Date of Filling : 13.12.2011
Date of Disposal: 22.09.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.39/2011
Tuesday, the 22nd day of September 2015
- Tmt.S.Booma,
W/o T.V. Sriraman
- T.V. Sriraman
S/o T.V. Seshacharyalu
Both residing at 1st Floor, Plot No.3A,
A.P.Arasu Street, Ram Nagar,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053. …Complainants
/Vs/
- M/S. G.P.R Builders,
No.2, 3rd street, Pari Nagar,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053
Rep. by partners,
Merrs K.Ganesan, K.K.Prasad,
- Mr.K.Ganesan,
S/o Krishnamurthy,
No.18, Jagadambal Street,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.
- Mr.K.K.Prasad,
S/o Ramachandra Rao,
No.2, 3rd street, Pari Nagar,
Ambattur, Chennai -600 053.
- Mr.R.Ravichandran,
S/o Rajaraman,
Plot No.37, Rajaji Street,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053 .…Opposite Parties
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 11.09.2015 in the
presence Thiru.R.Dhamodaran & D.Prabakar, Advocates on the side of the complainants and Thiru.K.V.Srinivasn, Advocate for the opposite parties and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-for the unfair trade practices and to do necessary corrections in property documents and making the property free from any encumbrances and to complete the pending works of the constructions as mentioned in the complaint.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
1. The opposite parties 2 to 4 urged the complainants to take 2 flats in the first floor of ‘A’ Block with 971 sq.ft of undivided share. The opposite parties 2 to 4 promised the complainants to change the plan so as to join 2 flats in the 1st floor of Block ‘A’ and convert the 1st floor of Block ‘A’ into a 3 bed roomed flat. The opposite parties 2 to 4 assured the complainants that they would get the plan sanctioned accordingly. The complaints were convinced for the same and that they had entered into a construction agreement with the 1st opposite party represented by other opposite parties on 22.04.2005 for the purchase of 971 sq.ft of undivided share out of 3173 sq.ft and a flat in the 1st floor having a plinth area of 1690 sq.ft for a total cost of Rs.14,25,000/-. On the same day i.e., On 22.04.2005, a sale deed was entered into between the opposite parties 2 to 4 representing the land lord as power agents and the complainants towards cost of undivided share of 971 sq.ft land out of the total 3173 sq.ft for a sum of Rs.1,70,896/- vide document No.4172/05 dated 22.04.2005 at S.R.O., Ambattur. The complainants have paid Rs.50,000/- in cash as a token advance to the opposite parties 2 to 4. The complainants have taken a housing loan of Rs.13,50,000/- in the name of the second complainant for meeting the cost of the said flat from ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam branch, with the assistance of opposite parties 2 to 4.
2. In the first week of July, 2005 the opposite parties 2 to 4 had informed the complainants that they had to sign some documents in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Ambattur as required by the ICICI Bank in connection with the sanction of the housing loan. The complainants trusting the opposite parties 2 to 4, without knowing the contents of the documents thinking that they were signing the documents required by the Bank only had signed them. Actually the opposite parties 2 to 4 had surresptiously sub divided plot No.3 into two plots plot 3-A and 3-B without duly apprising the complainants vide rectification deed No.7538/05 dated 18.07.2005.
3. When the complainants insisted for the copy of the said documents including the sale deed executed in their favour, the opposite parties 2 to 4 were delaying and dodging the production of the said documents for more than one year. Even before the works were completed as per the construction agreement, the complainants were urged to move in the flat meant for them in June 2007 as the complainants had settled the entire agreed amount by that time. Even formal handing over of the flat was not done by the opposite parties 2 to 4. Later the complainants were shocked to learn through one of the flat owners, that the opposite parties 2 to 4 had surreptiously sub divided in July 2005 itself the vacant site bearing plot No.3 into plots 3A and 3B, Block ‘A’ comprising double bed roomed flats including the one owned by the complainants was within plot No.3A and single bed roomed flats of Block ‘B’ in plot No.3B.
4. At that point of time only, the complainants came to know about the fraudulent acts committed by opposite parties 2 to 4 in reducing the total extent of land conveyed to the complainants and the sub division of the land. In the original sale deed executed on 22.04.2005 by the opposite parties 2 to 4 the extent of undivided share conveyed to the complainants was mentioned as 971 sq.ft out of total extent of 3173 sq.ft and after the said sub division of the site, the same undivided share viz., 971 sq.ft without mentioned out of total extent of 2033 sq.ft without appropriately and proportionately correcting the undivided share after sub division. After subdivision the UDS for the complainants should have been fixed at 1017 sq.ft. instead of 971 sq.ft. In spite of requests and letters the opposite parties 2 to 4 did not effect the correction with regard to undivided share actually due to the complaints after the sub division.
