By Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member :
The complainant , as per the agreement dated 10-10-12, had purchased the Duplex Flat with the adjoining terrace on the 11th floor from the opposite party , paying Rs.1,01,70000/- for the flat and Rs.2,77,000/-for registration, by bank drafts/cheques. The opposite parties construction specification stipulated the use of rich cement mortar in construction and plastering. The case of the complainant is that the flat suffered from several discrepancies/ shortcomings/ deficiency in services and also, several amenities promised by the opposite party were not provided. According to the complainant, he had pointed out in his E-mail notice dated 21-03-16 to the opposite party that even though he has been bringing to their notice the various deficiencies /discrepancies/ shortcomings mentioned below regularly from June 2013, there has been no positive response:
1.Due to the lack of use of rich /good quality cement mortar; there was severe cement seepage through the walls, causing damage to walls, electrical switch boxes, built in cup-boards, and items kept inside the cup-boards.
2.Water also seeped through the terrace floor to flat no.10 B below, belonging to one Sri. Unnikrishnan. Even though the opposite party held a meeting in the complainant’s flat in October 2013 to discuss the problem and other defects, the defects were not rectified. As such, Unnikrishnan filed O.S. no.4191/2014 before the Hon.Munisiff court.The mediator appointed by the court, mediated upon the case and the opposite party re-plastered the terrace floor of Unnikrishnan
3..However, the opposite party didn’t re-plaster the damaged walls or rectify other defects in the complainant’s flat, causing misery to the complainant. Since major repairing works were to be done in the flat, costing about Rs.2,00,000/-, the complainant was not able to shift his family and all his belongings to the flat.
4..Despite construction specifications of two coat putty, the opposite party had illegally collected from the complainant Rs.64, 200/- as work charges , in addition to the agreed total cost of the flat of Rs.1 crore .The amount was collected stating that he had done special putty works on the walls in complainant’s flat. But, since no special works were done on the walls, the complainant hesitated to pay the amount. However, the complainant was compelled to pay the amount, since the opposite party refused to hand over the properties to the complainant.
5. Because of water seepage in the car parking slot allotted by the opposite party, the complainant was not in a position to park his car properly. The opposite party failed to respond to the complainant’s request either for an alternate slot or to rectify the defects due to water seepage, despite repeated E-mails.
6. The opposite party had made a provision for a dishwasher slot in the premises and additional power point for the dishwasher. The dishwasher slot provided fell short by more than two inches of the standard dishwasher base measurements and the slot cannot be used. The opposite party did not respond to the repeated request of the complainant to rectify the defect of the Dish Washer.
7. At the time of handing over possession of the flat in the month of June 2013, the opposite party raised the agreed amount of Rs.1 crore to Rs.1,00,27,800/-.Proper bill with item wise split up of the amounts charged was also not issued. Despite repeated requests, the opposite party did not refund Rs.27, 800/- collected from the complainant in excess of the contracted amount.
8 .As per para 1 and 3 of the agreement, the total amount of Rs.1 crore includes cost of proportionate share of the land, cost of flat including the adjoining terrace area, covered car-park, Flat owners association deposit, Electrical security deposit, Development charges, First year maintenance charges etc. But, the opposite party discontinued maintenance of the building in May 2014.
9. The FOA deposit of Rs.75, 000/- intended to create a corpus fund for the association, which was to be handed over to the flat-owners association, as per para 33 of the agreement, was not done. Also, a corpus fund was not created.
10 As per the specification list, the opposite party is bound to provide centralized gas connection. But, the facility has not been provided till date.
11. As per the internet advertisement by the opposite party, there was a provision for garbage chute, one for each floor for garbage disposal. But, the same has not been provided. As a result, the complainant is required to pay additional charges for removal of garbage bag.
12. The complainant, states that even though he had pointed out that the amount of one crore realized from him for the flat with carpet area of less than 1500 square feet was, at least, 15 to 20 % more than the market rates in Thrissur and that the rate realized from other flat owners was much less than, there has been no response from the opposite party.
