STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CC NO. 258 OF 2014
Date of filing : 31.10.2014
Date of Disposal : 04.11.2016
Between :
Sudheer Reddy Vajrala
S/o Sri Jamala Reddy,
Aged about 37 years, Occ: employee,
C/o Praveen Reddy Vajrala, Flat No.201,
MIG II 738, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad – 72, Rep. by GPA Holder
Praveen Reddy Vajrala.
… Complainant
AND
1) The Managing Director,
Mr. Hari Challa, S/o. Sri CVR Chowdary,
Aliens Developers Pvt., Ltd.,
2) The Joint Managing Director,
Mr. Venkata Prasanna Challa,
S/o Sri CVR Chowdary,
Aliens Developers Pvt., Ltd.,
(Both Corp. Off. Aliens Space Station,
Gachibowli, Tellapur, Hyderabad – 500032.)
(Both are R/o. Flat No.910, Teja block,
My home Navadweepa,
Madhapur, Hyderabad -82).
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri Saibaba Pampana
Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar
CC NO. 313 OF 2014
Date of filing : 16.11.2015
Date of Disposal : 04.11.2016
Between :
1) Manog Garg S/o Vijay Kumar Garg,
aged 37 years, Occ: Private Service,
2) Smt. Vinita Garg W/o Manoj Garg,
aged 36 years, Occ: Housewife,
Both R/o Flat No.203,
Gayatri Plaza, Plot No.10 and 11,
Road No.3, Jyothi Colony,
Near AOC Centre, Secunderabad – 15.
…Complainants
AND
1) M/s. Aliens Developers Pvt., Limited,
Regd. Off: Flat No.911, Teja Block,
My Homes Navdweepa Apartments,
Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500081
Site office at: Aliens Space Station –I,
III floor, Tellapur Village,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak district.
2) The Managing Director,
Regd. Off: Flat No.911, Teja Block,
My Homes Navdweepa Apartments,
Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500081
Site office at: Aliens Space Station –I, III floor,
Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,
Medak district.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainants : Sri Movva Srinivas
Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar
CC NO. 316 OF 2014
Date of filing : 16.11.2015
Date of Disposal : 04.11.2016
Between :
Abhijit Banshelkikar S/o Ramakant Banshelkikar
Aged 39 years, residing at B2-102,
Kumar Primavera, Sainath Nagar,
Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411 014.
…Complainant
AND
1) M/s. Aliens Developers Private Limited,
Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,
Aliens Space Station, survey No.384, 385
3rd Floor, Tellapur, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad, Telangana.
2) Joint Managing Director,
Venkata Prasanna Challa,
S/o CVR Chowdhary, Aliens Space Station,
Survey No.384, 385, 3rd Floor,
Tellapur, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri A.Naveen Kumar
Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Friday, the Fourth day of November
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
The complaints arise out of identical facts and similar circumstances, as such, they are disposed of by common order. The complaint, CC No.258/2014 is taken as lead case.
2. The case of the Complainants in brief, is that the Opposite party No.1 company represented to them that they are engaged in the business of constructing multistoried apartments and entered into development agreement with the owners of the land comprised in survey nos. 384, 385 and 426/A situate at Tellapur village ,Ramchandrapur Mandal, Medak district to construct high rise apartments under the name and style of ‘Aliens Space Station’ and obtained permission bearing No.HUDA/621/P4/PLG/HUDA/2008 and they would provide all amenities therefor, possession by the end of December, 2011/ December 2012 with a grace period of 6 months and on such representation of the opposite parties, the complainants entered into agreement of sale for purchase of flats, having super built-up area with one car parking along with undivided share of land.
3. The complainants entered into agreements of sale in respect of flat No.1049 on 10th floor of Station-8, flat No.1930 on 19th floor of Station-5, and flat No.471 on 4th floor of Station-12 with built-up area of 1687 sft, 1597 sft., and 1344 sft., along with undivided share of land of 36.27 sq. yards, 34.34 sq.yards and 28.90 sq.yards, for total consideration of Rs.45,45,032/-, Rs.51,34,692/- & Rs.38,50,101/- respectively. The complainants paid Rs.20,40,761/- in respect of flat No.1049, Rs.24,67,533/- in respect of flat No.1930 and Rs.20,70,000/- in respect of flat No.471. The Opposite parties had not commenced construction of the flats even after the stipulated period is expired and there is no possibility of the construction of the flats as also the Opposite parties had not responded to the repeated requests of the Complainants. The Complainants had sought for return of the amount with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of respective payment till realization and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.20,000/-, in each case.
4. The opposite parties no.1 and 3 resisted the claim on the premise that the Complainant filed the complaint to gain out of the breach of contract and the complaint is not maintainable in view of there being no consumer dispute and the arbitration clause in the agreement of sale providing for arbitration. It is contended that the complaint is filed for recovery of money which is not a consumer dispute and that once the agreement is cancelled and account is settled there is no relationship between the parties.