5. On seeing the copies of Building Plan obtained under RTI Act, the complainants were shocked to know that the opposite parties had suppressed the sale deed executed in favour of the complainants on 22.04.2005 and after more than one month applied permit for building plan and sub division as well on 24.05.2005 as iuf they were the power agents of the owner of the site for sub division. The Municipal authorities also granted permit for sub division and building permit respectively bearing No.914/05, dated 2/6/05 and 971/05 dated 2.6.05. Without getting signatures of the complainants in the capacity of joint owners as they are the owners of substantial area viz., 971 sq.ft UDS, the opposite parties 2 to 4 have put their signatures only in all places wherever necessary and thus fraudulently obtained the building plan which was quite illegal.
6. Apart from the said dishonest acts and unfair trade practices resorted to by the opposite parties 2 to 4 they have also not carried out all works as per the construction agreement and also as per Town planning rules in force. As per the said rules if a site is sub divided then a compound wall has to be constructed in between the sub divided plots to clearly demarcate the sub division. The opposite parties 2 to 4 did not do it till the date of filing this complaint. Besides, the stair case of Block ‘B’ was made to rest on Block ‘A’ building and the drainage pipes leading to plot 3 B, and meant for Block ‘B’ users are passing through plot No.3A which is again quite illegal and untenable. A separate bore well and motor were not provided for the flat owners of block ‘A’. The electric meter card for common lights and water pump usage is still in the name of the original land lord of the site viz., Mr.R.Sathyamoorthy. Mandatory rain water harvesting facility was not installed by the opposite parties till date. A formal completion report was not yet handed over to the complainants. The opposite parties 2 to 4 have not handed over property tax receipt, drainage tax receipt, EB security deposit receipt etc. till date. Apart from construction of the building was very poor with multiple cracks on the walls and wall tiles in all the room of the flat. Besides the opposite parties 2 to 4 did not hand over one set of main door keys and also did not provide the building plan.
7. Detailing all these defects and pending works the complainants have demanded orally umpteen times to carry out them and also followed it up with a letter on 17.01.2008 to the opposite party No.3 and that the opposite parties have sent a legal notice on 22.02.2008 to the complainants through their counsel. On 29.01.2008 the complainants have caused a reply notice through their counsel detailing the pending works, defective works etc., In the meanwhile the first complainant also filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and got a direction to the police to file FIR under Section 420, 467, 471 and 506(ii) IPC and the Ambattur Police have registered a case on 21.03.2008 under the said section vide FIR No.268/08 and a case No.CC.477 of 2008 is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.
8. The opposite parties 2 to 4 are thus adopting unfair trade practices and that because of their negligence, recalcitrant and reckless attitude and deficiency in service, they have caused mental agony and stress to the complainants herein. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the damage caused to the complainant for deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties out of their negligence and unfair trade practices. Hence the complaint.
The contention of the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party and adopted by other opposite parties are below:
9. The complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts. It is frivolous and vexatious. The opposite parties deny that they urged the complainants to take two flats in the first floor of “A” Block with 971 sq.ft. of undivided share. The opposite parties never promised the complainants to change the plan so as to join two flats in the first floor of Block “A” and convert the first floor of Block “A” into three bed room flats. The opposite parties deny, they assured they would get the plan sanctioned, accordingly. The complainants are well educated and only after securitizing the documents, they were satisfied and entered into construction agreement on 22.04.2005 for the purchase of undivided share of 971 sq.ft. Out of 3173 sq. ft and agreed to purchase of property.
10. On the date of purchase of the schedule mentioned property, it was a vacant site. The opposite parties never gave assurance or agreed to get a loan from the Nationalized Bank for the said construction. It is the complainants, who took housing loan for Rs.13,15,000/- in the name of 2nd complainant. For availing the home loan, the 2nd complainant approached the ICICI Bank. The Banker of the complainants, verified the entire documents of the opposite parties and at the request of the Banker and Valuver Engineer, the opposite parties obtained necessary permission from the competent authorities and the plot No.3 was sub divided as Plot No.3A and 3B vide ROC No.5764/05 dated 02.06.2005 and a rectification deed was also effected on 18.07.2005, vide document No.7538/05 by the opposite parties to the knowledge of the complainants. Therefore, the plot No.3 was sub divided with the consent of the complainants and at their request. It is false to say that the complainants had no knowledge of the sub division of the plot No.3. For each and every stage of construction, as agreed in the construction agreement, the banker being the financier for the loan granted to 2nd complainant, on the schedule mentioned property, took all the precautionary methods and by verifying at each and every stage, released the loan amounts in various stages to the knowledge of the complainants to the opposite parties.
