BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.
C. C. 61 /2008
Between:
Smt.R. Amala Devi,
W/o.P.Sathender Reddy,
Age: 56 years Occ: Business,
R/o.306, Royal Palm Boulevard Charleston,
South Carolina 29407, USA,
Rep. by her GPA holder B.Ramesh Reddy,
S/o.B.Papi Reddy, Age; 56 years
Occ: Business, Now R/o.8-2-604/A/1,
Road No.10, Zaheernagar,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034. *** Complainant.
And
1. M/s. A.R. Developers,
a Partnership Firm,
Having its Office at 8-2-682, Road No.12,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034
Rep. by its Partners.
2.B.Rajesh Reddy,
S/o. B. Seetharam Reddy,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
Plot No.19, Nandagiri Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 034.
3.G.Amarender Reddy,
S/o.G.Sudhakar Reddy,
Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Plot No.1305, Road No.65,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties.
CC.No.62/2008
Between:
Smt. R. Uttara Devi,
W/o.B.Ramesh Reddy,
Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.20049, Seagull Way, Saratoga,
California, 95070,
U.S.A. rep. by her GPA holder,
S/o.B. Ramesh Reddy,
S/o.B.Papi Reddy,
Aged about 56 years,
Occ: Business,
Now R/o.8-2-604/A/1,
Road No.10, Zaheernagar,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034. *** Complainant.
And
1. M/s. A.R. Developers,
a Partnership Firm,
Having its Office at 8-2-682, Road No.12,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034
Rep. by its Partners.
2.B.Rajesh Reddy,
S/o.B.Seetharam Reddy,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
Plot No.19, Nandagiri Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 034.
3.G.Amarender Reddy,
S/o.G.Sudhakar Reddy,
Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Plot No.1305, Road No.65,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties.
C.C. No. 63/2008
Between:
Smt. R. Preetha Devi,
W/o. G.Naresh Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o.700, Sun River Lane,
Redding, California, 96001,
USA, rep. by her GPA holder
B.Ramesh Reddy, S/o.B.Papi Reddy,
Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business,
Now R/o.8-2-604/A/1,
Road No.10, Zaheernagar,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034. *** Complainant.
And
1. M/s. A.R. Developers,
a Partnership Firm,
Having its Office at 8-2-682, Road No.12,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034
Rep. by its Partners.
2.B.Rajesh Reddy,
S/o.B.Seetharam Reddy,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
Plot No.19, Nandagiri Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 034.
3.G.Amarender Reddy,
S/o.G.Sudhakar Reddy,
Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Plot No.1305, Road No.65,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr. S. Malla Rao.
Counsel for the Opp.Parties : Mr. Pavan Kumar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TEN
Common Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
1) These complaints are filed against 1st opposite party firm and its partners, realtors and developers for completion of balance of works and for damages and costs.
2) Since an identical complaints are filed against very same opposite parties, and as common questions of facts and law arise, they are clubbed together for passing a common order.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that opposite parties 2 and 3 are partners of opposite party No.1 firm a builder of repute they had purchased residential building 1-60-8/6/B-21, 1-60/8/6/B-16 and 1-60/8/6/B-17 respectively under agreement of sale dated 29.07.2004 followed by registered sale deeds dated 31.03.2006, 30.05.2005 and 30.03.2005 respectively for valuable consideration from its owners. They entered into construction agreement for the proposed building with M/s.GAR Construction Pvt. Ltd. or their nominees where the opposite parties had agreed to construct built up area approximately 3940 sq. feet at the rate of Rs.850/- per sft and be completed as per the specifications agreed upon. They had paid Rs.33,50,000/- each towards consideration. When there was a dispute as to the works, it was agreed that an outside agency at the expense of the complainants should inspect and submit report. Accordingly, one Sri Venkatesh was appointed, who inspected the building and noticed that the following works are yet to be completed:
Kitchen platform, dadoing, S.S.sink fixing.
