BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 8th day of February 2018
Filed on : 18-09-2014 PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.698/2014
Between
Joseph Ninan, : Complainant
S/o. T.G. Ninan, (By Adv. Anil Vijayan,
M/s. Print Express, 44/1469 A, Blaze & Co., Lawyers, K.K. Pad-
Asoka Road, Kaloor, manabhan road, Cochin-18)
Cochin-682 017.
And
1. DLF Southern Towns Pvt. : Opposite parties
Ltd., 1-E, Jhandewalan Extn,
Naaz Cinema Complex,
Delhi-110 055.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd., (2nd O.P. By Adv. Joson manava-
Opp. Dooradarsan Kendra, lan, M/s. Menon & Pai, I.S.press
Sea Port -air Port road, Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 018)
Kakkanad. P.O.,
Cochin-682 030.
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainant, lured by the pre-launch offer for purchasing a flat in the multi-storied housing project at Kakkandu by name "New Town Heights" agreed to purchase a flat with 1236 sq. ft. Including car park and FRC that is charged for the floor rise of the said apartments for an amount of Rs. 2,350/- p.sq.ft., on making him believe that the project would be sanctioned by the statutory authority shortly and the building would be completed within 36 months. The complainant was also made to believe by the opposite parties' company that they have 28 acres of land in Kakkanadu where the project is going to be executed. As instructed the complainant had filed an application for allotment by sale. A separate "apartment buyers agreement" was also executed. The complainant was allotted flat number M172 and the undivided share in the land and undivided interest in the common area and facilities upon the receipt of the entire amount. As per clause 14 of the application for allotment , any delay by the complainants in taking possession would entail charges at Rs. 5/- p.s.ft. per month for any delay of full one month or any part thereof. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, if the opposite party caused any delay in completion of construction of apartment the opposite party was liable to pay compensation at the @ Rs. 5 p.sq.ft,. of the super built up area of the said apartment per month or any part thereof to the complainants. The complainant was made to sign the application form/agreement on the promise that the final agreement for sale would be in tune with the terms of the above application. However, the copy of the singed application was not provided to the complainant, whereas only a blank copy was issued to him. Believing the representations of the opposite party the complainant paid an amount of Rs,. 4,00,000/- towards booking charges on 30-09-2008 as per cheque number 81604 of Indusind bank ,Cochin Branch. The said amount in the cheque was encashed by the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party had sent an 'apartment buyers agreement' which was unilaterally prepared by the opposite party introducing unfair and new clauses against the offers and promises in the initial formal agreement which was prejudicial to the interest of the complainants. From the apartment buyers agreement the complainant, came to know that the proposed land on which the opposite party intended to construct the building belonged to M/s. Kalista Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Amon Real Estate Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Hestia Real Estate Pvt. Ltd and as such the other companies had made agreement for deveopment with the opposite party. Therefore the opposite party primarily did not have any title or interest over the land and thereby they had no right to sell the undivided share which was offered. There was no tripartite agreement between complainant and opposite party and also with the owner of the land. The complainant came to know that the opposite party alone did not have the right to transfer the undivided share. The opposite party was not prepared to executive a tripartite agreement or to convince the complainant about the statutory permit that they are supposed to obtain before the commencement of the construction of the apartment. Stipulation in the agreement regarding the consequences of non-completion of the building was unilaterally altered in the new agreement to the prejudice against the interest of the complainant. Clause 14 in the application form and clause 10.3 in the agreement to sell were contrary and against the all promises offered to the complainant . The opposite party was making fake promises and had appropriated the money of the complainant collected towards booking charges. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was not mentioned in the initial agreement was incorporated in clause 1.12 of the agreement to sell . Additional amounts were also demanded for fire safety measures, security etc. Clause 1.9 A and a.9B were newly introducing causing severe prejudice to the complainants. Clauses 1.13 . 1.14, 1.15 1.16 and 1.17 were arbitrary and intended to affect the legal rights of the complainants prejudicial. Certain other clause such as 9.1, 9.2., 9,3, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 13.1 clause 16, clause 20, clause 21 , clause 22 and clause 30 were also arbitrary and against the consensus. Therefore the complainant was not agreeable to sign the unilateral conditions and therefore refused to sign the agreement for sale and requests the opposite party to effect suitable changes as proposed by him. Even though discussions went on for some times, as there was no clarifications and having not signed the buyers agreement the complainant withheld further payments. The opposite party unilaterally had issued a cancellation letter on 24-05-2010 against all principles of fairness and natural justice to the complainant and it was informed that they will forfeit the entire amounts paid. Consequent to the discussions the opposite party promised and made the complainants believe that the booking can be revived and the project has closed all statutory permits and agreed to make suitable changes in the buyers agreement to the satisfaction of the complainants, the complainant paid another Rs. 4,00,000/- to revive the booking which has cancelled the opposite party. The complainant had altogether paid Rs. 8,00,000/- to the opposite parties. The opposite party did not make any changes in the agreement as promised and demanded further amount from the complainant. Meanwhile, the