BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st MARCH 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMMON ORDER IN
C.C.Nos. 77,78,124,181,204/2015 AND 183/2014
CC.No.77/2015
(Admitted on 28.02.2015)
Mr. Albert Mascarenhas,
S/o. Xavier Mascarenhas,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at D1, Shalom Apartment,
Fr. Mullay’s Road, Kankanady Post.
Mangalore 575 002. …… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt Ltd.,
No. 11. Hayes Road, Bangalore 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
2. Eternity Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road, Bangalore 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
3. Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt Ltd,
Ground Floor, Manasa Towers, Kodialbai,
Mangalore 575 003. …… OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.1 & 3, : Ex Parte)
(Advocate for Opposite party No. 2 by Sri Vikas Kumar)
CC.No.78/2015
(Admitted on 28.02.2015)
1. Mrs. Adel Fernandes,
W/o. Aldrine Fernandes,
Aged about 30 years,
2. Mr. Aldrine Fernandes,
S/o. Stany Fernandes,
Aged about 33 years,
Both are residing at Flat No. 102,
Celeste, Mercara Hill Road,
Bendore, Mangalore. …… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt Ltd.,
No. 11. Hayes Road, Bangalore 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
2. Eternity Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road, Bangalore 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
3. Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt Ltd,
Ground Floor, Manasa Towers, Kodialbai,
Mangalore 575 003. …… OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.1 & 3, Ex Parte)
(Advocate for Opposite party No. 2 by Sri Vikas Kumar)
CC.No.181/2015
(Admitted on 02.06.2015)
1. Mrs. Princy Sonia D Cunha,
W/o. Almor D’Cunha,
Aged about 29 years,
2. Mr. Almor D Cunha,
S/o. Late Austin D’Cunha,
Aged about 32 years,
Both are residing at Lawna Cottage,
Bejai, Mangalore 575 004. …… COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
1. Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt Ltd.,
No. 11. Hayes Road, Bangalore 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
2. Eternity Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road, Bangalore 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
3. Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt Ltd,
Ground Floor, Manasa Towers, Kodialbai,
Mangalore 575 003. …… OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite party No. 1
(Opposite Party No. 3 Ex Parte)
(Advocate for Opposite party No. 2 by Sri Vikas Kumar)
CC.No.183/2014
(Admitted on 30.05.2014)
Sri B. Vasudeva Rao,
S/o B. Ramachandra Rao
Aged about 78 years,
Tulsi Sadana,
Kadri Kambla Road,
Mangalore. …… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Skyline constructions & Housing,
Pvt Ltd., Ground Floor, Manasa
Towers Near PVS Circle,
Kodialbail,
Mangalore
2. M/s Eternity Developers Pvt Ltd.
Ground floor, Manasa Towers,
M.G.Road, Kodialbail,
Mangalore 3.
3. Sri. Dhiraj Prabhu,
Director: M/s Eternity Developer’s
Pvt Ltd., No. 11, Hayes Road,
Bangalore 25 …… OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite party No. 1 to 3 by Sri Vikas Kumar)
CC.No.124/2015
(Admitted on 13.04.2015)
1. Mr. Rupert Clement Rego,
S/o Robert F Rego,
Aged 45 years,
Flat No. 502, The corniche,
Sulthan Bathery Road,
Urva Mangalore.
2. Mr Reuben Christopher Rego
S/o Robert F Rego,
Aged 44 years,
Flat No. 203, Inland Pristine,
Opp: Sacred Hearts School,
Kulshekar, Mangalore
Rep. by his GPA holder,
Mrs Geetha Jennifer Rego. …… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/s Eternity Developers Pvt Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road,
Bangalore 560025.
Represented by its
Director:
1) Mr. DHIRAJ PRABHU,
2) Mr. AVINASH PRABHU, …… OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite party No. 1 by Sri Vikas Kumar)
CC.No.204/2015
(Admitted on 10.07.2015)
Umashankar N.H
S/o Hala Naik,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No 22-2, Sri Devi Kripa
3rd Cross Road, Anegundi,
Bejai, Mangalore. …… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Sky Line constructions & Housing (P) Ltd.,
Shop No. 12.15, Door No. 4.9.764/1&2,
Manasa Tower, Kodialbail,
Mangalore 575003.
2. Eternity Developers Pvt Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office at No. 11,
Hayes Road, Bangalore 560025.
