BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
C.C. No. 1/2008
Between:
Bhamidipati Venkat
S/o. Gr. Capt. B. U.B. Murthy (Retd)
R/o. 106, Regency Zeenath Apartments
Punjagutta
Hyderabad
Rep. by his GPA
Gr. Capt. B. U.B. Murthy *** Complainant
And
M/s. Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
Reg. Office : 10, Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009. *** Opposite Party
C.C. No. 2/2008
Between:
Lt. Cdr. B. Ravi Kumar
S/o. Gr. Capt. B. U.B. Murthy (Retd)
R/o. 106, Regency Zeenath Apartments
Punjagutta
Hyderabad
Rep. by his GPA
Gr. Capt. B. U.B. Murthy *** Complainant
And
M/s. Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
Reg. Office : 10, Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009. *** Opposite Party
C.C. No. 5/2008
Between:
Wg. Cdr. P.C.P. Anand
R/o. Flat No. 209
Moghul Mascot Apartments
787, A. C. Guards, Hyderabad *** Complainant
And
M/s. Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
Reg. Office : 10, Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009. *** Opposite Party
C.C. No. 6/2008
Between:
Peddibhotla Rammohan
S/o. Peddibhotla Satyanarayana Moorthy
Age: 37 years,
Rep. by his GPA
Wg. Cdr. P.C.P. Anand
R/o. Flat No. 209
Moghul Mascot Apartments
787, A. C. Guards, Hyderabad *** Complainant
And
M/s. Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
Reg. Office : 10, Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009. *** Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainants: Mr. Srinivas Karra.
Counsel for the OP: Mr. K.B. Ramanna Dora.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER)
***
1) These four complaints which raise common questions of fact and law are being disposed off by a common order :
2) The facts of the cases which are virtually identical except for the amount of consideration and the identity of the properties, stated briefly are as follows:
The complainant in C.C. No. 1/2008 and C.C. No. 2/2008 are allottees of plot Nos. 73 and 74 in Central Park-II lay out at Kondapur village of Serilingampally mandal in Ranga Reddy District developed by the opposite party, while the complainants in C.C. No. 5/2008 and C.C. No. 6/2008 are allottees of plot Nos. 17 and 170 (old 123) at Rolling Meadows Project situated at Madinaguda village of Serilingampalli mandal in Ranga Reddy District.. These allotments were made under the cover of agreements of sale entered into between the allottees on the one hand and the opposite party on the other. The complainant in C.C. No. 1/2008 and C.C. No. 2/2008 claimed to have paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 6,90,000/- as also the amounts entirely as demanded by way of development charges and further a part of registration charges in a sum of Rs. 45,000/- leaving only a due of Rs. 30,000/- as initially acknowledged by the opposite party. Subsequently the complainants in C.C. No. 1/2008 and C.C. No. 2/2008 paid off even the balance of registration charges of Rs. 30,000/- each. Subsequently, on a further demand made by the opposite party the complainants claimed to have paid even the enhanced registration charges also. Thus after completely paying off the entire sale consideration as also the development charges besides registration charges, the complainants demanded the registration of the plots in their favour. Before that the opposite party requested the complainants to bring their photos and proof of identity also. The father of the complainants sought to know the status of registration through e-mails but
there was no response from the opposite party. The complainant therefore sent a letter Dt. 5.12.2006 by registered post to know the actual status of registration. The opposite party did not send any reply for the said letter also. However, on 9.12.2006 the opposite party informed the complainant that the final approval was still awaited from HUDA. However, it was indicated that the registrations would be done to the desirous members whoever cleared their dues. So father of the complainants visited the opposite party at their office and informed about the payments already made and submitted the photos and proof of identity etc. and requested immediate registration. The opposite party sent a letter on 2.6.2007 informing the complainants about the efforts put in by the opposite party in developing the land and protecting the land from the encroachers and therefore demanding appreciation for their efforts. Even in the said letter there was no mention about any outstanding amounts due from the complainants. Later on 9.6.2007 the complainants received a letter from the opposite party calling upon them to clear the dues said to be outstanding. The father of the complainants appraised the opposite party about the payment of the entire amount due from them and insisted upon the registration. However, the opposite party sent an e-mail Dt. 8.7.2007 demanding an amount of Rs. 4,22,400/- towards additional development charges and balance registration charges immediately followed by yet another letter demanding an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. Thus in all the opposite party raised an additional demand in a sum of Rs. 7,95,300/-. It seems the complainants received a letter Dt. 31.10.2007 from the opposite party informing them about its decision to cancel the plots. Aggrieved by the said cancellation letter, and its reluctance to execute the registered sale deeds in their favour even after payment of entire sale consideration, development charges and registration charges the complainants in C.C. No. 1/2008 and C.C. No. 2/2008 preferred these complaints.
