BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th October 2009
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Complaint No.:34/2009:
1. Sri. Padmanabha,
So. Sri.K.Babu,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at Flat No.101,
Apeksha Residency,
Mangalore.
2. Mr.A.H.Ramakrishna Shetty,
S/o. Late Sri.K.Sanjeeva Shetty,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at Flat No.203,
Apeksha Residency,
Warehouse Road,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANTS
Complaint No.:35/2009:
Sri.Chetan A. Thakkar,
Aged about 29 years,
So. Arvind M. Thakkar,
RA. Flat No.602,
Apeksha Residency,
Warehouse Road,
Mangalore.
Represented by G.P.A. Holder and
Mother Smt.Hemalatha Thakkar,
W/o. Aravind M. Thakkar,
R/A. Apeksha Residency,
Warehouse Road,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
Complaint No.:36/2009:
1. Sri. Rajesh Shenoy,
Aged about 37 years,
So. Sri.Sadashiva Shenoy.
2. Smt.Roopa Shenoy,
W/o. Sri.P.Rajesh Shenoy,
Aged about 34 years,
No.1 & 2 are residing in Flat No.102.
3. Sri. Fazlul Raheem,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o. Sri.K.P.Abdulla.
4. Smt. S. Afsabi,
Aged about 31 years,
W/o. K.Fazlul Raheem,
No.3 and 4 are R/A. Flat No.104.
5. Mrs.Prasanna Kumari,
Aged about 43 years,
R/A. Flat No.201.
6. Sri.K.Raghavendra Rao,
S/o. Vishwanath Rao,
Aged about 48 years.
7. Smt.Kavitha R. Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o. Raghavendra Rao,
No.6 and 7 are R/A. Flat No.204,
All are Residing at Apeksha Residency,
Warehouse Road,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANTS
Complaint No.:37/2009:
1. Mrs. Mithila Prabodh Bolur,
Wo. Sri. Prabodh C. Bolur,
Aged about 58 years.
2. Mr.Prabodh C. Bolur,
S/o. Sri.B.Chandrashekhar,
Aged about 66 years,
No.1 & 2 are R/A. Flat No.301.
3. Mr.Naveen Kille,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Poovappa Kille,
R/A. Flat No.402.
4. Dr.Sudesh Shetty,
S/o. Sri.S.Jayaram Shetty,
Aged about 36 years.
5. Mr.Jayaram Shetty,
Aged about 65 years,
S/o. Late Sri.Ganapayya Shetty,
No.4 & 5 are R/A. Flat No.404.
6. Mr.Anand P. Rao,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o. Sachidanand Rao,
R/A. Flat No.502.
7. Mr.Manish Dugar,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Sri.Vimal Kumar Dugar,
R/A. Flat No.701.
8. Sri.Shekar R. Shetty,
S/o. late Ramayya Shetty,
Aged about 56 years.
9. Smt.Shankari S. Shetty,
W/o. Sri.Shekar R. Shetty,
Aged about 49 years,
No.8 & 9 are R/A. Flat No.902,
All are Residing at Apeksha Residency,
Warehouse Road,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANTS
Complaint No.:97/2009:
Ms. Rashmi Shetty,
Do. Sri.M.Ravindra Shetty,
Aged about 25 years,
RA. Flat No.604,
Apeksha Residency,
Warehouse Road,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
Complaint No.:98/2009:
Mr.L.N. Prasad Rao,
RA. Flat No.204,
Apeksha Residency,
Warehouse Road,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
Complaint No.:11/2009:
Sri.P.Vasanth M. Bhandarkar,
So. Late P.Madhava Bhandarkar,
Aged about 47 years,
RA. Madhav Bagh,
Sri. Mukya Prana Temple Road,
Mangalore 575 001. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri.Amrith Kini).
VERSUS
Mr.Ganesh Shetty K.,
So. Late Krishna Shetty,
Aged about 39 years,
Proprietor of Ms.Apoorva Associates,
Asheesh Apartments,
Kodialbail,
Mangalore 575 003. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
in all the above cases.
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.K.Dayananda Rai)
***************
COMMON ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in construction against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
We have taken common order in all connected cases i.e., complaint No.34/2009, 35/2009, 36/2009, 37/2009, 11/2009, 97/2009 and 98/2009. Since the subject matter involved in this case is similar in nature all the complaints taken for common order.
The Complainants submitted that the Opposite Party is a promoter and builder by profession has constructed and developed number of apartment buildings. The Opposite Party running the said business as a proprietor under the name and style “M/s.APOORVA ASSOCIATES”. It is submitted that Opposite Party promoted the residential building under the name and style “APEKSHA RESIDENCY” at Kodiabail Village of Kambla ward in the immovable properties measuring 0.36 cents in R.S. No.451/3C.
It is stated that the Complainants in all the complaints are the purchasers of one apartment each either individually or jointly in the said building along with car park, undivided rights in the land and also common areas and facilities.
It is stated that the Complainants have individually approached the Opposite Party and negotiated with him before purchase of the respective apartment by them. It is stated that at the time of negotiating, the Opposite Party has promised with the Complainants to provide many amenities and facilities in the said building and distributed pamphlets and brochures to the Complainants and undertaken to provide various amenities and facilities as mentioned in the said brochure. Apart from that, the Opposite Party has undertaken to use quality building materials, quality construction and quality workmanship in the said apartment building and entered into separate written agreements between the Opposite Party and with the Complainants for the purchase of one apartment each in the said apartment building.
It is stated that as per the terms of the agreement the Opposite Party has undertaken to convey the respective apartment to each of the Complainants with a clear marketable title free from all encumbrances. The total consideration agreed to be paid and the Opposite Party had agreed that no additional amount shall be claimed apart from the amount mentioned in the agreements. As per the terms of the said agreements the Opposite Party agreed to deliver the apartments on or before 31.8.2006 and has undertaken to give the copy of the completion certificate issued by Mangalore City Corporation. Further the Opposite Party has undertaken to paint the building both internally and externally with two coats of good quality paints. The entire ground floor as well as cellar floor are shown as parking area to the apartment owners and each parking area shall be allotted to them on payment of separate consideration. After satisfied with the Opposite Party’s undertaking the Complainants have separately agreed to purchase one apartment each in the said building. The Complainants have made the payment promptly as per the terms of the agreement. Inspite of the positive action from the Complainants, the Opposite Party has failed to adhere to the various terms of the aforesaid agreements entered into between the Opposite Party and each of the Complainants.