3. Avinash Prabhu,
Managing Director,
Sky Line Construction & Housing (P) Ltd.,
And Director, Etarnity Developers, (P) Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road, Bangalore 560 025
4. Sri. Dheeraj Prabhu,
Director, M/s. Eternity Developers (P) Ltd.,
&Director M/s Eternity Developers,(P) Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road, Bangalore 560025.
5. Mr. Santhosh Kumar,
Director, M/s. Eternity Developers (P) Ltd.,
&Director M/s Eternity Developers,(P) Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road, Bangalore 560025.
6. Mr. Pawan Sawhney,
Director, M/s. Eternity Developers (P) Ltd.,
No. 11, Hayes Road,
Bangalore 560025. …… OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite party No. 1 and 2 by Sri Vikas Kumar)
(Opposite party No. 3 to 6 : Ex Parte
(Advocate for complainant by Sri S.K. Ullal) (CC 77/15)
(Advocate for complainant by Sri S.K. Ullal) (CC 78/15)
(Advocate for complainant by Sri S.K. Ullal) (CC 181/15)
(Advocate for complainant by Sri Udaya Prakash Muliya) (CC124/15)
(Advocate for complainant by Sri Vinay Kumar) (CC 204/15)
(Advocate for complainant by Sri Prashanth K) (CC 183/14)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
I. 1. The above complaints are filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service in housing construction against the common Opposite Parties claiming similar reliefs. In order to save the time as well as for the sake of convenience, we have taken up all the cases together and passed common order as under:-
The brief facts of the case are as under:
1. The above mentioned complainants filed the above complaints against the opposite parties for deficiency in service in housing constructions. All the complainants in the above complaints stated that the opposite parties are the promoter/developers of the proposed Bayview Apartment SKYLINE Blue Berry Hills Phase III AID Mangalore. The above each complainants respectively booked one residential apartments with the Opposite parties and in turn opposite parties directed the complainants to pay certain sum of money mentioned in their respective complaints to the Opposite parties. The Opposite parties assured that the proposed apartments will be completed in all respect within 24 months from the date of the booking. Believing opposite parties the complainants entered into agreement and paid certain some of money as mentioned in their respective complaints to the Opposite parties as demanded by them. All the complainants ready and willing to purchase the aforesaid apartments but opposite parties not even started the construction work and failed to provide the copies of the concerned documents of the apartments, inspite of repeated demand made by the complainants. After waiting long period the complainants got issued legal notices to comply the demand made therein. But the opposite parties failed to comply the same. Feeling aggrieved by the above, the above complaints are filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this FORA to the Opposite Parties to refund the entire sale consideration paid by the complainants to the Opposite parties and also costs of the proceedings.
II. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Except Eternity Developers Pvt. Ltd. rest of the opposite parties in spite of receiving notice not appeared nor represented case till this date. Hence rest of the opposite parties placed Ex parte. Opposite Party eternity developers Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Directors appeared through their counsel filed version stated that, the complaints are premature and the complainant only paid two installments and rest of the amount not paid inspite of the demand made by them. It is stated the opposite parties provided all the relevant documents to the complainants and stated that there is no cause of action to file the complaints and the complainants are not the consumers and this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and the complainants has to approach the civil court and sought for dismissal of the complaints.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in above complaints are as under:
Whether the complainants are consumers?
Whether this Fora has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Whether the Complainants are proved that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?
1. In support of the above complaints, all the respective Complainants are examined as CW 1 and produced documents got marked under the Ex. C series. Opposite Parties filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them. Both Parties produced notes of arguments along with citation.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the FORA and answered the points are as follows:
Point No.(i) Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) to (iv) As per the final order.
Reasons
4. Point No. (i) to (v)
The facts of the cases as admitted by both the parties are that the Opposite parties are promoters and builder of Skyline Reveria Apartment. Complainants booked residential apartments with the Opposite parties and paid certain sum of money i.e. the complainant in CC.No.77/2015 paid Rs.6,32,690/ (Rupees Six lakhs thirty two thousand six hundred ninety only), in CC.No.78/2015 paid Rs.4,56,700/ (Rupees Four lakhs fifty six thousand seven hundred only), in CC.No.124/2015 paid Rs.7,52,000/ (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty two thousand only), in CC.No.181/2015 paid Rs.4,25,000/ (Rupees Four lakhs twenty five thousand only), in CC.No.204/2015 paid Rs.3,50,000/ (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only), and in CC.No.183/2014 paid Rs.7,63,103/ (Rupees Seven lakhs sixty three thousand one hundred and three only).