5. The opposite parties submitted that on their application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and FTL clearance, permission was granted for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land on 14.04.2007 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006 and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the opposite patties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in survey number 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 survey number 384 is made. Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and the permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008. The opposite parties have obtained NOC from the AP Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and permission was granted in respect of the building with height of 90.40 meters. The opposite parties obtained NOC from Airport Authority on 10.07.2009.
6. The opposite parties have submitted that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 upper floors and release of building permission up to 29 floors is awaited. The opposite parties have taken all necessary steps to complete the project at the earliest and the project being massive and due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties, the opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame. The opposite parties informed the complainants about the delay in completion of the project due to delay in clearance from the authorities concerned. In view of arbitration clause, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.
7. The opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sqft in terms of Clause VIII (g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainants. The opposite parties completed some of the Towers and delivered them to the customers. Unexpected global recession, separate Telangana Agitation and the mass people strike affected the construction which is beyond the control of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The complainants not bearing with the opposite parties taking advantage of the situation opted to take back their amounts instead of the flats.
8. The complainants failed to pay balance sale consideration as per the terms of the Agreement. If the complainants cancel the agreement and take back their money, they will forego amount towards cancellation charges and to avoid the same, they approached this Commission. The opposite parties had taken every care as to the benefit of their customers and incorporated clause in the Agreement as to their liability to pay damages @Rs.3/- per sq.ft. which would show their fairness and the complainants are not entitled to any money or compensation. The Complainants are 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 parties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The Complainant in CC No.258/2014 filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to 13. The first Complainant in CC No.313/2014 filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.A1 to A9. The Complainant in CC No.316/2014 filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.A1 to A4. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Managing Director of the Opposite party no.1 filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B19.
10. The counsel for the Complainants and the Opposite parties had advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version in addition to filing written arguments by either of them. Heard both sides.
11. 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 parties?
iv) To what relief ?
12. POINT NO.1 : The Complainants entered into “Agreement of Sale” with the Opposite parties for purchase of flats bearing No.1049 on 10th floor of Station-8, flat No.1930 on 19th floor of Station-5 and flat No.471 on 4th floor of Station-12 of Space Station-1 proposed tobe constructed by the Opposite parties. The agreement of sale were entered into between the Complainants and the Opposite parties in respect of the above stated flats on 17.08.2009, 12.01.2012 and 16.06.2009. Thereafter, the Complainants paid the part consideration amount as per the pricing pattern of the flat issued by the Ops on various dates. 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.
13. 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.”
Thus, in view of the ratio laid in aforementioned decision, the consumer has two options, either to proceed for arbitration process or to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement. 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 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. They relied on Section 72 of Indian Contract Act supported by the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority reported in III (2005) CPJ 43 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court opined that grant of interest @ 18% p.a. by way of damages and compensation is justified. He further relied on decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs.Balbir Singh reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 wherein it is stated “in our view, irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies must be returned with interest @ 18%.” This Commission perused the said Judgments. In Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the interest shall be payable from the dates of deposit of the amounts till the date of repayment.
15. On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite parties in the arguments submitted that as per agreement, if the Complainants want to cancel the booking of the flat, they shall forego 10% of the total flat cost as charges which is agreed by them and in that regard, relied on Judgment reported in 2009 (2) CPR 197 (NC) : II (2009) CPJ 276 (NC) in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another Vs. Shyam Sunder Tiwari and others, wherein, it is held that “courts cannot add anything or improve upon the terms of contract between the parties.” However, this Commission perused the said order. The facts of the said case and facts of the case on hand are different. In the said case, the Petitioner Authority withdrew the scheme and there was provision for refund of earnest money. 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, 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.
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 and conditions agreed upon and consented thereto and as per specifications given therein. The Development Agreement is not merely an agreement and in fact, it is “Development Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney”.
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 No Objection Certificate 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’.
18. The force majeure clause in the Agreement of sale does not include within its ambit the delay caused in granting permission, NOC etc., The Opposite parties failed to explain how they could take shelter under the cover of “force majeure”. We may state that the delay caused in obtaining permission or NOC etc., cannot be considered as ‘force majeure’. The opposite parties ought to have informed the complainants about the delay likely to be caused in obtaining the permission which they failed to. For that matter, the Opposite parties cannot receive any sale consideration from any person in respect of any flat unless they have obtained permission from HUDA or HMDA.
19. The complainants have submitted that owing to failure of the opposite parties in completing the construction of the subject flats, they opted for cancellation of the agreement of sale of flats and the opposite parties 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 got issued a notice to the Opposite parties through their counsel setting forth series of events of delay and negligence and false promises made by the Opposite parties seeking for refund of the amount on the premise of inaction on the part of the opposite parties.
20. The opposite parties have promised to complete construction of the flat and hand over its possession to the complainant by December 2011/2012 with a grace period of six months as agreed and on their failure to perform their part of contract, the opposite parties 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. Having received the part sale consideration amount, the Opposite parties kept with them without commencing the construction work of the building.