Smooth finish and painting.
Toilet and electrical final fitting.
External painting.
Land scapping (1,040 sft)
Wash area ado tiles.
Electrical final fittings.
Compound wall and patch works.
Despite repeated requests, they did not complete the construction, even by July, 2006, as promised. Had the construction been completed they could have got income of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The total value of the un-finished work was Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, they filed the complaints for completion of the works mentioned above together with compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- and costs.
4) The complainant in CC.No.62/2008 alleged that she spent an amount of Rs. 13,69,754/- and got completed certain works like 1) Railing fixing, 2) Gate fixing, 3) Electrical switches & Plates fixing, 4) Servant quarter (plastering & cementing) – Flooring, Painting, Electrical works, Pipe lines & Final fittings, 5) Front side paving (Flooring) 6) Installation of Glass for Windows & Doors, 7) Flooring through out the House. Therefore, she sought reimbursement of the said amount, besides the claims mentioned in the other complaints.
5) Opposite parties resisted the case. While denying each and every fact alleged in the complaint, however admitted that they are reputed builders having vast experience in construction They had agreed that they would execute the work on payment of Rs.1250/- per sft The allegation that they have agreed for construction at Rs.850/- per sft is not true. The amount that was paid was only towards advance evident from the receipt issued by them. While the construction was in progress the complainants sought for inclusion and exclusion of several items making it difficult for it to proceed with the construction. As a result of which, it kept the work force idle for several days resulting in severe financial loss. The complainants themselves specifically mentioned the additional works and the reimbursements required to be made. Though originally they had to construct the house 3915 sft however due to the changes made by the complainants they had to construct in an additional area of 188.75 sft. The present area of the house is 4103.75 sft. Though it was agreed for appointment of mutually acceptable valuer to ascertain the works contrary to the understanding the complainants got the same made through one Sri Venkatesh without informing them. In the circumstances, the Commission was requested to appoint an advocate commissioner to verify the status of the construction. Since the complainants did not pay remaining balance they could not take up construction immediately. Later the complainants have obtained certificate of completion as early as in 2006 and filed before the Income Tax authorities claiming exemption from capital gains. However, the capital gains exemption was denied. The complainants themselves filed appeals before the Commission as well as Income Tax authorities and got it upheld. The complainants having obtained certificate of completion and having obtained the exemption from capital gains can not after a lapse of two and half years make claim. They filed frivolous complaints to gain unlawfully. The claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards rent was unsustainable. The locality in which the complainants house is located is called “Rolling Hills”. There was no security, light, road or other essentials. In fact the total cost of the construction of the house @ Rs.1250/- per sft would come to Rs.51,29,687/-. They had sustained a loss of Rs.7,20,313/- when the additional cost incurred by it towards the difference in the price of the specification furnished and the loss suffered as a result of the withholding of man power due to the failure of the contractors of the complainant failing to finish the work on time. The total amount payable by the complainants was Rs.58,50,000/-, and they having paid Rs.33,50,000/- they were entitled to receive balance of Rs.25,00,000/-, and therefore, the same be granted with interest and costs.
6) The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs.A1 to A20 marked, while the opposite parties filed affidavit evidence of G. Amarender Reddy and got Exs.B1 and B2 marked.
7) The points that arise for consideration are:
What is the amount for which the parties entered into contract for construction of the houses in question?
Whether opposite party No.1 was liable to complete any of the constructions as alleged by the complainants?
Whether the complainants were entitled to any reimbursement?
Whether the complainants are entitled to get rentals if so to what amount?
Whether the opposite parties are entitled to any amount?
To what relief.
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants had purchased property from its vendors under Ex.A.1 sale deed and entrusted the construction work to opposite parties for construction of building. Though there was construction agreement in between some of the purchasers, complainants did not enter into a formal agreement of construction. Admittedly, it was oral. The complainants alleged that specifications were made a mention which form part of agreement, Ex.A.2.