The Complainants further submit that till now the Opposite Party has failed to give the completion certificate of the building issued by Mangalore City Corporation (herein after called ‘MCC’) and failed to obtain door numbers from MCC to each of the apartment purchased by the Complainants. The Opposite Party has failed to submit the apartment building along with the land under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act by giving necessary declaration as required under law. Further stated that the Opposite Party has totally violated the building rules and constructed the building against the licence granted. The Opposite Party has attempted to put up additional structure over the building and also the additional floor without the permission from MCC and attempted to covert the ground floor and cellar floor parking area by making construction against the terms of the licence. Opposite Party has violated the rules and regulations and bye-laws of MCC granted in his favour. The Opposite Party failed to mark the parking area to each of the apartment owners. And also failed to make revenue entries in respect of ‘A’ schedule properties in the name of association and also failed to form association and submit the original documents and other connected documents pertaining to the ‘A’ schedule properties to the building owners association. The Opposite Party failed to furnish necessary guarantee card and documents in respect of lift provided to the apartment building and also failed to provide audit report of the MESCOM to the building owners.
It is alleged that the Opposite Party has collected additional amounts from many of the Complainants in the name of service tax, VAT, price escalation and recreation hall to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- and the Opposite Party failed to hand over necessary papers and documents for the payment received. And further alleged that the Opposite Party has illegally retained 3.4% undivided right in the ‘A’ schedule property with him. Further stated that the Opposite Party has made attempt to put up the pent house in the 10th floor without licence and further attempted to construct office premises in the ground floor at the place which were set apart and marked for car parking. The Opposite Party has neither obtained any permission nor intimated the same to the Complainant. And further the Opposite Party not provided post box for each flat owners.
It is further stated that the amenities and facilities are provided are sub-standard and also of the less value and utility. The elevator provided by the Opposite Party is too small and having less capacity, in fact the Opposite Party promised to provide the elevator capacity of 8 passengers but provided less capacity. The Opposite Party has failed to provide telecom with intercom and cable TV connection to each of the apartment as undertaken by him and failed to provide landscaped garden which was agreed by him and not provided interlock to the entire ground floor portion. It is stated that Opposite Party has used ordinary ARK fittings to the bathrooms and kitchen and the external painting with exterior emulsion paints not been provided to the building. Storage racks in the kitchen are not provided, it is stated that the Opposite Party collected extra amount to provide storage racks and lofts in bedroom and in the kitchen but the same was not provided and also failed to provide security room, society room and common toilets which he has agreed and undertaken. It is stated that all the above allegations made by the Complainants are violated by the Opposite Party in other words failed to provide to the Complainants till this date as per the agreement.
It is submitted that in some of the cases i.e., complaint No.11/09, 97/09 and 98/09 the Opposite Party not even delivered the possession of the apartment to the respective owners/Complainants till this date apart from the above allegations.
Finally the Complainants issued a notice to the Opposite Party to deliver possession of the aforesaid apartment as undertaken but the Opposite Party refused to receive the notice and hence all the Complainants filed the above complaints before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party the following reliefs:-
a) to deliver the possession of the common areas and also get the completion certificate and door number to the apartment, occupancy certificate.
b) to provide all the amenities as agreed by him under agreement.
c) to submit the apartment building along with the land under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act by giving necessary declaration as required under law.
d) direct the Opposite Party to mark the car parking area to each of the apartment owners.
e) to refund the extra amounts collected from the Complainants (Rs.1,60,000/- along with 18% interest.
f) to complete the building works and painting immediately.
g) to set right the amenities and facilities by replacing the defective items.
h) to restrain the Opposite Party from putting up any construction on the 10th floor.
i) to restrain the Opposite Party from converting the ground floor and cellar floor, parking area to any other use.
j) to submit all original and connected documents pertaining of the said apartment to the owners association.
k) directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each towards the loss, damage, inconvenience and mental agony.
l) to pay Rs.10,000/- per month from 31.8.2006 till the delivery of the possession of the apartment and to pay cost of the litigation expenses.
In complaint No.11/09, 97/09 and 98/09 filed by the Complainant sought relief seeking direction from this Hon’ble Forum to the Opposite Party to deliver the possession of the apartment other than the above reliefs (rest of the reliefs are common).
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed similar version and submitted as follows:
The Opposite Party admitted that he is a promoter and builder by profession and running business as proprietor under the name and style “M/s.APOORVA ASSOCIATES”. It is admitted that he has also promoted the residential apartment and building under the name and style “APEKSHA RESIDENCY” at Kodialbail Village of Kambla Ward, the immovable properties measuring 0.36 cents in R.S.No.451/3C.
It is stated that the Complainants have purchased an undivided right in the immovable property comprised in R.S. No.451/3C, TS No.290-3C1 measuring 0.36 cents in Kodialbail village with the intention of constructing an apartment along with other apartment purchasers in the apartment complex to be known as “APEKSHA RESIDENCY”. The apartment of the purchasers are described in the schedule of the agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between the Complainants and the Opposite Party. It is admitted that Complainants have individually approached and negotiated with the Opposite Party before purchase of the respective apartment.
It is denied by the Opposite Party that at the time of negotiating he has promised to provide many amenities and facilities in the said apartment and distributed pamphlets and brochures to the Complainant. It is stated that Opposite Party has used quality building materials, quality construction and quality workmanship in the said apartment building and the Complainants voluntarily agreed to purchase the apartment and executed separate written agreement. It is stated that as per the terms of the agreement the Opposite Party had undertaken to convey the apartment to the Complainants with a clear marketable title from all encumbrances. It is stated that the total consideration agreed to be paid in respect of the apartment was clearly mentioned but it is subject to the apartment owners paying the various installment of payment as mentioned in the agreement. But the Complainants have failed to pay the installment of payment as stated in the agreement. It is stated that as per the agreement the Opposite Party agreed and undertaken to deliver the apartments on or before 31.8.2006 but the delay is caused on account of heavy rain in monsoon and delays in obtaining various statutory clearances including three service connections. Therefore, the Opposite Party is unable to deliver the apartments on or before 31.8.2006.