3) Even in the case of complainants in C.C. No. 5/2008 and C.C. No. 6/2008 the facts make almost an identical reading except for the issue of consideration which was Rs. 2,80,000/- in the case of C.C. No. 5/2008 and Rs.3,60,000/- in the case of C.C. No. 6/2008. The complainants claimed to have complied with the demands of the opposite party from time to time. The complainants made the payment of entire sale consideration and development charges twice as also the registration charges by 28.5.2007. There after the complainants waited for the registration of plots in their favour but the complainants alleged to have received a letter Dt. 7.9.2007 asking them to make further payment by way of further demand characterised by them outstanding amounts due. Ultimately, through a letter Dt. 31.10.2007 the opposite party cancelled the very allotment itself. The complainants thereby filed the complaints questioning the action of the opposite party for the same reliefs of registration of plots in their favour without insisting upon any further demands.
4) These complaints are resisted by the opposite party which got filed counters chiefly contending that the complaints were not maintainable. As the dispute in question as to the specific performance of contract, it was only the Civil Court that can exercise the jurisdiction not a Consumer Commission like this. It also disputed the pecuniary jurisdiction saying that the amounts reflected in the agreement were far less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The opposite party tried to justify their backing out to register the sale deed saying that the amounts were due from the complainants by way of additional development charges, as also additional registration charges. The opposite party contended that the total responsibility for cancellation and termination of agreement of sale rested on the complainants on account of their wilful and deliberate default in performing their part of the bilateral obligation. It refuted the allegation that
it engineered the cancellation of agreement in order to sell the property to third parties at a higher rate to make profit. The opposite party insisted that amounts were due from the complainants and as such they were not entitled to urge for specific performance of the contract by way of registration of deeds in their favour. The opposite party contended that the value of the property multiplied ever since the inception of deal and it guarded the property all these years and in that process incurred huge expenditure and staked its own reputation. Finally the opposite party asserted that the complaints were liable to be dismissed and further more it also sought for compensation and costs on the ground that the complaints were vexatious and frivolous.
5) In support of their cases, the complainants filed their affidavit evidence as also documentary evidence marked as Exs. A1 to A19 in C.C. No. 1/2008, Exs. A1 to A19 in C.C. No. 2/2008, Exs. A1 to A22 in C.C. No. 5/2008 and Exs. A1 to A22 in C.C. No. 6/2008. On the other hand the opposite party also filed the affidavit evidence and documentary evidence marked as Exs. B1 to B14 in C.C. No. 1/2008, Exs. B1 to B13 in C.C. No. 2/2008, Exs. B1 to B17 in C.C. No. 5/2008 and Exs. B1 to B15 in C.C. No. 6/2008.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The points that arise for consideration are:
i) Whether this Commission lacks jurisdiction, to entertain these complaints, subject-wise as also pecuniary?
ii) Whether the complainants could prove that the opposite party made unwarranted additional demands, illegally cancelling the agreement of sale and declining to register the plots allotted to the complainants without any justification and thereby rendered itself accountable for deficiency in service?
iii) Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
i) If so, to what relief?