2.According to the complainant, the above acts of the opposite party amounts to breach of agreement, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice because of which he suffered losses ,mental stress and agony . Hence the complaint filed with prayers
1.To direct the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs.2,00,000/- for the various repair works and paintings; to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.64,200/- and Rs.27800/- with interest , collected illegally as additional charges;
2. To rectify the water seepage leakage mentioned above or allot another car parking slot of good condition or direct the complainant to carry out the above repairs at the expense of the opposite party;
3. To direct the opposite party to construct the dish washer slot properly so as to use the same or direct the complainant to construct the same at the expense of the opposite party;
4. To refund the deposit of Rs.75, 000/- with interest, entrusted to the opposite party for creating the corporate fund for the flat owners association;
5. To direct the opposite party either to provide centralized gas connection facility as promised or to pay compensation of Rs.two lakhs with interest;
6. To direct the opposite party either to provide garbage chute facility as promised or to pay compensation of Rs.25, 000/-with interest.
7. To direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost .
3. In the version filed, the opposite party states as follows
1. The construction of the building was strictly in accordance with and in compliance to the specifications, using quality materials. It is incorrect to say that there was seepage of water through walls, causing damage to the building. The complainant’s occupation is in the 11th and 12th floor of the building. In the 11th floor, an open terrace is attached, adjoining to the apartment. The complainant, without informing the opposite party or other occupants of the building, made holes unauthorisedly on the terrace to fix truss work during the rainy season and caused damage to the terrace slab and thereby caused leakage of water to the 10th floor apartment, belonging to one Unnikrishnan. Unnikrishnan approached the opposite party company to get the damage rectified. But the complainant didn’t allow the company to enter in to the terrace portion through the apartment of the complainant situated in the 11th floor and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as S.D. to enter in to the terrace through his apartment, which was against the terms and conditions set forth in the sale deed. In the mediation conducted consequent on the filing of suit no: 4191/14 before the Hon. Munsiff court, Thrissur, by Sri.Unnikrishnan, the opposite party agreed to pay the cost of rectification to Sri.Unnikrishnan The damage, if any, caused to the walls of the complainant’s apartment was on account of his own un-authorized non-technical and non- proficiency skeleton for the terrace work.
2. The complainant, who was living in the premises with his family from the date of sale, enjoying all facilities provided in the building, cannot expect to get painting, polishing etc, clearing of the damages caused on the floor and walls by his own use at the expense of the opposite party. The opposite party has finished the apartment as per the standard specification.
3.The statement of the complainant that the opposite party has charged Rs.64200/- for special putty works is not correct .The amount is the payment for the additional works carried out in the complainant’s apartment, at the request of the complainant for which the complainant paid only after getting the item wise split up bill.
4. As regards the car parking area, since all the slots were allotted to different apartment owners by lot, the complainant cannot choose a separate slot for parking. The opposite party had carried out immediate refraction works, soon on receiving the report of some of the occupants regarding the seepage of water.
5. As regards the dish wash, the complainant had requested to provide a dish wash as an additional work. Since the measurement of the dish wash was not provided by the complainant, the opposite party had provided a standard dish wash. However, while handing over the apartment, the complainant had requested to replace the dish wash with a different measurement, which was not possible to be provided in the space available. It is incorrect to say that the slot for dish wash was short by 2 inches compared to the standard dish wash base measurement
6. The opposite party denies the allegation of collection of any extra amount from the complainant. As regard the allegation of not handing over the amount of Rs.75000/- collected from each flat owners to the flat owners association, the opposite party states that the amount was spent towards electricity development charges , corporation water connection charges etc, promising to transfer amounts if any to the FOA account. The accounts were intimated to the flat owners in advance by way of circulation of accounts, before the general body meeting on 18-06-14. No flat owner raised any dispute with regard to the account presented to them. Moreover, the flat owners were not willing to take over the responsibility of maintaining the common amenities and the running of the association.
7. As regards the maintenance of the building, the opposite party states that since the flat owners have already formed the owners association, it is the duty of the owners to maintain the entire building.
8. In respect of the centralized gas connection, the opposite party states that they had already arranged the same and the gas pipelines were connected to the respective flats and the occupants utilized and enjoyed the same at the 1st instance. The opposite party has no responsibility to refill the same. It is the responsibility of the flat owners association to refill the gas
9.As regards garbage chute, the opposite party states that since the system of disposal of waste through garbage chute led to the dumping of waste in the basement floor and since there is no arrangement by the Thrissur Corporation for disposal of waste, they have provided bio-bin for waste disposal, which is echo friendly. The opposite party has specifically mentioned in their brochure that specification for waste disposal may be changed due to concurrent innovation or quality improvement which will improve the quality of waste management
10. As regards levying different prices for the flat from various owners, the opposite party is of the argument that it is a common procedure that a customer buying a flat during beginning or during the process of the construction of the building by paying consideration and another customer buying a flat after the completion of the construction would naturally pay a different consideration. The later will have to pay higher consideration compared to the earlier. After the sale and registration of the document, a reduction in price cannot be made.