11. It is false to say, that after handing over the possession of the property to the complainants, they came to know, the sub divisions of the plot No.3. In none of the stages, neither the complainants nor their banker, protested for any incompletion of the work by the opposite parties. It is false to say that the opposite parties did not furnish the copies of the sale deed as well as the rectification deed in time to the complainants. It is false to say that the complainants were not aware of the handing over of the property. It is false to say, that in July 2005 alone, the complainants came to know of the acts committed by the opposite parties. It is false to say, that the opposite parties reduced the total extent of the land during the sub division effected. As per the rectification deed and the sale deed, the complainants are entitled to undivided share of 971 sq.ft alone and no further addition.
12. As the power of attorney of the complainants, the opposite parties, obtained permission from Municipal Authorities for sub division of the plot No.3 vide No.914/05 dated 02.06.2005 and building plan permit vide No.971/05 dated 02.06.2005. It is false to say that the signature of the complainants were obtained fraudulently and obtained the building plan in a illegal manner. There is no suppression of facts to the complainants and no dishonest act or unfair trade practice, resorted by the opposite parties. The opposite parties never agreed to construct a compound wall in between the sub divided properties to clearly demarcate the sub division, for a separate bore well and motor for each Block.
13. It is false to say that the mandatory rain water harvesting facility was not installed by the opposite parties. After the completion of the building, the opposite parties called all the Flat Owner for receiving the formal completion report. The complainants 1 and 2 did not participate wantonly with the other Flat Owner, on the day fixed by the opposite parties, to receive the formal completion report. After clearing all the dues payable to the opposite parties, the property tax receipt will be furnished to the Flat Owners. Even though the complainants had not yet settled the construction bills to opposite parties, they handed over the property to the complainants.
14. It is false to say that the opposite parties handed over the main door keys and not provided the building plan to the complainants. Even though there are several mistakes committed on the part of the complainants, in order to escape paying the payments payable to the opposite parties, they lodged a false complainant before Magistrate Court, Ambattur and registered a false case in C.C.No.477/2008, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur. There is neither unfair trade practice nor any negligence on the part of the opposite parties which caused mental agony and stress to the complainants herein.
15. The complainants are not the consumers. The complaint is barred by time and the complainants have to prove that this petition was filed in time. There is no cause of action as alleged by the complainants. The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this type of petition. Instead of filing a suit before the civil Court and by evading paying necessary court fees payable in the above petition, the complainants have chosen to lodge a complaint before this Hon’ble Court approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. Therefore, the opposite parties are not legally bound to pay any amount to the complainants. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. On the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted as their evidence and Ex A1 to A11 are marked. Similarly proof affidavit filed by the 3rd opposite parties on behalf of the other opposite parties and no documents filed of their side. The report of the Advocate Commissioner with Engineer’s Report are marked as Exhibit C1 and C2 respectively.
17. At this juncture, the vital point of determination before this Forum is:-
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice as well as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant entitled to?
18. Written arguments submitted by both sides and the copies of the same is
furnished to other sides. In addition to that oral arguments adduced on both sides.
18. Point 1: Regarding this point it is duty of the complainant to prove their case by means of relevant and acceptable evidence before this Forum. At the outset on careful perusal of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant it is learnt that the construction agreement was entered between the complainants and the opposite parties 2 to 4 for the purchase of two plots in the 1st floor of ‘A’ block with 971 sq.ft. undivided shares with assurance of the opposite parties to change the plan so as to join 2 flats in the 1st floor of Block ‘A’ and the same was converted into 3 bed roomed flat and to get a plan sanctioned accordingly and thereby the complainants were convinced and signed on the agreement on 22.04.2005 which is marked as Exhibit A1. It is further learnt that on the same day the sale deed to that effect was entered and the same is marked as Exhibit A2. It is further stated by the complainants that on belief over the opposite parties, the complainants without knowing the contention of the document they were signing the documents required by the bank and the said rectification deed is marked as Exhibit A3. The complainants further stated that they came to know about the fraudulent acts committed by the opposite parties 2 to 4 in perusing the total extent of land conveyed to the complainants and the sub division of the land without explaining the complainants and got permission from the Ambattur Municipality for sub division what plot into two plots plot 3 A and 3 B, which is contrary to Exhibit A3. The said permit of the Ambattur Municipality is marked as Exhibit A4.