The Opposite Party already completed the work of the apartment, the interior work of the apartment are done by the Opposite Party at the cost of the purchasers after handing over the apartment. It is stated that the Opposite Party has painted the building both internally and externally with two coats good quality paints. It is stated that the Complainants after satisfying themselves regarding the good condition of the construction of the apartment had occupied the apartment and therefore the Complainants are estopped from making any claims or demands.
It is stated that the promoter/architect of the building reserved the right of addition, deletion, to the specifications stated in the agreement even though the apartment shall be constructed as per approved building plan issued by the City Corporation Mangalore. It is denied that the Opposite Party has totally violated the building rules and constructed the building against the licence. It is submitted that he had already filed an application before the City Corporation Mangalore to regularize the plan and licence under Sakrama Plan and the said matter is pending in the MCC. On the aforesaid pending statutory clearance the Opposite Party is unable to obtain completion certificate, door number, deed of declaration and to mark the parking area to each of the apartment owners. Since the building is under construction and not sold out entire apartments question of forming association and submitting original documents and other connected documents pertaining to the properties does not arise at this stage. It is stated that the Opposite Party himself paying maintenance charges in respect of the entire building. The question of handing over guarantee card and documents, audit report will arise only after handing over the entire building to apartment owners. The Opposite Party still retained the apartment and undivided interest in the schedule property. Therefore the Complainants in their individual capacity cannot claim original documents.
The Opposite Party stated that he is unable to hand over the possession of the apartment to the Complainants on account delay in obtaining various statutory clearance including service connections And stated that he is not liable to pay any compensation or damages or interest to the Complainants. The rest of the allegations are denied specifically and contended that the Opposite Party has provided all the facilities and amenities and all the materials used are standard and valuable and utilizable and contended that there is no deficiency and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation/damages to the Complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
Whether the Complainants prove that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Prabodh C. Bolur – Complainant No.2 in complaint No.37/2009 (CW1), one Sri.P.Vasanth M. Bhandarkar – Complainant in complaint No.11/2009 (CW2) and one Sri.Raghavendra Rao, Brother of the Complainant in complaint No.98/2009 (CW3) filed affidavits reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on them. Ex C1 to C38 were marked for the Complainants as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Ganesh Shetty K. (RW1), Opposite Party in all the above cases filed counter affidavit and got marked Ex R1 and R2 as listed in the annexure. The Complainant produced notes of arguments along with CDJ Law Journal.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
On consideration of the documents and the materials placed before the FORA it is admitted by the parties that in all the cases the Complainants entered into an agreement to construct an apartment building with the Opposite Party on 26.11.2005, 17.10.2005, 6.8.2005, 28.10.2005, 31.3.2005, 5.12.2005, 19.08.2005, 25.8.2005 2.8.2005 and 12.8.2005 respectively. And under the above said agreement depicted that the Complainants have purchased an undivided right in the immovable properties and the Opposite Party undertaken to construct an apartment along with other apartment purchasers in the apartment complex to be known as “APEKSHA RESIDENCY” being constructed in the schedule ‘A’ of the properties fully described in schedule ‘B’ of the above construction agreement. Under the above construction agreement the builder i.e., the Opposite Party has undertaken to construct the entire apartments and having discussed and agreed upon the payment, construction and other terms and conditions. That the Opposite Party has taken consideration to provide service by constructing the apartment building. There is a contract for construction of an agreement in accordance with the specifications and in terms of the contract, there is a consideration for such construction flowing from Complainants to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had undertaken to construct the building as per the terms of the agreement and the builder i.e., the Opposite Party is a service provider undertakes to deliver the multiple apartments to the apartment owner i.e., the Complainants herein within the period of end of August 2006. However, under the above said agreement the Opposite Party undertaken to provide the following specifications to the building/apartments, the same has been reproduced herebelow:
Two elevators.
Generator for common and apartment lighting with sound proof enclosure.
Fire fighting system.
Landscaped garden.
Cable TV connection.
Covered car parking for all flats against payment.
Society room and security room in ground floor and common toilets in the ground floor.
Marble/granite flooring for the common areas and staircase.
Attractive melamine polished decorative main entrance doors.
Marble or vitrified flooring for drawing and dining room.
Superior quality ceramic tiles (15’x 15’) for kitchen and bedroom.
Design glazed tiles for toilets and kitchen (24” above platform).
Granite platform with bullnozing and with granite/stainless steel sink for kitchen.
Coloured sanitary ware (Hindustan/Parryware or equalent quality) in all toilets.
Distemper painting for ceiling and walls.
Electrical wiring using V-Guard/Finolex.
Now the point in dispute between the Complainants and the Opposite Party before the FORA is that the Complainants in all the complaints are the purchasers of one apartment each either individually or jointly along with car park undivided rights in the land and also common areas and facilities. It is stated by the Complainants that the Opposite Party had distributed brochures to the Complainants and undertaken to provide various amenities and facilities as mentioned in the said brochures. Apart from the brochure the Opposite Party entered into separate written agreements and undertaken to use quality building materials, quality construction and quality workmanship in the said apartment building.
It is specifically alleged in all the complaints of the Complainants before this FORA as follows:
1) The Opposite Party failed to convey the respective apartment to each of the Complainants with a clear marketable title free from all encumbrances.
2) The consideration agreed to be paid and the Opposite Party had agreed that no additional amount shall be claimed apart from the amount mentioned in the agreements but the Opposite Party sought additional amount apart from the consideration paid.
3) The Opposite Party agreed to deliver the apartments on or before 31/8/2006 and has undertaken to give the copy of the completion certificate issued by MCC but failed.
4) Further alleged that the entire ground floor as well as cellar floor are shown as parking area to the apartment owners and each parking area shall be allotted to them on payment of separate consideration. The Complainants have made the payment promptly as per the terms of the agreement but the Opposite Party failed to adhere to the various terms of the said agreements entered.
