/house bearing No.294 admeasuring 359 square yards, comprising of 3055 square feet of super built-up area out of total land measuring Ac.85-36 in Sy.Nos.192/P, 193/P, 194/P, 196/P, 197/P, 198/P, 201/P and 282/P, situated at 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 complainant

(b)      to pay an amount of Rs.1,22,200/- (i.e., @ Rs.15,275/- per month for 3055 square feet as compensation for a period of 8 months); 

(c)      The Complainant shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,54,280/-, in addition to the stamp duty and registration charges to the Opposite party No.1 and 2.  The complaint against OP No.3 is dismissed but without costs. 

(d)      to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 

Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT                             MEMBER

Dated : 03.01.2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of P.Srinivasa Varma                  Affidavit evidence of P.Vasudeva

                                                                   Rao (on behalf of Ops 1 to 3)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of provisional allotment dated 20.01.2006 issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2 is Photostat copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.9,53,426/-, dated 20.01.2006.

Ex.A3 is Photostat copy of Agreement of sale, dated 27.04.2006 executed by OP No.1 in favour of Complainant.

Ex.A4 is Photostat copy of Acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.5,52,635/- dated 10.03.2006.

Ex.A5 is Photostat copy of Acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.7,17,565/- dated 12.06.2006.

Ex.A6 is Photostat copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.16,95,200/- dt.21.07.2006.

Ex.A7 is Photostat copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.17,55,611/- dt.02.11.2006.

Ex.A8 is Photostat copy of letter dated 28.05.2007 addressed by the OP No.1 to the Complainant.

Ex.A9 is copy of acknowledgement cum receipt for Rs.13,23,258/- dated 07.09.2007.

Ex.A10 is copy of offer letter issued by IDBI Bank, offering home loan of Rs.75,00,000/- to the Complainant.

Ex.A11 is copy of Tripartite Agreement entered into by the OP No.1, Complainant and the IDBI Bank Ltd.,

Ex.A12 is copy of Home Loan Agreement dated 31.05.2006 entered into by the Complainant and the IDBI Bank.

Ex.A13 is copy of customer account ledger of the Complainant for the period from 01.01.2001 to 07.07.2014.

Ex.A14 is copy of statement of account furnished by the OP No.1, dated 22.06.2012.

Ex.A15 is copy of letter dated 22.06.2012 addressed by the OP No.1 to the Complainant.

Ex.A16 is copy of e-mail, dated 16.07.2014 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant.

Ex.A17 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 19.07.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A18 is original postal receipt dated 19.07.2014 addressed to the OP No.1.

Ex.A19 is copy of Fresh Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name of Maytas Properties Limited to Hill County Properties Limited, dated 16.08.2013 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh.

Ex.A20 is the copy of Form 32 showing appointment of Sri Murlidhar Khattar as Director or Director of the OP No.1 company w.e.f. 30.09.2011 and appointment of Sri Arun Kumar Saha as Additional Director w.e.f. 22.01.2011.

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 appraising 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 appraising 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.B11 is 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 10.01.2012 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant requesting to inspect the Bungalow No.294 which is ready for inspection.

Ex.B18 is copy of letter dated 22.06.2012 confirming that the unit No.294 is ready for interior fitment work, containing signature of the Complainant.

Ex.B19 is copy of e-mail, dated 12.12.2012 addressed by customer service of OP No.1 to the Complainant.

Ex.B20 is copy of e-mail, dated 11.01.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers. 

Ex.B21 is copy of e-mail, dated 10.09.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant requesting to clear the balance dues so as to proceed for registration of the unit No.294.

Ex.B22 is copy of e-mail, dated 15.07.2014 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant requesting to sign the Letter of Undertaking.

Ex.B23 is copy of e-mail, dated 19.12.2015 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant asking to confirm the registration of the unit.

Ex.B24 is copy of letter dated 23.08.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to its customers.

Ex.B25 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.B26 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.B27 is copy of letter dated 12.12.2012 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.

Ex.B28 is copy of e-mail, dated 16.07.2014 addressed by the OP No.1 team to the Complainant asking to sign on the attached letter of undertaking.

Ex.B29 is copy of reply notice dated 11.08.2014 got issued by the OP No.1 to the counsel for Complainant. its customer appraising of the progress of construction.

Ex.B30 is copy of letter dated 31.05.2013 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.

Ex.B31 is copy of letter dated 17.01.2014 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.

Ex.B32 is copy of letter dated 22.08.2014 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.

Ex.B33 is copy of letter dated 16.05.2015 and letter dated 14.09.2015 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.

Ex.B34 are the photographs showing independent house No.294 as on 18.11.2016, where the Complainant is residing.

Ex.B35 is the copy of reply notice, dated 11.08.2014 (replica of Ex.B29).

PRESIDENT                             MEMBER

Dated : 03.01.2017

​