19. On further perusal of the proof affidavit of the complainant that the building plan obtained under Right To Information Act, it is marked as Exhibit A5. It is learnt that they getting signature of the complainant in the capacity of joint owners as they are the owners of substantial area viz., 971 sq.ft UDS, the opposite parties 2 to 4 have put their signatures only in all places wherever necessary and thus fraudulently obtained the building plan which was quite illegal and in this regard the complainants applied a letter to the Ambattur Municipality under RTI Act, dated 15.02.2008 was sent and reply letter dated 04.07.2008 received by the complainant from Ambattur Municipality. It if further seen from the evidence of the complainant that the opposite parties have not provided a separate bore well and the electric meter card for common light and water pump usage is still in the name of the original landlord Mrs.Sathyamoorthy and the copy of the electricity card is marked as Exhibit A6. It is further sated by the complainant in the proof affidavit that the opposite parties 2 to 4 have not completed the construction work as agreed by them and also not handover the property document receipt, drainage tax receipt, E.B. security deposit receipt etc., and the quality construction work was very poor and for the above lapses. The complainant have demanded orally many times and also followed it with a letter on 17.01.2008 to the opposite party 3 which is marked as Exhibit A7, in this regard the opposite party after sent a legal notice as Exhibit A8 and for the same the complainant have caused the reply notice which is marked as Exhibit A9 and thereafter the complainant prepared the complaint against the opposite parties on the file of the Ambattur Police Station and in turn the Charge Sheet was filed in CC.No.477/2008 which is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Ambattur, the copy of the FIR is marked as Exhibit A10, the series of photographs showing non construction of compound wall and other defects are marked as Exhibit A11 series.
20. On the other hand, on going through the proof affidavit of the opposite parties it is learnt that all the allegations made in the complaint are all totally denied and in fact that everything was known by the complainants and only with the knowledge of the complainant, the necessary documents were signed by the complainant. It is further stated that as per the rectification deed and the sale deed. The complainants are entitled to undivided share of 971 sq.ft alone and as per the power of attorney of the complainants, the opposite parties, obtained permission from Municipal Authorities for sub division of the plot No.3 and therefore it is false to say that the signature of the complainants were obtained fraudulently and therefore there is no suppression of facts to the complainants and there is no dishonest act or unfair trade practice. Further it is averred by the opposite parties that it is not correct to say that they do not carry out all works as per the construction agreement and in fact they have completed the construction work fully as per the Exhibit A1 and provided everything and then only they have handover the plots for complainants and hence there is no cause of action as alleged by the complainants.
21. It is further contended that this complaint has no cause of action and
also instead of filing a suit before the civil Court and in order to evade court fee, the complainants have chosen to lodge a complaint before this Forum without clean hands and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
22. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival subdivision put forth on either side that the Exhibit A1 and A2 are not at all disputed. First of all, this Forum has to be decided whether there is any deficiency in service in respect of poor construction and not provided certain mandates as agreed by the opposite parties in Exhibit A1 and A2. On further perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is stated that the opposite parties have not done the works like no provision for rain water harvesting, compound wall not constructed and the separate bore well and motor for pumping water and common meter for No.3A and 3B, arranging of water and drainage pipes. The opposite parties did not handover the main door keys and also building plan, the property tax receipt, water and drainage tax receipt and E.B. security deposit receipt and also the completion report and thereby there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
23. At the outset, it is seen from the proof affidavit of the opposite parties that allthings have been provided as per the Exhibit A1, even though the complainants have not fully settled the construction bills and hand over the property to the complainants. At this juncture, the report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the qualified Engineer’s report which are marked as Exhibit C1 and C2, are the vital documents to decide the above said matter. So, on careful perusal of the Engineer Commissioner Report, who has given the expert opinion being the qualified officer, it is clear that the defects below noted are observed by him during his inspection and the same are correlated by Advocate Commissioner also.
A) Inner Defects:
1. Kitchen Area:
a. Southern side Wall Ceramic Tiles are not fixed properly.
b. In East Side Wall air Cracks are found from Roof to Floor level
2.Bed Room:
a. South East Bed Room:
i) Wall cracks are found in North side wall
b. South West Bed Room
i) Wall cracks are found in North side wall near EB Switch Box
B) Outer Defect:
i) The plot No.3B common drainage line for septic tank is passing through the plot
No.3A
ii) Common EB connection for plot No.3A is used for the common motor.
iii) No separate bore well for plot No.3A & 3B, only one common bore well is provided
for Plot No.3A & 3B bore well.
iv) Common bore well is provided exactly on the boundary mid wall of the plot No.3A &
3B is East side.
v) EB cable Main Line of plot No.3B is passing through plot no.3A on the west side i.e.
adjacent to the staircase of plot No.3B.
vi) For Plot No.3A Rain water Harvesting pile line is not properly finished.
vii) The first Floor Roof slab of the Plot No.3B is projected in to south west side up to 1ft.
into the Plot No.3A.
viii) Compound wall between the plot No.3A & Plot No.3B is not constructed.