5) It is further stated that till now the Opposite Party has failed to give completion certificate and failed to obtain door numbers to each of the apartment and further failed to submit the deed of declaration under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act.
6) The Opposite Party violated the building rules and constructed the building against the licence granted in his favour and attempted to put up additional structure over the building and additional floor without the permission from the MCC and attempted to convert the ground floor and cellar floor parking area by making construction against the terms of the licence.
7) And further alleged that Opposite Party failed to mark the car parking area and failed to make revenue entries and failed to form association and submit the original documents and other connected documents, failed to furnish necessary guarantee card, audit report etc.
8) It is again alleged that the Opposite Party has collected additional amounts from many of the Complainants in the name of service tax, Vat, price escalation and recreation hall to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-.
9) And further alleged that the Opposite Party has illegally retained 3.4% undivided right in the ‘A’ schedule property with him.
10) The Opposite Party has made attempt to put up the pent house in the 10th floor without the licence and also started to construct office premises in the ground floor at the place which were set apart and marked for car parking. The Opposite Party has neither obtained any permission nor intimated to the Complainants.
11) And further stated that the amenities and facilities are provided are sub-standard.
12) The elevator provided is too small and having less capacity in fact the Opposite Party promised to provide the elevator capacity of eight passengers but provided less capacity.
13) Further failed to provide telecom with intercom cable TV connection to each of the apartment but failed.
14) Further failed to provide landscaped garden, not provided interlock to the entire ground floor portion and failed to provide security room, society room and common toilets which has agreed. And further stated that in complaint No.11/09 the Opposite Party not delivered the possession of the apartment to the respective owner/ Complainant till this date. It is contended that the Opposite Party violated the terms and conditions of the agreement entered.
Per contra, the Opposite Party contended that he has not promised to provide any amenities and facilities in the said apartment as per the pamphlets and brochures produced by the Complainants. The total consideration agreed to be paid in respect of the apartment was not paid as per the various installment of payment as mentioned in the agreement. The delay in delivering the apartments on account of heavy rain in monsoon and also in obtaining various statutory clearance and contended that the Opposite Party completed the work of the apartment and it has been delivered to the Complainants and denied all other allegations alleged in the complaint by the Complainants and further stated that the promoter/ architect of the building reserved the right of addition, deletion, to the specifications stated in the agreement even though the apartment shall be constructed as per approved building plan issued by the Mangalore City Corporation (herein after called “MCC”). It is stated that he had already filed an application before the City Corporation to regularize the plan and licence under Sukrama Plan and the said matter is pending before the MCC. On the aforesaid pending statutory clearance, the Opposite Party is unable to obtain completion certificate, door number and deed of declaration and to mark the car park areas. Since the building is under construction and not soldout entire apartments the question of forming association and submitting original documents and other connected documents does not arise and stated that he himself paying maintenance charges in respect of the entire building and he also retained undivided interest in the schedule property and denied the deficiency.
Now the point for consideration is that, whether the Opposite Party justified his stand by providing cogent evidence. On the other hand, whether the Complainants proved before the FORA that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
In the given case, the 1st burden lies upon the Complainants to prove before the FORA that the Opposite Party committed deficiency. In order to substantiate their contention the Complainants examined and filed evidence as CW1 to CW3 and Ex C1 to C38 marked. At the same time the Opposite Party also led common evidence by filing affidavit but not tendered for cross-examination by the Complainants in spite of granting sufficient time by this Forum. Ex R1 and R2 were marked.
Apart from the above, the Complainants filed an application to appoint expert to note the deficiencies in construction of the building committed by the Opposite Party. The said application was allowed and one Mr.Chandrakiran K.Y. Principal Architect, Architects and Interior Consultants, Mangalore appointed as an expert and filed an expert report in detail before the FORA.
For the sake of convenience, we discuss point by point as follows:-
The 1st point we have taken up for discussion is that whether the Opposite Party constructed the building as per the building licence issued by the MCC and violated the terms and conditions of the building licence and also whether the Opposite Party delivered the possession of the apartment on or before 30.8.2006 as agreed/undertaken by him as per the construction agreement entered with the Complainants. The answer is “No”.
In the given case, the Ex C28 is the building licence issued by the MCC dated 30.11.2004 bearing licence No.E4BA 224-2004-05 admitted document annexed with plan clearly reveals that the Opposite Party not constructed the building in accordance with the approved plan and licence. The commissioner report in page 10 to 12 (column a to f) while answering the point No.2 to 4 clearly reported that the construction of the apartment is not as per the plan mainly in the terrace area that is on the roof, illegal structure was put up and the car parking area was reduced by putting plumbing ducks. The drawing of the car park layout of the ground floor show the cars placed on either side of the lift and staircase lobby with drive way all round the building. No buildings/walls have been represented in the drawing. The floor plans depict only car parking with staircase and lift lobby in the basement. As per the drawing the roof of the final level i.e., roof of 9th floor is a open terrace. In all it is stated by the Commissioner clearly in his report that the Opposite Party violated the terms and conditions of the building licence and not constructed the building in accordance with the approved plan. The Ex C24 i.e., the copy of the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 30.6.2008 for non-compliance of the building byelaws and FAR violation in the newly constructed building (page No.6, No.7) it has clearly stated that parking violation and FAR violation, set back violation and occupancy certificate is not issued because the residential building is fully occupied. Even the above notice also supports the case of the Complainants. And further the Ex C25 and C26 i.e., the notice issued by the Commissioner, Mangalore City Corporation shows the variation/deviation to the approved plan and the construction made by the Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party interalia contended that there are variations and violations of the byelaw and he had filed an application before the MCC to regularize the plan and licence under Sakrama Plan and the said matter is pending before the Sakrama Committee. And further raised a contention that as per the construction agreement the Opposite Party can make any variations. The above plea cannot be accepted because as per the construction agreement the Opposite Party supposed to complete the apartment by the end of August 2006 i.e., 30.8.2006. But in the given case, the Complainants were not aware of the violations/deviations of the plan. Since the Complainants are undivided right holders as well as owners of the apartment agreed to construct the building as per licence issued by the MCC dated 30.11.2004 and the Opposite Party agreed for the same as per the terms of the agreement. But the Opposite Party without any notice/ permission/intimation to the Complainants violated and deviated the plan. The Opposite Party also failed to obtain approved plan before deviating/violating the licence which has been already approved by the MCC. Further the agreements entered by the parties specifically states as follows: “that the apartment shall be constructed as per approved building plans of the City Corporation Mangalore and subject to any variations made in respect thereof, and as per specifications morefully detailed in the annexure A here to completed”. From the above clause it has been made very clear that the subject to any variations shall be subject to be constructed as per the approved building plans. The Opposite Party cannot violate/deviate the licence by hampering the original building plan. In the given case, the Opposite Party failed to obtain approved plan before making any deviation or variation on the already approved plan issued by the MCC by obtaining permission/intimation from the Complainants. Since the Opposite Party violated/deviated the original licence the Complainants are put to hardship. Due to these violations, the Opposite Party has failed to get the completion certificate, occupancy certificate and door numbers to the apartments. In other words, we can say that the Opposite Party constructed the building by violating the licence issued the by the MCC without the knowledge of the owners of the apartment/without obtaining any consent which amounts to deficiency in service. The Opposite Party is bound to provide/complete the building as per the approved plan within the time stipulated/agreed by him. It is the duty of the Opposite Party to rectify those deviations or bring the deviations within permissible limits and secure completion certificate. But in the given case, the Opposite Party failed to do so which amounts to deficiency as we discussed earlier and the Complainants are entitled for the compensation/ damages from the Opposite Party for the act done by him.