9) The complainants are sisters interse and NRIs represented by GPA purchased 533.33 sq. yds of building bearing Nos. 1-60-8/6/B-21, 1-60-8/6/B-16 and 1-60-8/6/B-17 preceded by agreement Ex. A2 dt. 29.7.2004 between their vendors and the owners. The purchase was made for construction of apartments to be completed on or before 30.6.2006 and the same was entrusted to opposite party, developers.
10) Importantly there is no development agreement between the complainants and the opposite parties. It is all oral. Though in the agreement of sale there was a mention that the complainants had agreed to enter into an agreement with the opposite party evidenced from Clause-23 of the agreement, such an agreement was not entered. However it was agreed that the opposite party would construct the apartments as per specifications. While the complainants allege that they had agreed to pay @ Rs. 850/- per sft for 3915 sft with specifications furnished by them and accordingly paid Rs. 33,50,000/- through account payee cheque which was received by the opposite party evidenced under receipts Exs. B1 & B2, the opposite party asserts that they had agreed to construct @ Rs. 1250/- per sft and the built up area approximately was 3940 sft. The amount that was paid towards construction was only advance and that they had yet to receive Rs. 25 lakhs for the construction made by them.
11) It is not in dispute that the possession of the apartments was given in June, 2006. Though according to the complainants there were several unfinished works which were mentioned in the complaint which we have already adverted to which was estimated at Rs. 3 lakhs. The opposite parties assert that since the complainants did not pay the remaining balance they could not finish some of the works as detailed by the commissioner. They have also alleged that building completion certificate was also issued for which tax exemption was also claimed by them.
12) In the light of the fact that it is only an oral agreement between the parties it is not known as to the exact specifications of the structures that were agreed to be made by the opposite party.
13) The question that arises in the light of the above contentions and in the light of the fact that no documentary evidence on either side was filed this Commission had to depend solely on the affidavits filed by the complainants which are reiteration of facts mentioned in the complaints and equally the affidavits of the opposite parties which are re-iteration of written statements filed by them.
14) Before going into these facts, we may mention herein that since the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature, thinking that filing of affidavits and some documents are sufficient for adjudication forgetting that, the facts alleged by one side, when disputed by other side are to be proved. Neither of the parties had filed at least affidavits of neighboring flat owners to show the area covered by those flats for which the opposite party agreed to execute the works. We may equally point out that the procedure of serving interrogatories, production of documents etc. are not invoked either for proving the facts alleged or disproving the stand taken up by the opposite party. It is unfortunate that the procedure contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act is totally misunderstood and the parties without bothering to prove any of these facts are seeking relief. We need not say that though serious questions of fact and law are involved in very many cases, solely on the ground that there was no court fee need be paid parties are resorting to Consumer Fora. We may also observe that we do not decry the parties approaching the consumer fora provided they try to prove the facts alleged by them and disprove the facts by filing affidavit evidence and photostat copies of documents. Without answering to the contentious issues, this Commission would not be in a position to unravel the dispute between the parties. Had it been the Civil Court, examination of witnesses and cross-examination would be at least on record in order to resolve the matter.