8. The opposite party challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission on more than one ground. It is firstly contended that this Commission cannot entertain these complaints for the reason that the cause of action arose out of a contract or more accurately it meant, out of a breach of contract pure and simple. The second ground is that the relief sought even in the nature of declaration and consequent nullification of the cancellation of the agreement as also a claim for specific performance of the agreement both of which belong to the realm of a Civil Court are far from the jurisdiction of this Commission sitting as it does under the Consumer Protection Act. The third ground on which it challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission is that the value of the property as reflected in the agreement of sale is far below the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, and therefore the complaints do not lie in this Commission.
9) The opposite party tried to assail the jurisdiction of this Commission on the ground that the subject matter of this complaint arose out of a contract or a breach of contract and therefore the jural relationship of consumer and service provider is absent, so much so that the matter should go to a Civil Court but not to this Commission. If we go by a catena of decisions setting at rest this controversy the argument of the opposite party in this regard cannot be accepted. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also National Commission in a number of decisions that the development of land for the purpose of selling it as plots and house sites after duly adding value by way of providing infrastructure, obtaining lay outs and other permissions from the local government etc. constitutes by itself a kind of service and in that view of the matter when a person purchases a plot from the developer he not only purchased the plot but also the service associated with it.
The recent decision of Supreme Court in Fakir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (4) CPR 449 (SC) fortifies this view.
10) The next ground by which he tried to assail the jurisdiction of this Commission is that the relief sought for is in the nature of declaration suit as also a specific performance suit. When once the factum of provision of ‘service’ that is sin-quo-non for the jurisdiction of this Commission, is clearly established, these overtones in regard to specific performance and declaration cannot be countenanced. There are decisions galore holding that the activity of reclamation of prime land and converting it into house sites by way of commercial venture itself involves an element of service and such a developer answers the description of service provider vis-à-vis a person desirous of acquiring for consideration such a house site as a finished product. A deal in that connection makes it a deal for availment of service attracting the applicability of the definition of consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act to the aspirant. We have no hesitation to hold that this is a clear case that comes under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
11) The third ground pertains to pecuniary jurisdiction. It is a matter of common knowledge that the valuation of the suit is the prerogative of the complainant though some restriction can be exercised by the court where the valuation appears to be ex-facie excessive or disproportionate. In the present case there was no such excess as is presently shown. If we go by the statement of account given by the opposite party himself the total demand, including the original sale consideration is in the range of Rs. 12 lakhs or upwards. If the claims under the other heads as damages, costs etc. are added definitely the aggregate amount would be more than Rs. 20 lakhs which attracts the jurisdiction of this Commission. Even otherwise, if we go by the market value as asserted by the complainants in their averments and elsewhere, the market value of the property in each case runs into lakhs and this adequately answers the objection raised by the opposite party in this regard. On the top of all this it is settled proposition of law that when once the parties enter appearance and adduce evidence and participate in full enquiry the objection as to the pecuniary jurisdiction pales into insignificance. It is equally settled law that the assumption of jurisdiction by a higher forum even in case where pecuniary jurisdiction is less than the minimum applicable cannot be characterised as illegality or irregularity as after all the higher forum will have the jurisdiction that is assigned to the lower forum though the converse is not true. In other words, the argument that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction has no force at all.
12) The opposite party has been collecting the amounts towards development charges as well as registration charges along with sale consideration. At no time the opposite party has given any break up figure as to how he could claim particular development charges. Unless the amounts collected towards development charges is known, it is not prudent on his part to collect development charges from the complainants without mentioning as to how he was assessing the amounts towards development charges. Whenever, he collects the development charges, it is incumbent on his part to spell out the developments that were made by him and the amounts spent from out of the amounts collected from the complainants. Despite the fact that the complainants had paid the development charges, equally so with the registration charges evidenced under Ex. A6, by virtue of Section 55(5)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act buyer is bound to pay registration charges, stamp duty etc. It is curious to note the opposite party has been collecting registration charges against the said provision and making money out of it. He will have the advantage of the amount with him through out. This is also contrary to the provisions in the contract itself. We may mention here in the very same agreement Ex. A3 there is a clause stipulating payment of registration charges by the purchaser himself. Contrary to the above said stipulation and law, he has been collecting the registration charges and appropriating the same. Now, he intends to return the consideration having
had the benefit of registration as well as development charges. This clearly smacks of unfair trade practice. The complainants having paid the development charges and registration charges as long back as in 1993, even if
reasonable interest as per bank rate is calculated the opposite party had the advantage of it which under law it is not entitled to collect and retain for its profit.