As far as other deficiencies are concerned, i.e., failure to provide amenities as promised by the Opposite Party at the time of agreement. Under the agreement, the Opposite Party undertaken to provide various amenities i.e., the elevators, telecom with cable TV, landscaped garden, concrete interlock paving for car parking and yard, only front part of car park area is with concrete interlock paving other half is with cement flooring. Jaguar/nova fittings for toilets and kitchen were not provided, ordinary ARK fittings for toilets and kitchen were provided. External paintings with exterior emulsion paints were agreed to be provided but external painting with exterior emulsion paints not completed. Storage racks in kitchen were promised but not provided and later provided at extra cost. Society room, security room and common toilets in the ground floor not provided. The above amenities/specification that are not provided by the Opposite Party has been proved by the Commissioner report.
As far as brochure is concerned, the Opposite Party contended that he had not agreed to provide the amenities reflected in the brochure and drawn our attention on the foot of the brochure, wherein it has stated “any one shall be provided in the whole project at the discretion of the promoter, this brochure is purely conceptual and is not a legal offering. The promoters/architects reserve the right to add delete/alter any detail/specification/elevation mentioned herein”. The Opposite Party contended that the brochure is purely a conceptual and the promoters and the architects reserved the right to add delete/alter any detail/ specification/elevation in the above project. The above contention cannot be accepted because first of all the condition mentioned in the brochure is not at all binding to the buyers, such conditions will not prevail in the eye of law. Moreover, such conditions will not take away the basic amenities and facilities provided to the buyers. It is a settled position that the brochure also plays an important role while purchasing the apartment by the publics. Because the builder/Opposite Party giving advertisement to the public showing the elevation of the building and features available in the building by making wide advertisement attracting the public to buy their apartment. Later on turning down with the facilities and amenities to the buyers by raising above contention will not meet the ends of justice. The advertisement by way of brochure to the public and later on turning down with the features which amounts to unfair trade practice. In the given case, the Opposite Party advertised certain features in his proposed apartment and later on turned down with the amenities and facilities.
However, the Opposite Party entered into a construction agreement and specifically undertaken to provide two elevators but the passenger capacity of the elevator was not mentioned. Under such circumstances, whatever the Opposite Party stated in the brochure would have been provided to the apartment but in the given case the Opposite Party provided elevators with six passengers. The Commissioner observed that this is too congested when compared with the volume of traffic lift has to cope with. Since it is admitted that there are nine floors with 34 apartments we do consider the remarks expressed by the Commissioner in this case.
As far as generator for common and apartment lighting with sound proof enclosure is concerned, the same has been provided but the commissioner observed that the above set has been located in the open space and the building set back area closed to the sub-station and not in the designated room as shown in the sanction drawing. And further observed that the outlet from the exhaust has provided just above the DG set the exhaust threat to the inhabitants in the building which is acceptable.
As far as fire fitting system is concerned, the Opposite Party has provided the fire fitting system but the same is not proper as observed by the Commissioner.
Landscaped garden is concerned, the commissioner is clearly observed that the same has not been provided.
As far as car parking is concerned, the Commissioner observed that all the car parking are encroached upon by the builder. It is stated by the Commissioner that if he succeeds in building office/flats at car park, seven car parks will be lost. Further observed that demarcation of the car parking has not been properly earmarked and the residents has not been allotted car parking slots, the result is to congestion of vehicles towards one part of the building. And further the marking on the ground has been measured by the Commissioner, some slots have been measured as 7.6 inches wide for each car park. The regulation from the MCC defines a car park space as 3 meter x 6 meter but the above space is 9’10” x 18 inch (L). And it is further stated that proper turning radius not provided at all locations. The parking is observed by the commissioner only on one side of the building above the basement while the other side no vehicles are parked as the builder has enclosed the parking area with laterite stone masonry. In the southern side of the building the concrete interlocking pavers have not been completed. Only the required paving tiles have been stacked. This area was the location of the hoist used for the lifting construction materials.
From the above it is proved that the car parking area has been reduced by the Opposite Party because of the additional storage and other rooms which amounts to deficiency.