complainant came to know that the property had other litigation on the proposed site . The work which have been supposed to have been completed by 2011 has not been completed even 3 years thereafter. The complainant therefore had informed the opposite party to refund the amount paid by him with interest accruing from the respective rates of interest. The opposite party however, had unilaterally and illegally cancelled the booking made by the complainant as per letter dated 28-02-2013 and forwarded an amount of Rs. 2,07,368/- as the amount refundable deducting and forfeiting an amount of Rs. 4,92,632/- under the head of earnest money and delayed interest without any reason or damage for the opposite party and which has happened only due to thereon illegal acts as malpractices. The opposite party was taking hasty steps to allot the flats to some others at very high rate than what was offered to the complainants making undue benefits to the opposite party and loss to the complainant. The complainant accepted the cheque under protest as the letter dated 14-03-2013 . The opposite party had sent a reply on 23-05-2013 stating that the complainant had accepted the amounts towards full and final settlement and therefore no further amounts can be paid. The conduct to the opposite party in not signing an agreement for sale on the primarily agreed conditions and not refunding the amount already paid after unilateral cancellation of the booking would amounts to deficiency in service and therefore the complainant seeks refund of the balance amount of Rs. 5,92,632/- with interest @12% p.a. and to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings through this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and both of them jointly filed a version resisting the claim contending inter-alia as follows:
3 The complaint is not maintainable as the relief claimed is above the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 20,00,000/-. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The subject matter of the complaint is to be tried before a Civil Court. The CDRF can give a direction only by way of compensation and not by way of order for refund. In the absence of any allegation or negligence no order of compensation can be made. The dispute between the parties arise out of the terms and conditions agreed between the parties regarding allotment by sale of the apartment. There was no concluded contract that the building could be completed within 36 months. The opposite party did not make the complainant to believe that they held 28 acres of land in Kakkanadu. As per the terms and conditions provided in the application for allotment by sale, the time for completion of the apartment start only from the date of execution of apartment buyer’s agreement and not from the date of booking. A copy of the signed application was provided to the complainant. The complainant had booked the apartment after properly understanding the facts and circumstances of the project. The agreement to sell was not a unilateral one . It is only a detailed version of the apartment buyers agreement wherein the rights and obligations of the buyer and seller were shown. The complainant was not forced or influenced by the opposite party to sign the agreement. The complainant did not sign the agreement in order to delay the payment of instalments. The opposite party had obtained valid sanction and approval for the project and it was made aware to the complainant. The allegation that the complainant insisted that the agreement to sell the apartment and the undivided share thereof should be executed by way of tripartite agreement between the complainant, the opposite party and the owners of the land, without which the opposite party alone did not have the right to transfer the undivided share is false. The complainant was making false statements for unlawful gains. The complainant was a gross defaulter from the beginning itself. The allegation that the complainant had insisted to alter the terms and conditions and execution of a tripartite agreement etc. are not correct. The withholding of money by the complainant without payment in time was not due to the delay in getting the terms of agreement altered is a ruse to justify the delayed payments. The complainant was not induced to pay further amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as alleged. He had only paid the amount in order to regularize the allotment as against the outstanding dues of Rs. 10,19,500/-. As the complainant did not make any further payments and committed further defaults, the booking was cancelled. The complainant being a defaulter under the terms and conditions as envisaged in the application for allotment by sale can not raise any grievance, having failed to fulfil his own obligations. The opposite party was constrained to cancel the allotment and refund an amount of Rs. 207368/- after forfeiting the earnest money by invoking clause 10 and 17 of the application for allotment by sale. It is incorrect to state that the complainant had accepted the cheque under protest. He accepted the refund in full and final settlement. When the complainant failed to perform the terms and condition the opposite party company was within its right to forfeit the earnest money. The opposite party did not make any false representation . The opposite party was always ready and willing to execute the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement provided that the complainant had to make payment of outstanding dues in terms of the application for allotment for sale. The complainant did not suffer any damage or mental agony as alleged. The complainant is not a consumer with respect to the said apartment as it was not applied by him for residential purpose but merely to acquired profit from real estate speculations. The amount claimed by the complainant by way of compensation is without any basis . there was no deficiency in service and no cause of action for the complainant. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings the followings issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency
in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party
as alleged?
ii. Is the complainant is entitled to get compensation and refund as
prayed for?
iii. Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant and documentary evidence Exbts. B1 to B19 on the side of the opposite parties.