13) The main plank of the complainants’ case in proving deficiency of service is that the opposite party went on making additional demands in the garb of development charges, although at one point, they have paid off the entire sale consideration as also the development charges demanded. The opposite party could not have demanded any additional development charges. When once the amounts demanded by the agreement have come to be paid off in full as is evident from the statement of account issued by the opposite party itself per Ex. A16 there was absolutely no further cause of action for him to make additional demand. Definitely such additional demand lies outside the purview of the agreement. For non-compliance of such additional demand which lies outside the agreement no agreement could be cancelled by a contracting party. Thus the cancellation of agreement by the opposite party appears to have been rested on the ground of non-compliance of demand de-hors the sale agreement. This kind of annulment of agreement made on extraneous grounds is unethical. The opposite party next tried to put the dispute as the one relating to fixation of price or escalation of charges. In our considered opinion this is neither a case of fixation of price nor escalation of charges of housing construction. So his objection that these matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act has no legs to stand. In that view of the matter, the following decisions relied upon by the opposite party have no application to the facts of the case on hand.
i) Yash Bir Jaggi Vs. Unitech Ltd. reported in
Consumer Law Cases volume-6 page No. 304.
ii) Tamilnadu Housing Board & Others Vs. Sea Shore
Apartments Owners Welfare Association.
iii) P. Vamseedhar Reddy Vs. Narne Estates
reported in 2000 ALD (Cons) 108
14) Here, the complainants have paid the entire sale consideration, even according to the document issued by no other than the opposite party himself, the whole dispute is in regard to the payment in respect of additional development charges. In our view, the demand for additional development charges is totally unjustified, and not supported by any consensual law or any statutory law. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the objections raised by the opposite party for the reliefs sought for by the complainants i.e., for a direction to the opposite party to execute registered sale deeds in respect of plots allotted to each of the complainants cannot be upheld. It is abundantly clear that by refusing to execute a sale deed and to register the plots allotted to the complainants by virtue of agreement, the opposite party, rendered itself guilty of the charge of deficiency of service. When once the deficiency in service is made out, it automatically follows that the complainants are entitled to get their grievances redressed by this Commission and accordingly they are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
15) In the result all the four complaints are allowed directing the opposite party to execute registered sale deeds in favour of each of these four complainants in respect of the respective plot allotted to these complainants respectively. The complainants shall bear the stamp duty and balance registration charges as per law. In terms thereof the complaints are allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- each. Time for compliance six weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
CC.NO. 1 OF 2008
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY
None None
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex.A-1 Membership and plot allotment letter dt.23.5.2001.
Ex.A-2 Lay out plan.
Ex.A-3 Agreement to sell dt.10.8.2001 between M/s Narne Construtions Pvt.Ltd., and Mr.B.Venkat.
Ex.A-4 Letter addressed by the opposite party dt.6.5.2004 to the complainant.
Ex.A-5 Letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dt.24/27 May, 2004.
Ex.A-6 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.27.12.2005.
Ex.A-7 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant.
Dt.9.12.2006.
ExA-8 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.2.6.2007.
Ex.A-9 Final reminder letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.9.6.2007.
Ex.A-10 E mail letter sent by Lt.Cdr Ravi Kumar, YSM dt.4.7.2007.
Ex.A-11 Reply e-mail sent by the opposite party.
Ex.A-12 Letter addressed by the opposite party dt.7.9.2007 to the complainant.
Ex.A-13 Statement of Account dt.6.9.2007 of the complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A-14 Letter dt.19.7.2007 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A-15 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.31.10.2007.
Ex.A-16 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.22.1.2008.
Ex.A-17 Letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dt.25.1.2008.
Ex.A-18 Letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dt.29/30th January, 2008.
