STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CC NO.263 OF 2014
Between :
Suman Jagannath W/o B.V. Rama Raju,
Aged about 48 years, R/o Flat No.303,
Bhanu Residency, Plot No.152,
Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.
… 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 the house forthwith on completion in all aspects as agreed and on obtaining necessary permissions thereof; to pay fair rental value of Rs.10/- per square feet per month from 01.07.2008 to till handing over of the possession or to pay rent of Rs.40,000/- per month from 01.07.2008 to till handing over of the house; to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- 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.77 admeasuring 589 square yards, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,43,89,387/- and entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.03.2006. In pursuance of the agreement, the Complainant paid 95% of the sale consideration leaving a balance of Rs.7,19,469/- to be paid at the time of handing over the possession of house by completing in all aspects as per the specifications agreed thereto. As per agreement, Ops agreed to complete the house on or before 24.06.2008 with grace period of 3 months, failing which, agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.5/- per square feet per month till handing over the house.
4. After much persuasion, by letter dated 05.04.2013, the Ops agreed to handover the possession of house, however, they failed to come forward for registration, hence, Complainant wrote a letter dated 11.03.2014 for transfer of house. Meanwhile, it has come to the notice of Complainant that villa No.77 was under the mortgage with the appropriate authority thereby Ops are refraining to register the house in favour of the Complainant. It appears, by concealing the said fact, Ops have sold the said villa to the Complainant. Having received the major part of sale consideration, Ops failed to handover the possession which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, Complainant got issued the notice dated 12.04.2014. Hence the complaint with the prayer as stated, supra, in paragraph No.1.
5. 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 possession of the unit was completed and handed over to the Complainant on 14.04.2009. The agreement for sale was entered on 24.03.2006 as per which the unit was to be delivered on 24.06.2008. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 24.06.2008 and the Complainant has preferred the present complaint 6 years after the completion of the unit. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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, 260 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.
9. OP No.1 has completed construction of houses and apartments in Hill County with amenities like Power Sub-stations, permanent Sewage Treatment Plant (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.
10. In compliance of orders dated 05.12.2012 of Hon’ble High Court in WP No.11412/2012, the Department of Income-Tax has lifted ban on registrations of flats/independent houses. Registration of independent houses and apartments have also commenced and customers are coming forward to get their units registered. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Ops 2 and 3 were appointed as Directors on the board of OP No.1, therefore, individually and personally they cannot be made responsible for the situations occurred before induction of the new promoters and they are no way concerned.
11. The Complainant and her husband purchased two bungalows No.77 and 228. Since they were aware that there is a HUDA mortgage on Villa No.77, they have not obtained any Home Loan on the same and paid the entire amount through their own funds and kept the registration pending. Since there is no mortgage on Villa No.228, they availed home loan from State Bank of India and accordingly released an amount of Rs.72,43,838/- in favour of OP No.1 and Bungalow No.228 is registered in the name of Complainant’s husband. Complainant’s husband already received compensation of Rs.5/- per sft for Bungalow No.228.
12. OP No.1 had obtained lay-out permission from HUDA, vide Letter No.5876/MP2 /PLG/H/2005, dated 21.03.2006. It was informed to Complainant that house No.77 was under HUDA mortgage. In spite of the same, she insisted for allotment of the same and preferred to purchase the same. Complainant accepted the handover of house by taking one set of keys from OP No.1 vide letter dated 14.04.2009, at which time, she did not ask for registration, since she was aware of HUDA mortgage. After 8 months of enjoying possession of the house, on 22.12.2009 the husband of Complainant came and returned the keys for the purpose of fixing some snag points. Vide letter 05.04.2013 they requested the Complainant to clear all dues payable but she chose to remain silent. OP No.1 sent email dated 31.12.2014 intimating the Complainant that the house has been released from mortgage and requested her to proceed for registration.
13. 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 April 2009 without paying the balance 5% consideration. The OP No.1 has repeated requested the Complainant take back the possession of the unit by making payment of the dues vide various e-mails dated 31.12.2014, 07.01.2015 and 13.02.2015. 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 her affidavit as evidence and the documents Ex.A1 to A18. 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 B30.
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 : The Complainant entered into “Agreement of Sale” on 24.03.2006 with the Opposite party No.1 for purchase of villa No.77 admeasuring 589 square yards comprising of 4274 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.1,43,89,387/- and paid 95% thereof leaving balance of Rs.7,19,469/-, 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 24.06.2008.
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.77 and Complainant accepted the handover of house by taking one set of keys from OP No.1 vide letter dated 14.04.2009, at which time, she did not ask for registration, since she was aware of HUDA mortgage. 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 husband of Complainant also purchased another house/villa No.228 by obtaining the Home loan from State Bank of India, of which, the sale deed was executed and conveyed the property in favour of her husband. As against the same, nothing is whispered by the Complainant either in the affidavit evidence or in the written arguments filed. It would also contend that knowing fully well that the Villa No.77 is under HMDA mortgage, the Complainant opted for purchase of the same and paid 95% of sale consideration on her own volition without going for Home Loan. Though the Developer stated to have registered the sale deed in favour of the husband of Complainant, nothing prevented it from filing the copy of the same, which it failed to.