The opposite party thus categorically states that there is no breach of contract, unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on their part and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4.The points for consideration are
1. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, compensation and cost
5.The complainant has filed proof affidavit and also documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P22, whereas the opposite party has filed counter proof affidavit and also documents marked as Exhibit R1 to R15.The report of the expert commissioner has been marked as Ext. C1.The documents produced by the complainant, marked as Exhibits P1 to P22 and by the opposite party, marked as Ext. R1 to R15, are as follows:
1. Ext. P1 –Construction agreement dated 10-10-12
2. Ext. P2-Receipt for payment of money to the opposite party (P2 series)
3. Ext. P3- Computer print issued by the opposite party, instead of final bill
4. Ext. P4- Construction Specification of the opposite party.
5.Ext.P5-3 no’s of Photos of walls of complainant’s flat with wall painting peeling of , damp electrical switch boxes, damage to guilt in cup-boards and items kept inside the cupboards.(Marked subject to proof)
6. Ext. P6- Complainant’s E-mail dated 19-06-13 to the opposite party.
7. Ext. P7- Complainant’s E-mail dated 28-02-14 to the opposite party.
8. Ext. P8- Minutes of the opposite party’s meeting with the complainant, e-mailed by the opposite party to the complainant on 18-10-13
9. Ext. P9- photo of truss work posts fixed well above terrace floor in complainant’s flat (Subject to proof)
10..Ext. P10- Settlement/mediation agreement e-mailed to the complainant by court appointed mediator on 1-03-15
11. Ext. P11-.Two photos of water seepage on basement car park allotted to the complainant and of chemicals oozing out from ceiling. (Marked subject to proof).
12.Ext. P12-Flat owner’s joint letter to the opposite party in May 2014.( E-Mail)
13. Ext. P13- Opposite party’s advertisement about the flats.
14. Ext. P14- Flat owner’s Association Secretary’s mail dated 10th August 2014 about the serious issues for discussion with opposite party,water leak in car-part, in lift, in corridors, leak from swimming pool.
15. Ext. P15- Flat owner’s association secretary’s E-Mail dated 12-05-15 forwarding minutes of general body meeting
16.Ext. P16- Thrissur Corporation’s notices to Association secretary in June 2015 and July 2016 , pointing out that septic tank leakage through the 25 feet tall boundary wall to neighboring compounds , besides posing grave health hazard
17.Ext. P17- Photo of wall seepage seen inside the 2nd floor corridor/staircase walls on north wing – outside of which is children’s open play area.( Marked subject to proof )
18. Ext. P18 series - Photos of dangling bent aluminum frame with deadly glass on 11/12 floor corridor (subject to proof)
19. Ext. P19-Flat owner’s Association letter dated 28-05-16 to the opposite party
20. Ext. P20- E-mail dated 4-07-14,addressed to the other flat owners by Mr.Sivadas, secretary, Flat owners Association.
21. Ext. P21- E-mail dated 29-07-14, addressed to the other flat owners by Mr. P.S. Narayanan.
22. Ext. P.22-Statement of expenses such as building costs, given to complainant by opposite party
23. Ext. R1`- Copy of E-Mail dated 28-11-12, mentioning the quotation for timber works for doing stair case.
24. Ext. R2- The copy of the E-mail from the complainant dated 8-12-12 for approval of the wood work.
24. Ext. R3- The copy of estimate for other additional works, approved by the complainant.
25. Ext. R4 - The copy of the bill for additional works of the complainant’s flat.
26. Ext. R5-The copy of the final bill showing the cost of the work of the flat.
27. Ext. R6- The copy of the E-Mail dated 29-09-12 issued by the opposite party to the complainant of offering flat no. 11/12 D
28. Ext. R7- The copy of the cost details of the flat, mailed to the complainant on 29-9-12
29. Ext. R8- The copy of the mail dated 1-10-12 from the opposite party to the complainant with the draft agreement.
30. Ext. R9- The copy of the mail dated 3-10-12 of the complainant to the opposite party, requesting to include extra points which help him to get more finance
31. Ext. R10-The copy of the mail dated 4-10-12, along with the draft agreement, modified on the points suggested by the complainant.