The Opposite parties raised 1st contention that complainants are not consumer and this FORA has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints as the value of the goods or service and the compensation exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- But in all the complaints the value of the goods or service availed by the complainants are within the pecuniary jurisdiction. It is settled position that while considering the pecuniary jurisdiction the relief should not be more than 20 lakhs. For the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction the value of the service plus compensation and costs claimed by the complainants in each complaint should be considered. But in the present case, the value of the services plus compensation and costs claimed by the complainants was below Rs. 20 Lakhs therefore, all the complaints within the pecuniary jurisdiction.
In so far as the maintainability of the complaint under the consumer Protection Act, we are of the view that under the agreement the Opposite parties have undertaken to build a apartments for the complainant and to hand over possession executing the sale deed. Therefore, it is a contract for rendering service and the complaints under the consumer protection act is maintainable.
As far as consumer is concerned Consumer Protection Act 1986 was amended in the year 1993 by substituting the following: As per section 2(1)(d)(ii) indicate that consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service.
Further section 2(1)(o) defines the meaning of service means service of any description which is made available to potential user and includes but not limited or the provision of facilities in connection with banking financing, insurance transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction entertainment amusement or the purveying gof news or other information So the complainants are coming under the definition of consumer.
As for as issued No. 2 is concerned we have heard the counsels for the parties wherein we find that, admittedly the complainants paid certain sum of money to the Opposite parties and the Opposite parties in-turn aggrieved to deliver the apartments within 24 months. Further it is undisputed fact that as per the agreement the complainant paid advance amount and thereafter paid as per the demand as part sale consideration but till this date the Opposite parties not started construction work nor provided the copies of documents shows their sheer negligence towards the proposed buyers herein complainants. It is further seen on record that after collecting the money in other wards after booking the apartments it is the primary duty of the opposite parties to execute agreement of sale and get the sale deed registered and simultaneously delivered possession of the apartments. But in the instant case, the opposite parties not started the construction work even after lapse of more than one and half years. It is admitted in their version that they have got all the formal approval from the government in all manner and all the documents of the same are sent the customers herein complainants. When the application is filed for production of such documents before this FORA the opposite parties failed to comply the same. Further it is seen that the opposite parties are failed to get the approval for license and NOC from the fire department. But in reply to the interrogatories opposite parties admitted that the paper works are under process. These answers shows their negligence and also proved that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and also raised false averments in their version.
As per the ruling reported in CDJ 2013 (cons) Case No. 498 National Commission held that complainant booked a flat which was provided by the petitioner and total amount was deposited allote stated that at the time of booking of the flats, petitioner assured the respondent that they will construct above said flats within certain period as mentioned in brochure and will construct the flats according to the norms of the brochure petitioner has not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the Government and he was not fully authorized to construct the flats within stipulated period-Petitioner alleged that the respondent did not execute the flat Buyer s Agreement with the petitioner Further in consequences of the company abandoning the scheme, company’s liability shall be limited to refund the amount paid by the allotte without any interest-No compensation whatsoever shall be payable-District Forum allowed the complaint State Commission Disused the same
Held that petitioner/builder should be dealt with heavy hands, who after grabbing the money from the purchaser, enjoy and utilize their money but does not hand over the flat-petitioner has made respondent to run from one for a to other so that respondent cannot have any roof over her head and petitioner can go on enjoying respondent’s money without any hindrance Unscrupulous builders like petitioner who after taking entire cost of the flat do not perform its part of obligation, should not be spared-petition dismissed with costs.
The National Commission further ordered as to how to deal with the false averments raised in version, production of false documents by imposing punitive cost to the wrong doer.
Further the National commission held in M/s. A. G. Developers Revision Petition No. 1510/2011 upheld the order of the district Forum that:
We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer forum partly allowing the complaint is just, proper and it is sustainable in law. When the complainants paid total amount of Rs. 19 lakhs in cheques besides some cash amount, it was the duty of the appellant to execute agreement of sale in their favour. Moreover, we are finding that M/s A.G. Building is unable to continue with the construction because of irregularities he had committed in making construction and the corporation has taken strong objection to the appellant carrying on construction without permission and it is unlikely that the appellant would get completion certificate and occupation certificate by the way he had constructed the building and left it in incomplete stage. But, then since the respondents had paid more than 20% amount of the total consideration of the flat i.e. Rs. 19 lakhs, it was the duty of the appellant to execute agreement of sale and to register it in favour of the complainants. So, this was clearly a contractual as well as statutory obligation on the part of the appellant and in not carrying out the said obligation he was surely deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice.