As far as painting is concerned, the commissioner observed that in the external painting for the building brush marks are seen, some white patches are also seen and it is stated that the walls have been treated with one coat of paint over a coat of primer which has been termed as two coats, there is a final coat of painting pending. And further he has stated that the painting of the window, a coat of premier not applied, photographs were produced in support of the same and on overall observation made in point No.8 by the Commissioner clearly reveals that there are so many unattended/unfinished works in the said building find a plays in the commissioner report. In point No.9 the commissioner has clearly pointed out that no society room, security room and common toilet are provided on the ground floor. And further in point No.10 the commissioner observed that full car park area is not provided with concrete interlock paving as discussed earlier. And further in point No.12 i.e., with regard to the attractive melamine polished decorative main entrance door. As far as this point is concerned, the commissioner pointed out that the entrance door for all the flats have been provided with wooden frames and flush door shutters which have a pleasing design to make it attractive but the junction of the door frames and the walls have developed in crakes in most cases. In some particular cases the bigger chunks of the walls have been cracked. The point No.13 i.e., marble flooring for drawing and dining room, the commissioner pointed out that only vitrified tiles are fixed for the flooring in living and dining areas and in flat No.502 the tile laying has not been properly done, resulting unevenness in the floor. Superior ceramic tiles for kitchen and bed rooms are not provided, in some cases the vitrified flooring rooms have been extended to other rooms at the owners cost. In point No.16 granite platform with bullnozing and with granite/stainless steel sink for kitchen are concerned, the Opposite Party provided granitite platforms, the quality of the sinks noted by the commissioner that it is of the inferior quality and further the commissioner noted that there has been change in the brands of the plumbing pipe fittings which are inferior than the one suggested. Further the point No.17 the CP plumbing fittings for toilets and kitchen. The Commissioner noted that there has been change in the brands of the plumbing pipe fittings, inferior fittings are provided other than the branded one. Point No.18 i.e., coloured sanitary wear (Hindustan/Parryware) in all toilets. The Commissioner noted that only white coloured sanitary fixtures have been provided and not the one stated by the Opposite Party. The electrical wiring using V-guard phinolex. As far as this specification is concerned, the commissioner noted that the electrical switches used was very ordinary, the fan regulator knob would come out in the users hand when tried to adjust the speed. Superior design locks for all inside doors are not provided only main entrance door has locked and all other doors are provided with latches.
The commissioner further noted that the terrace is occupied by unfinished pent house pillars and recreation hall. And all the doors and window fixtures are very ordinary and pointed out that it is unsatisfactory. All the observations made by the Commissioner in this case very clearly shows that the Opposite Party failed to provide the specifications as agreed by him atleast as per the construction agreement entered with the Complainants. And also it reveals that the Opposite Party other than providing the specifications undertaken by him he has violated the licence and tried to deviate the plan and encroached the car park area and trying to build up a office spaces in the car park area and also trying to build a pent house in the terrace clearly reveals that the builder/the Opposite Party has made deviations/violations in the construction. The builder/the Opposite Party cannot say that he had delivered the possession of the apartment but it is the duty of the Opposite Party to fulfill his obligations. In the given case, it is further shows that the Opposite Party not provided the completion certificates and deed of declaration and other relevant documents till this date. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the building work is not completed and the matter is pending before the MCC because he has already moved under Sakrama Plan. In the given case, in repetition we would like to highlight that the Opposite Party without obtaining any consent/giving any intimation in advance from the apartment owners i.e., the Complainants in all the complaints and also without obtaining approved plan from the MCC deviated/violated the plans according to his convenience. Because of the deviation and violating the byelaws the Opposite Party could not able to get completion certificate and could not complete the building till this date. It is his duty to rectify those deviations or bring the deviations within permissible limits and secure a completion certificate and form an owners association and handover the documents. The builder/Opposite Party cannot now say that the building is not completed nor the Sakrama application is pending before the MCC Mangalore. If the Sakrama application is allowed, the more sufferer will be the Complainants rather than the Opposite Party. Because as we discussed herein above that the seven car parking area is going to be lost further the pent house in the terrace will be coming up etc. etc. will be caused more inconvenience to the purchasers of the above apartment.
We find that it is the duty of the Opposite Party to complete the building as per the undertaking given by him but in the given case the Opposite Party took false contention by stating that because of the statutory clearance he could not complete the building or due to the monsoon he could not complete the work which is not acceptable because it is the duty of the Opposite Party to construct the building as per the approved plan and not to deviate/violate the byelaws and get into stooped.
However, the construction agreement placed before the FORA, we noticed that the various terms in the agreement between the Complainants and the Opposite Party categorically specifies the specifications and the Opposite Party undertaken to provide these specifications because he has received the consideration which is not disputed by the Opposite Party.
The nature of the agreement entered between the Complainants and the Opposite Party clearly reveals that the Complainants purchased undivided right in the immovable properties with intention to construct an apartment along with other apartment purchasers in the apartment complex known as “Apeksha Residency”. Therefore, the Opposite Party enters into an agreement with the Complainants and the Complainants asked the builder/Opposite Party to construct a residential apartment. For the above said construction there is a consideration for which the Opposite Party was agreed and the Complainants were paid the entire consideration to the Opposite Party. The above said agreement which shows an intention of the Opposite Party to provide service to the Complainants by undertaking to provide various facilities and amenities as per the specifications. Under such circumstances, the nature and true purpose of a document has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents which express the intention of the parties. Under the above said agreement the Opposite Party is required to construct the apartments in accordance with the sanctioned plan and specifications and the terms in the agreement and deliver the same to the Complainants. If the construction is part of a building which in law requires a completion certificate, deed of declaration and other necessary documents. The builder is bound to provide the completion certificate and other documents. The Opposite Party also bound to provide amenities and facilities in terms of the agreement. If the completion certificate and other documents are not being issued by the Corporation because the builder/Opposite Party has made deviations/violation in construction in this case. It is the duty of the Opposite Party to rectify those deviations or bring the deviations within permissible limits with the consent of other apartment owners and secure a completion certificate and other documents get it registered. The Opposite Party cannot say that he has got discretionary to make variations in the plan. No doubt, the Opposite Party can make variations but subject to the approved plan but not according to his whims and fancies. The 1st thing is to be construct the building as per the approved plan. In case Opposite Party intends to revise the plan/alteration/ amendment, the Opposite Party shall get approved/ revised/amended plan with the consent of the other apartment owners and then construct. But in the given case, without the approved plan and without the knowledge of the Complainants the Opposite Party deviated and violated the approved plan as well as byelaws then filed a Sakrama application is not justifiable. However, in the given case, though the Opposite Party claims that he had filed a Sakrama application before the MCC but no records/ plans have been produced before the FORA to show that when exactly the Sakrama application has been made, what type of deviation/supplemental plan has been placed before the MCC. The obligation on the part of the builder to secure a sanctioned plan and construct a building, carries with it an implied obligation to comply with the requirements of municipal and building laws and secure the mandatory permissions/certificates. But in the given case, the Opposite Party totally failed on his obligation which amounts to deficiency in service and the Complainants were put to inconvenience and hardship were proved.