21. The Developer would further contend that after enjoying the possession of house/villa No.77 for more than 8 months, the husband of Complainant returned back the keys for the purpose of fixing some snag points. To that effect, the OP No.1 filed Ex.B22. A perusal of the same would go to show that 1 set of 19 keys of Unit No.77 were acknowledged by the Complainant on 14.04.2009 and later on 22.12.2009, her husband, on her behalf, returned the same stating that the villa V2/77 is not ready for handover. No evidence is placed on record to show that Villa No.77 was made ready and ready for handing over. However, Ex.B18 letter dated 05.04.2013 filed by the Developer itself reads as follows:
“Dear Mr.Suman Jagannath
Sub: Intimation of the readiness of your Bungalow/Villa
Greetings from Hill County…!
We are happy to inform you that you’re Bungalow No.77 is ready for inspection.
We request you to please visit your Bungalow for the inspection after 15th April 2013 post which your Bungalow would be handed over to you once you have cleared all your dues.”
From the above reading, it is evident that the Bungalow/Villa No.77 which is the subject matter of this complaint is not completed and the document Ex.B22 filed by them stating to have handed over the Villa No.77 falsifies their own statement that the villa was handed over to the Complainant on 14.04.2009. If really the villa was completed and the possession was handed over to the Complainant on 14.04.2009 itself, there was no occasion for the Developer/OP No.1 to address Ex.B18 letter. Even otherwise, to the notice Ex.A14 dated 12.04.2014 got issued by the Complainant, the OP No.1 gave reply vide Ex.A16 on 29.04.2014. Ex.A16 does not find place the pleas as contended by the developer.
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. However, in this regard, we may state that the delay did not end thereof, but it continued for long years 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. Not keeping-up promise to complete construction of the villa/house 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 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.”
24. The Complainant entered into agreement for sale dated 24.03.2006 for purchase of villa on her name for her occupation and enjoyment, as such, she falls within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act and the present dispute raised by the Complainant is a consumer dispute. Hence, in view of the discussions made above, we answer the points 1 and 2 in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite parties.
25. 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 24.03.2006 and the last payment was made on 30.06.2007 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.
26. 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.77 admeasuring 589 square yards, comprising of 4274 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, deliver its possession to the Complainant and handover copy of Occupancy Certificate to the complainant
(b) to pay an amount of Rs.1,70,960/- (i.e., @ Rs.21,370/- per month for 4274 square feet as compensation for a period of 8 months);
(c) The Complainant shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,19,469/- 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.6,000/- 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 Suman Jagannath Affidavit evidence of P.Vasudeva
Rao (on behalf of Ops 1 to 3)
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant :
Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, dated 24.03.2006 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A2 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 08.02.2006 for Rs.7,24,531/- executed by the Opposite party No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A3 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 03.03.2006 for Rs.21,76,696/- passed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A4 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 30.06.2006 for Rs.28,54,529/- executed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A5 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 03.11.2006 for Rs.29,88,669/- executed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A6 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 28.02.2007 for Rs.29,94,117/- executed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A7 is Photostat copy of letter dated 28.05.2007 addressed by the OP No.1 to the Complainant, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,17,38,571/-.
Ex.A8 is Photostat copy of letter dated 15.06.2007 addressed by the Opposite party No.1 to the Complainant requesting to make payment of Rs.22,46,447/- being the dues.
Ex.A9 is Photostat copy of letter dated 21.06.2007 addressed by the OP No.1 to the Complainant requesting to pay the due amount on or before 30.06.2007.
Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 29.06.2007 for Rs.6,50,000/- passed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 29.06.2007 for Rs.15,96,447/- passed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A12 is Photostat copy of receipt dated 30.06.2007 for Rs.1,25,000/- passed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A13 is copy of letter dated 11.03.2014 addressed by the Complainant to the OP No.1 seeking registration and handing over of the house/villa No.77.
Ex.A14 is office copy of the legal notice dated 12.04.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.
Ex.A15 are the original postal receipt, dated 13.04.2014 and original postal acknowledgement of OP No.1.
Ex.A16 is the reply notice, dated 29.04.2014 sent by OP No.1 to the counsel for complainant.
Ex.A17 is the 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.A18 is the copy of Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.2.
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 order sdated 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 Director by name Byrraju Ramaraju, declaring to have not associated with Maytas Properties Limited w.e.f. 07.02.2011 and also Form-32 appointing Arun Kumar Saha, as Director of Maytas Properties Limited w.e.f. 28.01.2011.
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 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 email dated 08.12.2008 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant informing that the subject unit No.77 is ready for handover.
Ex.B18 is copy of letter dated 05.04.2013 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant informing to visit her Bungalow for the inspection after 15th April 2013 to take possession after clearing the dues.
Ex.B19 is copy of email dated 31.12.2014 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant informing that the HMDA mortgage has been released for Unit No.77.
Ex.B20 is copy of email dated 07.01.2015 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant informing that the HMDA mortgage has been released for Unit No.77.
Ex.B21 is copy of email dated 13.02.2015 addressed by OP No.1 to Mr.Vijyramaraju informing that the HMDA mortgage has been released for Unit No.77.
Ex.B22 is copy of letter dated 14.04.2009 addressed by the complainant to the Manager-CRM of OP No.1, acknowledging the receipt of 1 set of 19 keys of unit No.77 and further endorsement of returning of the keys by the husband of Complainant on 22.12.2009.
Ex.B23 is letter dated 23.08.2013 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising of the progress of construction.
Ex.B24 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.B25 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.B26 is copy of letter dated 12.12.2012 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.
Ex.B27 is copy of letter dated 31.05.2013 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.
Ex.B28 is copy of letter dated 17.01.2014 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.
Ex.B29 is copy of letter dated 22.08.2014 addressed by the OP No.1 to its customer appraising the progress of construction.
Ex.B30 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.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 03.01.2017