32. Ext. R11- The copy of the construction agreement dated 10-10-12, signed by the complainant.
33. Ext. R12- The copy of the statement showing the details of Rs.75, 000/- collected and Rs.15, 000/- collected as maintenance charges for one year
34. Ext. R13- The copy of the E-Mail dated 29-03-14 of the complainant to the opposite party
35. Ext. R14- The copy of the certificate showing the installation and commissioning of the central gas connection issued by the authorized agency
36. Ext. R15- The copy of the bill for payment of first lot of gas cylinder
6.The expert commissioner, in his report dated 5-10-16, has stated that in almost all rooms, the painting surfaces are damaged due to heavy leakage of water from outside and plastering peeled off due to lack of water proofing on exterior surfaces and also leakage found in the car park area. It is also found that the cut out made in the kitchen top granite platform is not sufficient to accommodate the dish washer which was brought by the complainant. The centralized gas connection work is not completed at the time of inspection. The commissioner further reports that all the work including repairing the interior walls and repainting may cost Rs.2, 20,000/-.
7.The opposite party has filed his objections on the report of the expert commissioner dated 5-10-16 on 10-01-18, in which he has stated as follows
1. The commissioner has not pointed out the reasons for the water leakage, even though the opposite party had brought the same to the notice of the commissioner.
2. The commissioner had been informed that centralized gas connection has been provided,, the commissioner has failed to report the matter in his report.
8.The Forum has studied all aspects of the case and gone through all records .The forum could see that in para 15 of the argument notes filed by the complainant on 10-05-18, ‘’the details of the amount the opposite party has to refund to the complainant’’ are summed up, with the prayer ‘’ I have humbly appealed to this Hon. forum to direct the opposite party to pay me
1. Rs.95, 000/- (excess collected)
2. Rs.2, 20,000/-, being the cost estimated by the expert commissioner or water proofing, plastering, and painting of walls of the flat.
3. Rs.75000/-(Refund of FOA deposit)
4. Rs. Two lakh (compensation for not providing centralized gas facility)
5. Rs.25000/-as compensation for not providing garbage chute)
6. Compensation for mental agony and stress
7. Costs for conducting the case.
8. Further reliefs as the forum deems fit to grant.
9.Considering all the above, the forum has the following observations
1.The 1st and 3rdprayer of the complainant, as per the CC, is to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for various repair works and painting. In this connection, it can be seen that one of the main allegations of the complainant is that while opposite party’s construction specifications specified the use of rich cement mortar in construction and plastering, and his internet advertisement assured of a ‘’ marvelous luxury apartment with all state of art facilities’’, the flat handed over to the complainant after collecting over one crore is of inferior construction, without proper plastering /water proofing that resulted in water seepage on the walls. Due to the lack of use of rich /good quality cement mortar; there was severe cement seepage through the walls, causing damage to walls, electrical switch boxes, built in cup-boards, and items kept inside the cup-boards. .However, in spite of several requests, the opposite party didn’t re-plaster the damaged walls or rectify other defects in the complainant’s flat, causing misery to the complainant. In view of the major repairing works to be done in the complainant’s flat caused by water seepage, a cost of about Rs.2,00,000/- is required. But, the opposite party, in the version filed, states that the construction of the building was strictly in accordance with and in compliance to the specifications, using quality materials and hence it is incorrect to say that there was seepage of water through walls, causing damage to the building. The expert commissioner, in his report dated 5-0-16, has stated that in almost all rooms, the painting surfaces are damaged due to heavy leakage of water from outside and plastering peeled off due to lack of water proofing on exterior surfaces and also leakage found in the car park area. The commissioner has recommended that an amount of Rs.2, 20,000/- is required for all the work including repairing of interior walls and repainting. It can be seen that the only objection filed against this aspect of the report dated 5-10-16 by the opposite party, after 15 months, on 10-01-18 is that the commissioner has not pointed out the reasons for the water leakage, even though the opposite party had brought the same to the notice of the commissioner. Thus, the fact that the opposite party has not objected the findings of the commissioner, even after 15 months of the submission of the report proves that even the opposite party admits the allegations of the complainant in this respect and also the admits the amount proposed by the expert commissioner as required to rectify the defects. As regard the objection that the commissioner has not reported the reasons for the water leakage, the forum is of opinion that it was for the opposite party to take further steps, immediately on getting the copy of the report, either to appoint another commission or to direct the same commissioner to report the matter or to cross examine the commissioner to bring to light the facts. However, since no such steps have been taken by the opposite party all these years, the forum is bound to accept the prayer of the complainant on these aspects and to conclude that the opposite party is bound to pay Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant in this regard.