6. Issue No. i. It was argued on behalf of the opposite parties that the prayer of the complainant to refund the balance amount of Rs. 5,92,632/- with interest can not be awarded by a consumer Forum as it was a matter which should have been agitated before a Civil Court by adducing appropriate evidence. The claim of the complainant for compensation was also challenged on the ground that the complainant was not qualified to be a “consumer” as he had agreed to purchase the apartment for monitory benefits by speculative sale. The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand argued that the complainant was a genuine buyer who had availed the services of the opposite parties on payment of consideration and that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice by collecting huge money from the complainant without any legal or moral right.
7. The allegation in this case is that the complainant had booked the apartment on the promise of the opposite party that they have got the right to sell out the undivided share of the land and the apartment to be constructed in the said land in favour of the complainant. Exbt. A1 is a copy of blank application form, which was to be executed by the applicants. As per Exbt. A1 which is a per-printed format . The applicants were made aware that opposite parties were entitled to allot residential apartment in the specified complex. It is stated in the application form as follows:
“the applicant(s) understand that M/s. DLF Southern Towns Private Ltd (“Company”) is promoting a project comprising multi -storied residential apartment buildings, social club, sports club with related facilities and a commercial cum residential building comprising shopping complex, office spaces, residential apartments and related facilities under the name & style of “NEW TOWN HEIGHTS DLF – KAKKANAD' at Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The Company has made appropriate arrangements with the respective land owning companies for development and marketing of the said project”
8. In the above said covenant, it is true that the opposite party had intimated the complainant that the opposite party had made appropriate arrangement with the respective land owning companies for development and marketing of the said project . However, the fact remains that the opposite party had suppressed the name of such land owning companies from the knowledge of the complainant intending purchaser. The opposite party had made only a statement that they had made arrangements for developing and marketing the project the opposite parties had collected money from the complainant towards the purchase price of the land and the apartment to be constructed therein. It was the duty and liability of the opposite party to convince the complainant that the opposite party had the required title in the property to execute an agreement for allotment by ‘sale.’ Right to develop a property and market the finished apartment in the property would not create any title on the opposite party to make an agreement for allotment by sale unless the opposite party make the intending purchaser aware that the opposite party had the required title over the property at the time of collection of money from the indenting purchaser. Exbt. A2 is a receipt issued by the opposite party on 3-2-2008 for having received an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant. Exb t. A4 letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant would prove that a sum of Rs. 5,,80,642.39 was forfeited as per clause No. 17 of the terms and conditions of the application of the complainant, from out of the total amount paid by him. As per Exbt. A5 the amount refunded to the complainant on cancellation of the allotment was Rs. 2,07,368/- after deducting service tax interest for delayed payment and earnest money. The opposite party found their right to do so in clause 17 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement . On 28-2-13 the opposite party issued Exbt. A6 letter to the complainant wherein it was threatened that on receiving Rs.2,07,368/- by the complainant it shall be the full and final settlement of the refund and that the complainant will not have any lien or right in the captioned property and all original receipts sand apartment buyers agreement would stand cancelled. Exbt. A6 is a unilateral and commanding letter to the complainant issued by the opposite party. Exbt. A7 is a copy of the letter addressed to the opposite party by the complainant under protest ad it is stated therein that the complainant had accepted the cheque for Rs. 2,07,368/- only and is to be treated as the refund from the total amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest @18% p.a. and demanding the balance amount of refund. The cheque was accepted by the complainant without signing the same and without accepting the contents in Exbt. A6 . the said letter issued by the complainant is seen accepted by the complainant on 20-3-13 as evidenced by Exbt. A8. Subsequently the complainant caused to issued a lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding the refund of the remaining amount with compensation with interest. Exbt. A9 was received by the opposite party as evidenced by Exbt. A10 postal a.d. On 24-05-2013 the opposite party had issued a letter which would prove that the complainant had accepted the refund of Rs. 2,07,368/- only under protest and not on agreeing it as a full and final settlement. In answer to Exbt. A9 legal notice the opposite party had issued Exbt. A12 notice through their counsel wherein it was alleged inter-alia that the complainant was a gross defaulter and he did not make the payment in time and relying on the terms and conditions in the apartment buyer’s agreement entitling the opposite party to forefeet the earnest money interest and service charge. From the documents produced by the complainant as Exbts. A1 to A12 it is clear that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice in collecting money from the complainant on the pretext that they had the right to collect the purchase value of the land and the cost of the building to be constructed as if they are the owners of the property by misguiding the complainant.