It is further held that Petitioner/builder in the present case wants to have the cake and eat it too as admittedly it has received about 50% of the amount of the flat. Thus, petitioner being the builder is enjoying the possession of the flat as well as substantial amount of consideration paid by the respondents. On the other hand, respondents after having paid substantial amount of consideration are still without any roof.
Such type of unscrupulous act on the part of petitioner/builder should be dealt with heavy hands, who after grabbing the money from the purchaser, enjoy and utilize their money but does not hand over the flat, on one pretext or the other. Petitioner has made respondents run from one for a to other for a during last nine years so that respondents cannot have any roof over their head and petitioner can go on enjoying respondents’ money without any hindrance.
In view of the aforesaid rulings which are aptly applicable to the present case on hand. In the instant case the Opposite parties failed to deliver the apartments or failed to endeavor the development on the project which gave scope for doubts in the minds of the proposed buyers herein complainant. We observed from the record that the Opposite parties failed to perform their promise thereby committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the part sale consideration paid by the complainants in their respective complaints along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. And also pay Rs. 3,000/- each towards the costs of litigation expenses.
In the present cases, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
The complaints are allowed. Opposite Parties jointly and severally shall pay in CC No. 77/2015 and Rs.6,32,690/ (Rupees Six lakhs thirty two thousand six hundred ninety only) to the complainant in CC No. 78/2015 and Rs.4,56,700/ (Rupees Four lakhs fifty six thousand seven hundred only), in CC No. 124/2015 and Rs. 7,52,000/ (Rupees lakhs fifty two thousand only), in CC No. 181/2015 and Rs. 4,25,000/ (Rupees Four lakhs twenty five thousand only), in CC No. 204/2015 and Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only), and in CC No. 183/2014 and Rs.7,63,103/ (Rupees Seven lakhs sixty three thousand one hundred and three only) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the payment till the date of realization and also pay Rs. 3,000/ each as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall made within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 18 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31ST day of MARCH 2016.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Albert Mascarenhas Complainant (CC 77/15)
CW1 Mr. Adel Fernandes Complainant (CC 77/15)
CW1 Mr. Jane Austin D’Cunha Complainant(CC181/15)
CW1 Mr. Umashankar N.H Complainant(CC204/15)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party:
RW1 Mr. Dhiraj Prabhu Complainant. (CC 77/15)
RW1 Mr. Dhiraj Prabhu Complainant. (CC 78/15)
RW1 Mr. Dhiraj Prabhu Complainant. (CC181/15)
RW1 Mr. Dhiraj Prabhu Complainant. (CC204/15)
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
in CC No. 77/2015.
Ex C1 14.09.2013 Copy of the application Forum.
Ex C2 14.11.2013 Demand letter by opposite parties.
Ex C3 21.11.2013 Demand letter by opposite parties.
Ex C4 04.11.2014 Demand letter by opposite parties.
Ex C5 02.12.2014 Email communications.
Ex C6 27.12.2014 Legal notice issued to opposite parties.
Ex C7 Acknowledgments (3 in Nons).
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
in CC No. 78/2015.
Ex C1 05.05.2013 Copy of the application Forum.
Ex C2 23.10.2013 Receipt for Rs. 3,00,000/.
Ex C3 23.10.2013 Receipt for Rs. 1,31,700/.
Ex C4 27.05.2013 Notice issued to opposite parties.
Ex C5 19.11.2014 to 17.12.2014 Email communications.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
in CC No. 124/2015.
Ex C1 GPA dated 18.03.2015
Ex C2 E-Mail conversation (31 in Nos)
Ex C3 Draft Sale Agreement.
Ex C4 Temporary receipt issued by Opposite Party(2in No.)
Ex C5 Payment receipts issued by Opposite Party(4 in no.)
Ex C6 Application form of complainant.
Ex C7 Brouches (2 in Nu.)
Ex C8 Proposed apartment plan (2 in no.)
Ex C9 Cheques issued by complainant (2 in no.)
ExC10 Bank Statement of complainant.
ExC11 Legal notice dated 13.01.2015.
ExC12 Postal acknowledgment (2 in No.)
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
in CC No. 181/2015.
Ex C1 06.05.2013 Application Forum demand notice.
Ex C2 Receipt for Rs. 4,25,000/.
Ex C3 10.05.2013 Demand notice issued by O.P.