The another point raised by the Complainants towards the service tax, VAT, price escalation and recreation hall is concerned, the Complainants filed a affidavit by way of evidence. In one of the Complainant by name Mr.Padmanabha Kuriyadi, i.e., the owner of the apartment No.101 paid Rs.1,14,945/-, Rs.85,000/- by Mr.Rajesh Shenoy, Rs.91,265/- by Prasanna Kumari, Rs.65,386/- by Ramakrishna Shetty, Rs.28,164/ by Prabodh C. Bolur, Rs.1,31,901/- by Anand Rao. The above said amount collected from the above Complainants not disputed by the Opposite Party by way of cross-examination or by way of suggestion that they have not paid the amount stated by them. The above said amount was collected by the Opposite Party towards VAT, service tax and the construction of recreation hall is proved. The Ex C23 produced by the Complainants i.e., the service tax clarification for construction of industry which reads thus:
“In a case where the builder, promoter or developer builds a residential complex, having more than 12 residential units, by engaging a contractor for construction of such residential complex, the contractor shall be liable to pay service tax on the gross amount charged for the construction services provided to the builder/promoter/ developer under “Construction of complex”. If no other person is engaged for construction work and the builder/ promoter/developer undertakes construction work on his own without engaging the service of any other person, then in such cases in the absence of service provider and service recipient relationship, the question of providing taxable service to any person by any other person does not arise”.
From the above, it is very clear that the Complainants are not liable to pay any service tax or tax i.e., the Opposite Party/prompter/builder is liable to pay the same. And as far as recreation hall is concerned, the Opposite Party without obtaining the licence from the MCC collected additional amount from the Complainants which amounts to deficiency and the Opposite Party is liable to refund the same.
Finally in complaint No.11/2009 the Complainant contended that the possession of the apartment was not delivered till this date but the Opposite Party filed a version before the FORA that all the possession of the apartment given to the respective Complainants. Rest of the Complainants are admitted that the possession was given. But in this particular case, the Complainant specifically denied that the possession of the apartment was not handed over to the Complainant. Under such circumstances, the Opposite Party ought to have produced the cogent evidence/material before the FORA to show that the possession was delivered to the Complainant in this case. In the absence of any material evidence, we consider that the possession of the apartment was not delivered to the Complainant and the Complainant is entitled for the possession of the apartment immediately.
Apart from the commissioner report the Opposite Party though submitted the evidence by way of affidavit but not tendered for personal cross examination inspite of specific order passed by this FORA. It is further observed by us that this FORA had given sufficient opportunity to the Opposite Party to tender for cross examination, even though the Opposite Party not turned up and the entire evidence filed by the Opposite Party has no merits.
In view of the above discussions, it is proved beyond doubt that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service and the Complainants were harassed by the Opposite Party is proved. By considering the case on hand we hereby direct the Opposite Party to provide the following:-
a) to deliver the possession of the common areas and provide the completion certificate, occupancy certificate and door number to the apartments.
b) to provide all the amenities as agreed by the Opposite Party under the agreement.
c) to provide Deed of Declaration.
d) to mark the car parking area to each of the apartment owners.
e) to refund the extra amounts collected by the Opposite Party from the Complainant by name Mr.Padmanabha Kuriyadi in complaint No.34/2009 a sum of Rs.1,14,945/-, Rs.85,000/- by Mr.Rajesh Shenoy i.e., the Complainant No.1 in complaint No.36/2009, Rs.91,265/- by Prasanna Kumari i.e., the Complainant in complaint No.36/2009, Rs.65,386/- by A.H.Ramakrishna Shetty i.e., the Complainant No.2 in complaint No.34/2009, Rs.28,164/- by Prabodh C. Bolur i.e., the Complainant No.2 in complaint No.37/2009, Rs.1,31,901/- by Anand Rao i.e., the Complainant No.6 in complaint No.37/2009.
f) to complete the building works and painting within one month from the date of this order.
g) to set right the amenities and facilities by replacing the defective items.
h) the Opposite Party is not allowed to put up any construction on the 10th floor and on the ground floor and cellar, car parking area to any other use, it should be as per the approved plan and the Sakrama application filed by the Opposite Party shall be withdrawn immediately.
j) to form a owners association and to submit all original and connected documents pertaining to the said apartments to the owners association.
k) to deliver the possession of the apartment immediately to the Complainant in complaint No.11/2009 by taking endorsement from the Complainant.
Apart from the above, the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on each apartment (15 number of apartments) towards harassment and personal inconvenience suffered by the Complainants. The respective apartment owners are entitled to receive the same. And further we specifically direct that the Opposite Party shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the Complainant in complaint No.11/2009 towards harassment and personal inconvenience suffered by the Complainants. And Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. The compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
COMMON ORDER
The complaints are allowed. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to provide the following:-
a) to deliver the possession of the common areas and provide the completion certificate, occupancy certificate and door number to the apartments.
b) to provide all the amenities as agreed by the Opposite Party under the agreement.
c) to provide Deed of Declaration.
d) to mark the car parking area to each of the apartment owners.
e) to refund the extra amounts collected by the Opposite Party from the Complainant by name Mr.Padmanabha Kuriyadi in complaint No.34/2009 a sum of Rs.1,14,945/-, Rs.85,000/- by Mr.Rajesh Shenoy i.e., the Complainant No.1 in complaint No.36/2009, Rs.91,265/- by Prasanna Kumari i.e., the Complainant in complaint No.36/2009, Rs.65,386/- by A.H.Ramakrishna Shetty i.e., the Complainant No.2 in complaint No.34/2009, Rs.28,164/- by Prabodh C. Bolur i.e., the Complainant No.2 in complaint No.37/2009, Rs.1,31,901/- by Anand Rao i.e., the Complainant No.6 in complaint No.37/2009.
f) to complete the building works and painting within one month from the date of this order.
g) to set right the amenities and facilities by replacing the defective items.
h) the Opposite Party is not allowed to put up any construction on the 10th floor and on the ground floor and cellar, car parking area to any other use, it should be as per the approved plan and the Sakrama application filed by the Opposite Party shall be withdrawn immediately.
j) to form a owners association and to submit all original and connected documents pertaining to the said apartments to the owners association.
k) to deliver the possession of the apartment immediately to the Complainant in complaint No.11/2009 by taking endorsement from the Complainant.