Unfair trade practice is defined as follows in Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Sec. 2 (r)“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-
(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation -
(i)falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model,
(ii)falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;
(iii)falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods;
(iv)represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have,
(v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;
(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;
(vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on a adequate or proper test thereof:
PROVIDED that where a defense is raised to the effect that such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof of such defense shall lie on the person raising such defense;
(viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be -
(i)a warranty or guarantee of a productor of any goods or services;
or
(ii)a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result,
if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out;
(ix) materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made.
x. gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person.
Explanation: For the purposes of clause (1), statement that is
(a) expressed on an article offered or displayed for sale, or on
its wrapper or container; or
(b) expressed on anything attached to, inserted in, or
accompanying, an article offered or displayed for sale, or on
anything on which the article is mounted for display or sale;
or
(c) contained in or on anything that is sold, sent, delivered,
transmitted or in any other manner whatsoever made
available to a member of the public,
shall be deemed to be a statement made to the public by,
and only by, the person who had caused the statement to be
so expressed, made or contained;
(2) permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any news paper or otherwise, for the sale or supply at a bargain price, of goods or services that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price, or for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable, having regard to the nature of the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and size of business, and the nature of the advertisement;
Explanation: For the purposes of clause (2), “bargaining price” means-
(a) a price that is stated in any advertisement to be a bargain price, by reference to an ordinary price or otherwise, or
(b) a price that a person who reads, hears or sees the advertisement, would reasonably understand to be a bargain price having regard to the prices at which the product advertised or like products are ordinarily sold;
(3) Permits-
(a) the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not
providing them as offered or creating impression that something
is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly
covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole;
(b) the conduct of any contest, lottery, games of chance or skill, for
the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale, use or
supply of any product or any business interest;
(3A) Withholding from the participants of any scheme offering gifts, prizes
or other items free of charge, on its closure the information about final
results of the scheme.
Explantion: For the purposes of this sub-clause, the participants of a
scheme shall be deemed to have been informed of the final results of
the scheme where such results are within a reasonable time published,
prominently in the same newspapers in which the scheme was
originally advertised;)
(4) permits the sale or supply of goods intended to be used, or are of
a kind likely to be used, by consumers, knowing or having reason
to believe that the goods do not comply with the standards prescribed
by competent authority relating to performance, composition, contents,
design, constructions, finishing or packaging as are necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of injury to the person using the goods;
(5) permits the hoarding or destruction of goods, or refuses to sell the goods or to make them available for sale or to provide any service, if such hoarding or destruction or refusal raises or tends to raise or is intended to raise, the cost of those or other similar goods or services.
(6) manufacture of spurious goods or offering such goods for sale or adopting deceptive practices in the provision of services)
Any reference in this Act to any other Act or provision thereof which is not in force in any area to which this act applies shall be construed to have a reference to the corresponding Act or provision thereof in force in such area”.
10. In this case, it is admitted case of the opposite party that they had collected Rs. 8,00,000/- from the complainant already and such payment was in terms of the application for allotment dated 30-01-2008. It is seen stated in Exbt. A2 that till the property buyers agreement is executed the complainant shall be governed solely by the terms ad conditions stated in the application submitted by him. It is to be noted that Exbt. A1 is the application for allotment of the sale issued in favour of the complainant. The terms and conditions in Exbt. A1 and Exbt. B1 varied in its contents at different places. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was not mentioned in Exbt. A1 is seen incorporated in clause 1.12 in page No. 10 of Exbt. B1, agreement for sale. Additional amounts as maintenance security are also imposed in Exbt. B1 which did not find a place in Exbt. A1. Clause 1.9A and 1.9B was duly introduced in Exbt. B1 causing serious prejudice to the complainant. Clause 1.14 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) and (vii) were also newly incorporated protecting the interest of the opposite party alone giving them a free hand to do as arbitrary as they want. Clause No. 1..15, 1.16 and 1.17 were also arbitrary and intended to injure or prejudicially affect the legal right of the complainant. Clause 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 were also modified. Clause 13.1 was also arbitrary in nature. Clause 20 permitting the company to make additional construction in the complex after the sale of the entire apartments and the undivided share thereof is also a highly arbitrary covenant which did not find a place in Exbt. A1. Clause 22 permitting the opposite party to raise finance by mortgaging the property to financial institution and clause 22 providing the agreement subordinate to the mortgage agreement by the company and clause 30 giving extensive right to the opposite party to modify the terms and conditions in the final documents to be executed at the appropriate time for transfer are highly unfair, unconditional and unreasonable and would amount to “unfair trade practice” as stipulated in Section 2( r) (vi) of the Consumer Protection Act. The refusal on the part of the opposite party to include the land owners in the buyers agreement also would come as a practice which could be termed as unfair. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence to controvert such allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The title deed or the copy thereof pertaining to the property slated to be sold to the complainant was screened from him and also from this Forum, leaving the question of ownership and title of the property in darkness. The above facts and circumstances in this case are sufficient to hold that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in the subject matter of the case. The issue is therefore found in favour of the complainant.