2. The 2nd prayer of the complainant is to refund an amount of Rs.64, 200/- collected by the opposite party as additional charges by saying that he has done special putty work on the walls in the complainant’s flat. But, since no special putty works were done on the walls, the opposite party illegally collected Rs.64200/-, in addition to the agreed cost of flat to rupees one crore. On going through the argument notes filed on 10-05-18, the forum cannot see any argument/ prayers, as regards the amount of Rs.64200/-.As such, the forum is of the view that the complainant is not sticking on to this amount, since he is convinced that there is no fault on the part of the opposite party in realizing the amount.
3. The 4th prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to construct the Dish washer slot properly or to direct the complainant to construct the same at the expense of the opposite party. However, on going through para 15 of the argument notes filed on 10-05-18 (two years after the filing of the CC) which contains the details of amounts the opposite party has to refund to the complainant, there is no mention of the Dish washer slot. As such, the forum is of the view that the complainant is not sticking to this item of the prayer.
4. The 5thprayer is that at the time of handing over the possession of the flat to the complainant, the opposite party raised the agreed amount of Rs.1 crore to Rs.1,00,27,800/-and thus collected Rs.27800/- with interest illegally as additional charges. Accordingly, the forum has gone through the Agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party, which explains as follows’’ the builders hereby agree and undertake to construct for the purchaser the flat/apartment for a consideration of Rs.98,75,000/- comprising flat cost, cost of terrace area, cost of covered car park, FOA Deposit, Electrical security deposit, Development charges , first year maintenance charges, VAT, service tax and labor cess landed properties for a consideration of Rupees 1,25,000/-Any hike or any new tax imposed by the govt., it will be from the purchaser’s side. Thus, any amounts in excess of Rupees one crore can be collected only in respect of any hike or new tax imposed by the Govt. However, since the opposite party has not proved of any hike or new tax imposed, he is liable to collect/the complainant is liable to pay only Rupees one crore .As such, the opposite party is liable to refund Rs .27, 800/- to the complainant
5. The 6th prayer is to refund Rs.75, 000/- entrusted to the opposite party for the purpose of creating corpus fund for the flat owners association. According to the complainant, as per paragraphs 1and 3 of the agreement, the total cost of Rs.1 crore includes cost of proportionate share of the land, cost of the flat including terrace area, covered car park ,flat owners association(FOA DEPOSIT) , Electrical security deposit, development charges ,first year maintenance charges etc. The complainant further states in his proof affidavit dated 3-08-17 that as per para 33 of the agreement, the FOA deposit should be handed over to the Flat owners association which was not done. The forum observes that since the complainant himself admits that the amount is intended to create a corpus fund for flat owners association, it is the Flat owners association which has to take steps in the matter and not the complainant alone.
6. The 7th prayer of the complainant is either to direct the opposite party to provide centralized gas connection facility or to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. In this connection, it can be seen that even the opposite parties admit that they are bound to provide centralized gas connection. The expert commissioner in his report dated 5-10-16, has stated that the work has not been completed. However, in the affidavit filed on 18-04-18, the Deputy General Manager of the opposite party states that the centralized gas connection has already been installed and the same has been commissioned .However, the complainant or other flat owners did not make use of the same, closed their tubes for fear that insects may get in to their apartment through gas tubes and make the kitchen unhygienic. As such, the flat owners are using their own individual gas connections. The opposite party’s further state that the report submitted by the commissioner in this respect is not correct since he inspected the gas connection installation only after causing damage to it. The Forum is of the view that it was for the opposite parties to prove their arguments in this respect, especially when they strongly argue that they have already installed the centralized gas connection whereas neither the commissioner nor the complainant deny the same. The fact that the opposite parties have not taken any steps in this respect goes on to prove that the allegations of the complainant and the findings of the expert commissioner are true to facts. As such, the forum is of the opinion that the opposite parties are bound to complete the centralized gas connection as per the specification list immediately, observing all formalities, in addition to payment of proper compensation to the complainant for putting him in to difficulties all these years.