Ex.A-19 Annexure (Certificate of market value issued by the Registering Officer, Jt.Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy.
Documents marked for Opposite Party:
Ex.B-1 Membership and plot allotment letter dt.23.5.2001 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B-2 Application for Membership.
Ex.B-3 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.27.12.2005.
Ex.B-4Letter addressed by the opposite party dt.9.12.2006 to the complainant.
Ex.B-5 Statement of account dt.4.5.2007 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B-6 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.8.5.2007.
Ex.B-7 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.2.6.2007.
Ex.B-8 Final reminder letter dt.4.6.2007 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B-9 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.5.7.2007.
Ex.B10 Statement of account issued by Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.B11 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.7.9.2007.
Ex.B-12 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.31.10.2007.
Ex.B-13 Statement of account as on 23.1.2008.
Ex.B-14 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt 22.1.2008.
CC.NO. 2 OF 2008
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY
None None
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex.A-1 Membership and plot allotment letter dt.23.5.2001.
Ex.A-2 Lay out plan.
Ex.A-3 Agreement to sell dt.10.8.2001 between M/s Narne Construtions Pvt.Ltd., and the complainant.
Ex.A-4 Letter addressed by the opposite party dt.6.5.2004 to the complainant.
Ex.A-5 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.27.12.2005.
Ex.A-6 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant.
Dt.9.12.2006.
ExA-7 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.2.6.2007.
Ex.A-8 Final reminder letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.9.6.2007.
Ex.A-9 E mail letter sent complainant dt.4.7.2007.
Ex.A-10 e-mail set by the complainant dt. 8.7.2007.
Ex.A-11 Letter addressed by the opposite party dt.7.9.2007 to the complainant.
Ex.A-12 Letter dt.19.9.2007 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A-13 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.31.10.2007.
Ex.A-14 Specific power of Attorney..
Ex.A-15 Letter addressed by opposite party to the complainant dt.22.1.2008.
Ex. A16; Statement of account Dt. 23.1.2008.
Ex.A-17; Telegram Dt. 25.1.2008 issued to the complainant.
Ex. A18; Letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dt.29/30th January, 2008.
Ex.A-19 Annexure (Certificate of market value issued by the Registering Officer, Jt.Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy.
Documents marked for Opposite Party:
Ex.B-1 Application for Membership.
Ex.B-2 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt. 6.5.2004
Ex.B-3 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt. 5.5.2004
Ex.B-4 Letter addressed by opposite party to the complainant dt.27.12.2005.
Ex.B-5 Statement of account dt.4.5.2007 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B-6 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant dt.2.6.2007.
Ex.B-7 Final reminder letter dt .20.6.2007 sent by opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B-8 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant in 7/2007.
Ex.B-9 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant in 5.7.2007
Ex. B10; Letter addressed by Op to the Members.
Ex. B11; Statement of account as on 06.09.2007.
Ex.B12; Letter addressed by Op to the complainant dt.7.9.2007.
Ex.B-13 Letter addressed by OP to the complainant dt.31.10.2007.
CC.NO. 5 OF 2008
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY
None None
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex.A-1 Membership and plot allotment letter dt.20.1.1998.
Ex.A-2 Statement of account dt.20.1.1998.
Ex.A-3 Letter addressed by the O.P dt.26.4.2004 to the complainant.
Ex.A-4 Provisional cash receipt issued by the O.P dt.20.5.2004.
Ex.A-5 Statement of account issued by the opposite party dt.22.5.2004.
Ex.A-6 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.16.10.2006.
Ex.A-7 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.14.11.2006.
Ex.A-8 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P Dt. 19.12.2006.
ExA-9 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.Pdt.20.12.2006.
Ex.A-10 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.20.12.2006.
Ex.A-11 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.10.5.2007.
Ex.A-12 Statement of Account dt.10.5.2007 issued by the O.P.
Ex.A-13 Letter dt.28.5.2007 addressed by the complainant to the O.P.
Ex.A-14 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.7.9.2007.
Ex.A-15 Statement of account dt.5.9.2007 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A-16 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.20.10.2007.