21. Not keeping-up 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.
22. The Opposite parties can only receive such amount of sale consideration which would be in accordance with the payment schedule and correspond to the stage of construction of the flats. However, the Opposite parties had received the sale consideration in excess of what was to be received from the complainants particularly the construction of the building was not yet commenced. Not keeping-up the promise to complete construction of the building and failure to deliver possession of the flat as also not keeping-up promise to refund the amount as per the terms of the repayment scheduler constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.
23. The complainants claimed refund of amount paid together with interest besides claim for damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainants cannot be said to have acquiesced to the delay in construction of the project. Though the complainants have not disputed that the opposite parties have informed them about the cause for delay in obtaining permission and NOC etc., which does not disentitle them from claiming compensation. The complainants are entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount paid from the date of complaint till realization. For the reasons stated supra, the Points No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.
24. It is pertinent to state here that though the Complainant in CC No.313/2014 claimed to have paid an amount of Rs.24,67,533/-, no piece of paper evidencing the same is filed to that effect. However, under Ex.A5, the Opposite parties admitted to have received the amount of Rs.24,39,795/-, which, we have no hesitation to consider the same.
25. POINT No.4 : In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly holding that the Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the Complainants.
26. In the result, the complaints are allowed holding the Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainants. In case, sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above direction. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1. Time for compliance four weeks.
27. (i) CC NO.258/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,40,761/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
(ii) CC NO.313/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.24,39,795/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
(iii) CC NO.316/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,70,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 04.11.2016
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
CC NO.258 OF 2014
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant : For Opposite parties :
Affidavit evidence of Sudheer Affidavit evidence of Hari
Reddy Vajrala. Challa.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant :
Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of the letter dated 26.08.2014 issued by the State Bank of India, PBB Abids Circle branch, Hyderabad certifying the holding of original documents with them.
Ex.A2 is Photostat copy of Power of Attorney, 24.12.2009 executed by Sudheer R.Vajrala in favour of Praveen Reddy Vajrala.
Ex.A3 is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 27.02.2010 executed by the Ops in favour of the Complainants.
Ex.A4 is original receipt bearing No.03766, dated 15.08.2009 for Rs.62,000/-.
Ex.A5 is original receipt bearing No.04016, dated 23.09.2009 for Rs.1,88,000/-.
Ex.A6 is original receipt bearing No.04208, dated 27.10.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/-.
Ex.A7 is original receipt bearing No.05439, dated 09.04.2010 for Rs.15,90,761/-.
Ex.A8 is the copy of sanction proceedings of term loan for Rs.36,36,000/-, issued by the State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad.
Ex.A9 is the original acknowledgement for Rs.15,90,761/-, dated 07.06.2014 passed by the Ops.
Ex.A10 is the statement of account furnished by the Complainant’s banker, in respect of the home loan account, for the period from 07.04.2010 to 28.06.2014.
Ex.A11 is office copy of the legal notice, dated 02.09.2014 got issued by the Complainant to Ops.
Ex.A12 are the original postal receipts of Ex.A11 notice.
Ex.A13 are the two original postal returned covers
CC NO.313 OF 2014
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant : For Opposite parties :
Affidavit evidence of Manoj Affidavit evidence of Hari
Garg. Challa.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainants :
Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 12.01.2012 executed by the Ops in favour of the Complainants.
Ex.A2 is copy of the Arrangement letter of Home Loan issued by the State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad dated 06.02.2012.
Ex.A3 is the account details of the Complainants’ home loan, for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013.
Ex.A4 is the office copy of letter addressed by the Complainants to the Ops, dated 02.08.2014.
Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by the Ops to the Complainant acknowledging the receipt of amount of Rs.959,545/-.
Ex.A6 is the office copy of notice dated 11.08.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Ops.
Ex.A7 are the original postal receipts of Ex.A6 notice.
Ex.A8 are the original postal acknowledgements of the notice acknowledged by the Ops.
Ex.A9 is the original returned postal cover.
CC NO.316 OF 2014
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant : For Opposite parties :
Affidavit evidence of Abhijit Banshelkikar Affidavit evidence of Hari
Challa.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant :
Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of the Agreement of sale dated 16.06.2009 executed by the Ops in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A2 are Photostat copies of the receipts bearing (i) No.08027, dated 18.08.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/-; (ii) No.04128, dated 31.10.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/-; (iii) No.681, dated 23.09.2009 for Rs.9,00,000/-; (iv) No.03449, dated 20.06.2009 for Rs.5,20,000/-; (v) No.03345, dated 21.05.2009 for Rs.2,50,000/-.
Ex.A3 is the Photostat copy of acknowledgement dated 09.05.2009 for Rs.2,50,000/- passed by the Ops.
Ex.A4 is the Photostat copy of letter dated 23.06.2009 addressed by the Ops to Complainant.
For Opposite parties (common in all cases) :
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.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 04.11.2016