7. The eighth prayer of the complainant is either to provide garbage chute facility, as promised by the opposite party or provide Rs.25, 000/- as compensation with interest. According to the complainant, in the absence of this facility, the complainant is required to pay additional charges for removing of garbage bag. In response, the opposite party states, in para 14 of the affidavit filed on 18-04-18 ,that the concept of chute system is that every morning, the corporation cleaning people will remove the waste from the apartment. But since the corporation had stopped the said arrangement, the opposite party has provided Bio- Bin instead of chute, which is more hygiene than chute. However, since the complainant has not admitted the facts, it was for the opposite party to prove that the corporation authorities have stopped the arrangement of removing waste from the apartment and that they have provided Bio-bin which is more hygienic than chute. the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has not provided the promised facility of garbage chute is true to facts. But the complainant is not of opinion that the facility of Bio-bin has not been provided. He is also not of opinion that Bio-bin is not a better and more hygienic facility than garbage chute. Hence we don’t think any further steps are necessitated in the matter.
10 In the result, the complaint is partially allowed, with the following orders to be implemented by the opposite party, within a month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees Two lakh and twenty thousand only) as recommended by the Expert Commissioner to enable the complainant to rectify the defects/to carry out the required repairs in the flat.
2. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.27,800/-(Rupees Twenty seven thousand and eight hundred only) collected in excess from the complainant with 9%interest for the amount from 11-05-16, the date of filing of the complaint.
3. The opposite parties are directed to complete all formalities of Centralized gas connection and make it a reality.
4. In respect of the mental agony /stress experienced by the complainant and also various other difficulties experienced by the complainant due to the deficiency of service on the part the opposite parties , the complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation and the opposite party is directed to pay that amount to the complainant.
5. An amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) should also be paid as costs to the complainant
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of September 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar P.K.Sasi,
Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 –Construction agreement dated 10-10-12
Ext. P2-Receipt (P2 series)
Ext. P3- Computer print issued by the opposite party.
Ext. P4- Construction Specification of the opposite party.
Ext.P5-3 no’s of Photos of walls of complainant’s flat (Marked subject to proof)
Ext. P6- Complainant’s E-mail dated 19-06-13 to the opposite party.
Ext. P7- Complainant’s E-mail dated 28-02-14 to the opposite party.
Ext. P8- Minutes of the opposite party’s meeting with the complainant Ext. P9- photo of truss work (Subject to proof)
Ext. P10- Settlement/mediation agreement
Ext. P11-.Two photos of water seepage on basement car park (Marked subject to proof).
Ext. P12-Flat owner’s joint letter to the opposite party in May 2014.( E-Mail)
Ext. P13- Opposite party’s advertisement about the flats.
Ext. P14- Flat owner’s Association Secretary’s mail dated 10th August 2014
Ext. P15- Flat owner’s association secretary’s E-Mail dated 12-05-15
Ext. P16- Thrissur Corporation’s notices to Association secretary in June 2015 and July 2016
Ext.P17- Photo of wall seepage seen inside the 2nd floor corridor/staircase walls on north wing – ( Marked subject to proof )
Ext. P18 series - Photos of dangling bent aluminum frame (subject to proof)
Ext. P19-Flat owner’s Association letter dated 28-05-16
Ext. P20- E-mail dated 4-07-14
Ext. P21- E-mail dated 29-07-14
Ext.P22- Statement of expenses
Opposite Party’s Exhibits
Ext.R1`- Copy of E-Mail dated 28-11-12,
Ext.R2- copy of the E-mail from the complainant dated 8-12-12
Ext.R3- copy of estimate for other additional works,
Ext.R4 - copy of the bill for additional works of the complainant’s flat.
Ext.R5- copy of the final bill showing the cost of the work of the flat.
Ext.R6- copy of the E-Mail dated 29-09-12
Ext.R7- copy of the cost details of the flat
Ext. R8- copy of the mail dated 1-10-12
Ext.R9- copy of the mail dated 3-10-12
Ext.R10- copy of the mail dated 4-10-12,
Ext. R11- copy of the construction agreement dated 10-10-12,
Ext.R12- copy of the statement showing the details of Rs.75, 000/- collected and Rs.15, 000/- collected as maintenance charges for one year
Ext.R13- copy of the E-Mail dated 29-03-14
Ext.R14-copy of the certificate
Ext. R15- copy of the bill for payment of first lot of gas cylinder
Ext.C1 – Commission report
Id/-
Member