24. The objections raised by the opposite parties are not more relevant and it is seems to be formal. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have not at all disputed the actual inspection of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Engineer and not specifically disputed the defects noted the Exhibit C1 and C2. From the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that regarding the construction made by the opposite parties is not at all on par with construction agreement which is marked as Exhibit A1 and not completed the construction properly by the opposite parties. In this regard the complainant has proved this case by means of documentary evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. In order to substantiate the same Exhibit C1 and C2 are more relevant and the same can be acceptable one.
25. In such circumstances, regarding the plea taken by the opposite parties that this complaint is barred by time, this Forum warms to enlighten that it is quit natural that by taking possession of the house, the complainant could not have found the defects and deficiency in the house immediately. In fact, the defects in the house might not be noticed immediately viz. at the time of taking possession and only when one lives in house, then only he can find out the defects and deficiency in it.
26. In the case on hand, it is crystal clear that immediately after knowing the defects the complainant have demanded orally umpteen times to carry out them and also follow the complainant set a letter on 17.01.2008 to the opposite party no.3 and in turn the opposite parties have sent legal notice on 22.02.2008 to the complainants through their counsel and to that effect the complainants caused the reply notice on 29.01.2008 through their counsel. Further, in the mean time the 1st complainant also filed the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and in this connection the FIR under Section 420, 467, 471 and 506(ii) IPC in crime no.268/20080 .Therefore the plea taken by the opposite parties with the complaint is borrowed by time, as lost its merits.
27. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and observation made, this Forum has no hesitation to conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of construction done by them. At the same time in respect of other factors viz. subdivision of plots No.3 into two plots plot 3-A and 3-B respectively and in construction to allotment of house and necessary correction and property documents etc., this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the factors as rightly pointed out by the leaned counsel by the opposite parties. Thus the Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
24. Point 2: As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, regarding incompletion of certain construction works and the defects proved by the complainant and thereby the complainant is entitled to get relief and to get reasonable compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and with cost. Thus the point no.2 is answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to rectify the Inner defects in kitchen Area, Bed Rooms and outer defects viz. To provide separate Bore well for plot No.3-A, To finish properly the Rain water harvesting pipe line and to rectify the projection of First Floor Roof slab of the plot No.3-B up to 1ft. in to the Plot No.3-A as mentioned in the ExC2 (Engineer’s Report) within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and caused mental agony etc., and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost.
The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 9% P.A. till the date of payment.
Regarding other reliefs the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. Ex C1 to C2 are ordered to be form part of this order.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 22nd September 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt.22.04.2005: Xerox copy of the construction agreement between the
complainants and the opposite parties.
Ex.A2/Dt.22.04.2005: Xerox copy of the sale deed between the complainants and the
opposite parties vide document No.4172/05.
Ex.A3/Dt.18.07.2005: Xerox copy of the Rectification deed No.7538/2005 between the
complainants and the opposite parties.
Ex.A4/Dt.02.06.2005: Xerox copy of the planning permit for subdivision of plot into 3A
and 3B by the Ambattur municipality.
Ex.A5/Dt.02.06.2005: Xerox copy of the building plan for Ambattur municipality.
Ex.A6/Dt. : Xerox copy of the EB cord in the name of one sathyamoorthy.
Ex.A7/Dt.17.01.2008: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 3rd
opposite party with acknowledgment due.
Ex.A8/Dt.22.02.2008: The Xerox copy of the Legal Notice sent by the opposite party’s
counsel to the complainants.
Ex.A9/Dt.29.01.2008: Reply notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite
party’s counsel.
Ex.A10/Dt.21.03.2008: The Xerox copy of the FIR copy No.268/08 by Ambattur police
Station.
Ex.A11/Dt. : Series of photographs showing the complainant’s building.
List of documents of the opposite parties: Nil.
Documents of Forum:
Ex.C1/Dt.02.07.2013: Copy of Advocate Commissioner Report.
Ex.C2/Dt.13.07.2013: Copy of Engineer Commissioner Report.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