15) Coming to the facts, while the complainants assert that the construction had to be made in 3940 sft @ Rs. 850/- per sft while the opposite party asserts that it was 3915 sft @ Rs. 1,250/- per sft. This was not covered by any document. The complainants tried to prove by filing brochure pertaining to the property B-27 (Ex. A3). It pertains to built up area at 1500 sft. The complainants relied works contract agreement entered into between the opposite party herein and Mr. Sabbi Rohit Reddy, Mrs. Nimmagadda Srilakshmi, Mrs. Gutta Lakshmi and Mrs. Ratna D. Reddy marked as Exs. A17 to A20 pertaining to the property B-14, B-12, B-11 and B-32 respectively. Property bearing Nos. B14 & B12 consist of built up area of 985.616 sft is for a fixed sum of Rs. 30,23,500/- wherein an advance of Rs. 17,10,000/- was paid. Property bearing No. B-11 consists of built up area of 991.641 sft is for a fixed sum of Rs. 30,23,500/- wherein an advance of Rs. 13,75,000/- was paid and the balance amount had to be paid in two instalments one on or before 15.8.2005 and the other instalment on or before 31.12.2005. . Property bearing No. B-32 consists of built up area of 1006 sft for a fixed sum of Rs. 38,39,458/-. The amounts have to be paid in a phased manner viz., Rs. 2,00,000/- on completion of foundation, Rs. 10,91,670/- on completion of ground floor slab, Rs. 10,91,670/- on completion of first floor slab, Rs. 10,91,670/- on completion of final plastering, fixing of doors and windows etc. and Rs. 3,64,458/- after completion and handing over of the house. Since the complainants did not enter into any agreement with the opposite party it is not known whether the entire amount was paid towards construction or as advance. The opposite party asserts that the amount was paid towards “advance” and still the complainants had to pay remaining amounts. In order to prove the said fact it had filed receipts marked as Exs. B1 & B2 wherein it was mentioned that said amounts were paid only towards advance. Exs. A17 to A20 do not give any clue as to the amount fixed towards construction. It looks as though the complainants had to pay some more amounts. The complainants themselves filed Ex. A5 a print out of e-mail between the GPA and also relatives or related interse with opposite party No. 2. There was a mention that “ I am enclosing the different extra works which were carried out in addition to the original contract for which our company had reimbursed. The figures mentioned are more or less final. In addition to them there was a balance payment of Rs. 73,000/- towards the cost. Then there will be a deposit and other fee of Rs. 1 lac to get your electricity, water etc. connections to the individual houses. If there are any queries then we shall be able to explain to you when you are here in July/August.”
16) The complainant in Ex. A7 gave a reply stating that “ I justified myself to pay for the so called disputed sft at Rs. 850/-. He further mentioned that “ AR builders is to give us 4120 sft when we paid the amount as per the original understanding. Finally after plans are signed for 3915 when we have asked for modifications it is your responsibility to explain the additional cost and get it signed. Furthermore the additional sft is well within the original range of 4120. The respondent did not agree and stated “ while resolving Preethi’s long pending account which is not at all acceptable to us especially since we had foregone Amala’s extra areas amount as a compromise between us. We still request you to re-look at that account and resolve amicably.”
17) In Ex. A8 status of construction of B16, B23 & B17 were made a mention by mentioning “
Status of Uttara’s house : out of the seven items we discussed, you mentioned some of them will be completed by 04/30 and others by 06/30. Servant quarters and plan for other outstanding issues like paining, compound wall, and landscaping etc.
Amala’s house : All the outstanding issues like railing, enclosing the open space on the roof. Completing the compound walls, painting in and out, landscaping etc.
Preethi’s house: Even though we did talk about some items not sure what you wanted to do. Skirting, chips on the ceiling in dinning room, exterior painting and landscaping. “
18) The parties are sending e-mails not only for the dispute on hand but some other disputes pertaining to them. Since the complainants are NRIs there were some impediments for them to execute the agreements mentioning the amounts which was mentioned by the opposite party in their counter by stating that “ However the complainant avoided the same by citing excuses such as being a foreign national/NRI and therefore being prohibited from entering into contracts in India.”
19) Op2 under Ex. A11 explained as to why bath room fittings, MS gates, final coats of painting were not provided. In spite of explaining, the complainant got it inspected by Mr. Venkatesham, Civil Engineer. The opposite party alleged that inspection of Mr. Venaktesham was not even known to them. They were not informed when he was visiting the place. Ex. A12 reads as though an amount of Rs. 65 lakhs was paid to the owners for land and to start construction. He mentioned that following works were not completed.