Apart from the above, the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on each apartment (15 number of apartments) towards harassment and personal inconvenience suffered by the Complainants. The respective apartment owners are entitled to receive the same. And further we specifically direct that the Opposite Party shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the Complainant in complaint No.11/2009 towards harassment and personal inconvenience suffered by the Complainants. And Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. The compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of October 2009.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 – Sri.Prabodh C. Bolur – Complainant No.2 in complaint No.37/2009.
CW2 – Sri.P.Vasanth M. Bhandarkar – Complainant in complaint No.11/2009.
CW3 – Sri.Raghavendra Rao, Brother of the Complainant in complaint No.98/2009 (affidavit filed in complaint No.7/2009).
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:
Ex C1 – 26.11.2005 : Agreement to construction an apartment building entered into between Sri.K.Padmanabha (Complainant No.1 in complaint No.34/2009).
Ex C2 – 17.10.2005 : Agreement to construction an apartment building entered into between Sri.A.H.Ramakrishna Shetty (Complainant No.2 in complaint No.34/2009).
Ex C3 – 06.08.2005: Agreement to purchase with undivided right of land entered into between Sri.P.Rajesh Shenoy and Smt.Roopa Shenoy (Complainant No.1 in complaint No.36/2009).
Ex C4 – 29.10.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Sri.K.Fazlul Raheema and Smt.S.Afsabi (Complainant No.3 in complaint No.36/2009).
Ex C5 - 26.11.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Smt.B.Prasanna Kumari (Complainant No.5 in complaint No.36/2009).
Ex C6 - 31.03.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Sri.K.Raghavendra Rao and Kavitha R. Rao (Complainant No.6 in complaint No.36/2009).
Ex C7 – 05.12.2005: Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Smt.Mithila Prabodh Bolur and Sri.Prabodh C. Bolur (Complainant No.1 in complaint No.37/2009).
Ex C8 – 19.08.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Naveen Kille (Complainant No.3 in complaint No.37/2009).
Ex C9 – 25.08.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Sri. Sudesh Shetty and Sri.S.Jayaram Shetty (Complainant No.4 & 5 in complaint No.37/2009).
Ex C10 – 02.08.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Sri. Anand Rao (Complainant No.6 in complaint No.37/2009).
Ex C11 – 12.08.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Manish Dugar (Complainant No.7 in complaint No.37/2009).
Ex C12 – : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Shekar R. Shetty and Smt.Shankari S. Shetty (Complainant No.8 & 9 in complaint No.37/2009).
Ex C13 – 19.12.2008 : Legal notice issued to the Opposite Party.
Ex C14 - : Postal ackowledgement.
Ex C15 – 09.05.2007 : Xerox copy of the letter by Mr.Anand Rao P to the Opposite Party.
Ex C16 – 29.08.2007 : Copy of the letter by Mr.Anand Rao P to the Opposite Party.
Ex C17 – 24.12.2007 : Xerox copy of the letter by Flat Owners to the Opposite Party.
Ex C18 – 07.01.2008 : Xerox copy of the letter issued by Flat Owners to the Opposite Party.
Ex C19 – 12.01.2008 : Xerox copy of the letter issued by Flat Owners to the Opposite Party.
Ex C20 – 31.01.2008 : Xerox copy of the letter issued by Flat Owners to the Opposite Party.
Ex C21 – 03.02.2008 : Xerox copy of the letter issued by Flat Owners to the Opposite Party.
Ex C22 – : Xerox copy of the letter issued by Flat Owners to the Opposite Party.
Ex C23 – 01.08.2006 : Circular of service tax clarification.
Ex C24 – 30.06.2008 : Xerox copy of letter issued by Deputy Commissioner to the Secretary to Government.
Ex C25 – 07.01.2008 : Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Commissioner of Mangalore City corporation to Flat Owners.
Ex C26 – 10.01.2008 : Xerox copy of notice issued by Mangalore City Corporation.
Ex C27 – 07.11.2008 : Xerox copy of the notice issued by Mangalore City Corporation.
Ex C28 – 30.11.2004 : Xerox copy of building licence with approved plan.
Ex C29 - : Photo Albums ( two in numbers).
Ex C30 – 19.07.2008 : General Power of Attoenty executed by Sri.Chetan Thakkar in favour of Stm.Hemalatha Thakkar.
Ex C31 - : Brochure of Apeksha Apartment.
Ex C32 – 09.05.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Sri.P.Vasanth M. Bhandarkar (Complainant in complaint No.11/2009).
Ex C33 – 23.07.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Ms.Rashmi Shetty (Complainant in complaint No.97/ 2009).
Ex C34 – 07.12.2005 : Agreement to construct an apartment building entered into between Sri.Prasad Laxminarasimha Rao and Smt.Suchitra Prasad Rao (Complainant in complaint No.98/ 2009).
Ex C35 – 21.07.2008 : Legal notice issued to the Opposite Party (in complaint No.11/2009).
Ex C36 - : Postal acknowledgement in complaint No.11/2009.
Ex C37 – 19.12.2008 : Lawyer’s notice issued to the Opposite Party in complaint No.97/2009.
Ex C38 - : Postal acknowledgement in complaint No.97/2009.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Sri.Ganesh Shetty – Opposite Party in all the above cases.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – 29.01.2003: Proceedings of the Commissioner, City Corporation of Mangalore.
Ex R2 – 05.12.2005: Copy of the Registered Sale Deed.
Dated:15.10.2009 PRESIDENT