Ex C4 21.05.2013 Demand notice issued by O.P.
Ex C5 13.06.2013 Letter by the complainant.
Ex C6 13.11.2014 Letter by the complainant.
Ex C7 E Mail communications.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
in CC No. 204/2015.
Ex C1 15.06.2013 Notarized copy of the Advance Booking Temporary Receipt issued by Eternity Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex C2 23.10.3013 Notarized copy of the Advance Booking Receipt No. 342 issued by Eternity Developers Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/.
Ex C3 14.11.2013 Notarised copy of the Receipt No. 371 issued by Eternity Developers Pvt Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 25,000/
Ex C4 06.03.2014 Notarized copy of the Receipt No. 390 issued by Eternity Developers Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 25,000/
Ex C5 28.05.2014 Notice issued by the complainant.
Ex C6 12.07.2014 Copy of the E-Mail.
Ex C7 30.09.2014 Copy of the E-Mail.
Ex C8 03.12.2014 Complaint filed by the complainant before the Kadri Police Station.
Ex C9 26.03.2015 Legal Notice.
ExC10 Acknowledgment
(Service of legal notice to O.P.No.1)
ExC11 Acknowledgment
(Service of legal notice to O.P.No.2)
ExC12 Acknowledgment
(Service of legal notice to O.P.No.3)
ExC13 Acknowledgment
(Service of legal notice to O.P.No.4)
ExC14 Acknowledgment
(Service of legal notice to O.P.No.5)
ExC15 Acknowledgment
(Service of legal notice to O.P.No.6)
ExC16 10.04.2013 Certified copy of the Private complaint filed by the complainant before the J.M.F.C. II Court Mangalore.
ExC17 08.05.2015 Certified copy of the F.I.R registered against the Opposite Party.
ExC18 Xerox copy of the Proposed Residential plan.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
in CC No. 183/2014.
Ex C1 Original receipt issued by the Opposite Parties for having made the installment dated 2nd May 2013 for Rs. 3,05,250/ along with original temporary receipt dated 28th April 2013.
Ex C2 Original receipt issued by the Opposite Parties for having made the installment dated 1st August 2013 for Rs. 4,57,853/
Ex C3 Representation given by the complainant dated 05.07.2013 along with original postal receipt and Acknowledgment card.
Ex C4 Original paper publication given by the opposite parties dated 21st September 2013.
Ex C5 Original Paper publication given by the opposite parties dated 9th November 2013.
Ex C6 Original Paper publication given by the Opposite Parties K.V. Kamath dated 30th November 2013.
Ex C7 Original Paper publication given by the Opposite Parties dated 23rd November 2013.
Ex C8 Certified copy of Non-availability certificate dated 06.04.2015.
Ex C9 R.T.I endorsement dated 17th March 2015.
Documents produced on behalf of the opposite parties:
in CC No. 77/2015.
Ex R1 Copy of the request letter dated 14.10.2014 seeking cancellation of the booking application.
Ex R2 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 29.10.2013.
Ex R3 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 10.10.2013.
Ex R4 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 03.10.2013.
Ex R5 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 29.09.2013
Documents produced on behalf of the opposite parties:
in CC No. 78/2015.
Ex R1 Copy of the request letter dated 17.11.2014 seeking cancellation of the booking application.
Ex R2 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 06.03.2014.
Ex R3 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 13.02.2014.
Ex R4 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 23.01.2014.
Ex R5 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 29.10.2013.
Ex R6 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 10.10.2013.
Ex R7 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 03.10.2013.
Ex R8 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 25.09.2013.
Ex R9 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 19.09.2013.
ExR10 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 16.08.2013.
ExR11 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 25.07.2013.
ExR12 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 16.07.2013.
ExR13 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 11.07.2013.
ExR14 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 03.07.2013.
ExR15 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 26.07.2013.
Documents produced on behalf of the opposite parties:
in CC No. 183/2015.
Ex R1 Copy of the request letter dated 28.06.2013 seeking cancellation of the booking application.
Ex R2 Copy of the latter dated 16.07.2013 seeking refund of the booking amount.
Ex R3 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 25.07.2013.
Ex R4 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 16.07.2013.
Ex R5 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 03.07.2013.
Ex R6 Copy of the Demand letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 27.06.2013.
Documents produced on behalf of the opposite parties:
in CC No. 78/2015, 124/2015, and 204/2015.
Nil
Dated:31.03.2016 PRESIDENT