House No. B-21 (Amala Devi)
Kitchen platform, dadoing, S.S. sink fixing
Smooth finish and painting
Toilet and electrical final fitting
External painting
Landscaping (1040 sft)
Wash area dado tiles
Electrical final fittings
Compound wall and patch works.
20) As we have pointed out when the complainant issued legal notice Ex. A13 the opposite party gave reply in Ex. A14 mentioning that “the construction of the houses as per your understanding has been completed way back in the year 2006 and the possession of the houses has been handed over to you. Over two years now and you have not paid the balance consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs payable by you. You have been avoiding on one pretext or other…..” They sought for Rs. 25 lakhs, balance of amount in order to complete the works. For which the complainant gave reply through their lawyer under Ex. A15. It is important to bear in mind that there was no mention as to the amount that was agreed upon and the amount that was paid towards advance and the balance that has to be paid. Undoubtedly what all that was paid was only towards advance. Since the complainants could not establish that Mr. Venkatesham, Civil Engineer has inspected the premises with the knowledge of opposite parties, a petition for appointment of advocate commissioner was filed. In the light of the fact that no objection was raised an advocate commissioner was appointed who in turn filed his report:
21) The Opposite Parties have to finish the following :
CC 61/2008 Smt. R. Amala Devi (B-21)
i) Kitchen Room: In the kitchen room no granite flat form. There is no sink, shelves and cup boards are not there. There are no fittings, taps and other sanitary items.
ii) Hall : Finale polish to flooring and false ceiling is not complete. Visible cracks on the walls.
iii) South West bed room in ground floor : No tiles in the bathroom. No sanitary fittings, no C.P. fitting and there is no provision for geezer.
iv) North set back: Landscaping has not started and north side is unfinished.
v) First floor South West Master Bed Room: In attached bath room toilets, sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done. No tiles in remaining area of bathroom. No provision for geezer.
vi) First floor South East Bed Room: Sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done. No tiles in remaining area of the bathroom. No provision for geezer.
CC 62/2008 Smt. R. Uttara Devi ( B-16)
i) Kitchen : Flooring requires polishing.
ii) Hall: Final polishing and false ceiling is still outstanding.
iii) South West Bed Room in the Ground Floor: Requires finishing and final polishing.
iv) First Floor South West Bed Room: Requires finishing and final polishing. In attached bath room toilets, sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done.
v) First floor South East Bed Room: In attached bath room toilets, sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done. No tiles in remaining area of bathroom. No provision for geezer.
vi) First floor North East Bed Room: Requires final polishing and finishing. Sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done. No tiles in remaining area of the bathroom. No provision for geezer.
vii) Cellar : Steps to cellar requires railing. Flooring and painting is not complete. Walls to be finished and painted.
CC 63/2008 Smt. R. Preethi Devi ( B-17)
i) Kitchen Room: In the kitchen room no granite flat form. There is no sink, shelves and cup boards are not there. There are no fittings, taps and other sanitary items.
ii) Hall & Dinning Hall : Final polish to flooring and false ceiling is not complete. Visible cracks on the walls.
iii) South West bed room in ground floor : No tiles in the bathroom. No sanitary fittings, no C.P. fitting and there is no provision for geezer. Visible cracks on the walls.
iv) Staircase railing is not provided and staircase steps are unfinished.
v) First floor North West Room: No flooring and no false ceiling is done. In attached bath room toilets, sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done. No tiles in remaining area of bathroom. No provision for geezer.
vi) First floor South West Bed Room: No flooring and no false ceiling is done. Sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done. No tiles in remaining area of the bathroom. No provision for geezer.
vii) Common toilet in first floor : No flooring and no false ceiling is done. Dadoing is incomplete. Electrical wiring is not complete. Sanitary fittings work is not complete and C.P. fittings are not done. No tiles in remaining area of the bathroom. No provision for geezer.
viii) First floor to terrace: Without flooring and unfinished steps and no railing.
ix) Entry Lobby flooring is not done : Elevation and compound wall not complete. Landscaping is not done both in the front and back.