Ex.A-17 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.18.2.2008.
Ex.A-18 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.4.3.2008.
Ex.A-19 Certificate of market issued by the JT. Sub-Registrar, R. R.Dist.
Ex.A20 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.12.3.2008.
Ex.A-21 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.18.3.2008.
Ex.A-22 Postal acknowledgement.
Documents marked for Opposite Party:
Ex.B-1 Application for Membership.
Ex.B-2 Membership and plot allotment letter dt.23.5.2001 issued by O.P.
Ex.B-3 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.17.3.2004.
Ex.B-4 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B-5 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.16.10.2006.
Ex.B-6 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.22.2.2007.
Ex.B-7 Statement of account dt.10.5.2007 issued by the O.P.
Ex.B-8 Reminder letter dt.16.5.2007 from the O.P to the complainant.
Ex.B-9 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.2.6.2007.
Ex.B10 Statement of account dt.5.9.2007 issued by O.P
Ex.B11 Final notice issued by the O.P to the complainant dt.7.9.2007.
Ex.B-12 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.30.10.2007.
Ex.B-13 Statement of account as on 23.1.2008.
Ex.B-14 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt 22.1.2008.
Ex.B-15 Copy of cheque dt.12.2.2008 for Rs.25,000/- favouring the complainant.
Ex.B-16 Copy of cheque dt.12.2.2008 for Rs.25,000/-.
Ex.B-17 Cancellation and Refund of advance letter dt.18.2.2008.
CC.NO. 6 OF 2008
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY
None None
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex.A-1 Specific Power of Attorney dt.20.11.2007.
Ex.A-2 Membership and plot allotment letter dt.28.1.1998.
Ex.A-3 Letter addressed by opp.party dt.17.3.2004 to the complainant.
Ex.A-4 Statement of account issued by the opposite party dt.23.5.2004.
Ex.A-5 Letter addressed by opp. party to the complainant dt.16.10.2006.
Ex.A-6 Letter from the complainant to the opp.party dt.14.11.2006.
Ex.A-7 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A-8 Letter from complainant to the opp. party Dt. 19.12.2006.
ExA-9 Letter from the complainant to the opposite party dt.20.12.2006.
Ex.A-10 Letter from the complainant to the opposite party dt.20.12.2006.
Ex.A-11 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.10.5.2007.
Ex.A-12 Statement of Account dt.10.5.2007 issued by the opp.party.
Ex.A-13 Letter dt.28.5.2007 from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A-14 Statement of account dt.8.9.2007 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A-15 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A-16 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.30.10.2007.
Ex.A-17 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.21.2.2008.
Ex.A-18 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.4.3.2008.
Ex.A-19 Certificate of market value issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, R. R.Dist.
Ex.A20 Letter from the complainant to the opposite party dt.12.3.2008.
Ex.A-21 Letter addressed by the complainant to the O.P dt.18.3.2008.
Ex.A-22 Postal acknowledgement.
Documents marked for Opposite Party:
Ex.B-1 Application for Membership.
Ex.B-2 Membership and plot allotment letter dt.23.5.2001 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B-3 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.17.3.2004.
Ex.B-4 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.16.10.2006.
Ex.B-5 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.22.2.2007
Ex.B-6 Letter addressed by the O.P to the complainant dt.2.6.2007.
Ex.B-7 Statement of account dt.8.9.2007 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B-8 Final notice dt.8.9.2007 issued by the O.P to the complainant.
Ex.B-9 Cancellation of Plot allotment dt.30.10.2007.
Ex.B10 Statement of account dt.23.1.2008 issued by the O.P.
Ex.B11 E mail letter of opposite party dt.6.11.2007.
Ex.B-12 Letter addressed by the O.Pto the complainant dt.22.1.2008.
Ex.B-13 Cancellation and refund of advances letter dt.21.2.2008.
Ex.B-14 Statement of account dt.12.3.2008.
Ex B-15 Copies of cheques for Rs.25,000/- favouring the complainant.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 12.8.2009
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