11. Issue No. ii. The learmed counsel for the opposite party relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Baji Nath Vs. Luknow Development Authority CPR 2010 (1) 398 wherein it was held that as the complainant was a defaulter and the amount was returned his own request, he would not be entitled for any interest on the amount due to him. We find difficulty in accepting the said proposition in the facts and circumstances in this case. In the instant case there was no request from the complainant for the refund of the amount but he had demanded only the alterations of the terms and conditions of the unilaterally prepared agreement and to waive the accrued delayed interest , as seen from Exbt. B2. Moreover the complainant is not seen to have refused to pay the balance amount to be paid even at a time when the opposite party had toppled down the time frame scheduled for completion of the project. Therefore the complainant alone cannot be termed as a defaulter as the opposite party had also overturned the covenants and understandings made between the parties. The opposite party had not adduced any evidence to prove their contention that the complainant had booked the apartment for commercial speculative transactions as alleged. No material has been produced by the opposite party to prove that the completion of the construction and offer possession has been delayed due to reasons beyond its control or due to the non-payment of the installments by the complainant . Therefore there is no justification for the delay has been made out. Keeping in view of the principles of natural justice and also for the reasons stated above we find that the opposite parties are to be directed that the complainant is entitled to get back the entire amount paid by him to the opposite party less the amount he already received, with interest thereon in addition to the compensation for the commission of Unfair trade practice by the opposite party against the complainant. The complainant is also found entitled to get compensation for the mental agony inconvenience and the uncertainty faced by him in the subject matter of the dispute. As the terms and conditions in the apartment booking form issued to the complainant did not find incorporation of all the terms and conditions in the agreement for sale to be executed, the complainant cannot be said to have any contractual obligation under the agreement which was actually not executed. Therefore the cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of the amount paid by the complainant is found unsustainable. The issue is therefore found in favour of the complainant.
12. Issue No. iii. In the result, the complaint stands allowed and we make the following directions for compliance by the opposite parties.
i. The opposite parties shall refund the entire amount received from the complainant including the payment of service tax along with interest @ 9% p.a,. from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount in terms of this order is actually refunded to him by way of a demand draft.
ii. The opposite parties shall pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant for the commission of unfair trade practice and
deficiency in service committed against the complainant as found supra in this order.
iii. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the litigation to the complainant.
iv. All the above payments shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which is to be reckoned from the 3rd day of despatch of this order from the Registry of this Forum. Belated payment will entail interest @ 18% p.a on the entire amount to be refunded and compensation ordered as per this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8th day of February 2018.
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of application form
A2 : Receipt dt. 30-09-2008
A3 : Apartment Buyers Agreement
A4 : Regd. letter dt.24-05-2010
A5 : Letter dt. 28-02-2013
A6 : Letter dt. 28-02-2013
A7 : letter dt. 14-03
A8 : A.D. Card
A9 : Lawyer notice dt. 16-05-2013
A10 : A.D. Card
A11 : Letter dt. 24-05-2013
A12 : Lawyer notice dt. 14-06-2013
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Application for allotment by sale
B2 : Copy of letter dt. 25-06-2010+
B3 : Copy of demand notice
dt.10-11-2008
B4 : Copy of courier dt. 17-11-2008
B5 : Copy of reminder dt. 04-12-2008
B6 : “ “ “ dt. 17-12-2008
B7 : Copy of demand notice
dt. 12-01-2009
B8 : Copy of Reminder 1
dt. 02-02-2009
B9 : Copy of Reminder II
dt. 17-02-2009
B10 : G-mail dt. 14-05-2009
B11 : Copy of mail dt. 20-11-2009
B12 : A.D. Card
B13 : Copy of e-mail dt. 03-07-2010
B14 : Copy of demand notice
dt. 05-09-2010
B15 : Copy of e-mail dt. 06-10-2010
A16 : Copy of demand notice
dt. 08-12-2010
A17 : Copy of e-mail dt. 01-02-2011
A18 : Copy of occupancy certificate
A19 : Copy of apartment buyers
agreement
Depositions:`
PW1 : Joseph Ninan
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