22) The report of the advocate commissioner would be in a way helpful to find out the works to be completed by the opposite parties. We may state that they are minor in nature. No authoritative survey was taken up to assess the amount that could be spent to get them rectified. For example in the kitchen only electrical work has to be made and it was in progress. In the hall final polish to flooring and false ceiling has not been completed. In the ground floor and first floor sanitary fittings and tiles have to be placed and gizer has to be fixed. In fact they are all minor things. In view of their relationship and the fact that all the flats were constructed except for minor works they ought to have got it completed and claimed the amount.
23) On a calculation made pertaining to the sft for which sale consideration was paid, it could be around Rs. 850/- per sft. The opposite parties except alleging that it was Rs. 1,250/- per sft could not file any document wherein an amount of Rs. 1,250/- was agreed to be collected per sft. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is only Rs. 850/- per sft.
24) When the Commissioner mentioned the items that have to be completed for which no objections were even filed. We direct the opposite parties to comply the above said works within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
25) In regard to counter claim, since the opposite parties could not prove that they were entitled to claim, we decline to grant any amount. When amounts were paid neither the parties had filed documents to prove that whatever the amount paid was towards advance, we are unable to direct the complainants to pay balance, in view of dearth of evidence in this regard.
26) The complainants claimed rent of Rs. 28 lakhs towards damages on the ground that had it been leased out they would have got Rs. 1 lakh per month. The complainants did not let in any evidence to show that the flats similarly situated were fetching a rent of Rs. 1 lakh per month in order to award the said rent. At any rate the complainants could have got these minor repairs and leased out the property to mitigate the damages, when the possession was delivered as long back as in June, 2006. There is no reason why the complainants did not get these small repairs done and leased it out. As per Section 171 of Indian Contract Act when damages are claimed the complainants have to explore all possibilities and see that the damages are mitigated. For whatever loss that was occasioned to the complainants could be set off for the amount payable to the opposite parties towards balance of amount.
27) In the result the complaints are allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to complete the works which were mentioned in para 21 within three months. Neither the complainants nor the opposite parties are entitled to any other reliefs claimed in their respective pleadings. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANTS:
Ex. A1; 31.03.2005 Photostat copy of Sale deed.
Ex. A2; 29.072004 Photostat copy of agreement of sale of house.
Ex. A3; -- Brochure with pan
Ex. A4; 17.04.2006 E-mail from complainant.
Ex. A5; 24.07.2006 E-mail from Op to complainant
Ex. A6; 27.11.2006 E-mail from complainant to Op
Ex. A7; 04.04.2007 E-mail from complainant to Op.
Ex. A8; -- E-mail from complainant to Op
Ex. A9; 31.10.2008 E-mail from Ramesh Reddy to Sheshi Reddy
Ex. A10 18.07.2007 E-mail from complainant to Op
Ex. A11; - Works to be attended relating to B-21, Amala Devi
Ex. A12; 08.01.2008 Letter from complainant to A.R. Builders.
Ex. A13; 08.02.2008 Letter from OP to complainant.
Ex. A14; 14.04.2008 Notice got issued by Op to complainants
Ex. A15; 02.07.2008 Reply notice got issued by complainants to Op.
Ex. A16; 05.11.2008 G.P.A.
Ex. A17; 04.04.2005 Photostat copies of works contract agreements.
to
Ex. A20
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex. B1; 29.07.2004 Photostat copy of receipt for Rs. 3,50,000/-
issued by A.R. Developers in favour of
Mrs. Amala Devi
Ex. B2; 23.07.2004 Photostat copy of receipt for Rs. 30 lakhs
issued by A.R. Developers in favour of
Mrs. Amala Devi
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 28/06/2010.
*pnr
