Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

22/2013

Kumar Vivekananda Rao Mallampalli, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Natanarajan

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                            Complaint presented on:24.12.2012                                                                       

                                                                                                               Date of disposal         :25.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT:   THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                          : PRESIDENT

                     TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                          : MEMBER-1

                                  THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA    : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.22/2013

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 25^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Kumar Vivekananda Rao Mallampalli,

S/o.Mallampalli Vivekananda Rao,

No.1, Forty Third Street, Eighth Sector,

K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078.

1.  

          

M/s.DLF Southern Homes Pvt.,Ltd.,

Registered Officer,

P-39, New Delhi South Extension,

New Delhi-110 049.

 

M/s. DLF Southern Homes Pvt.Ltd.,

Having Zonal Officer at

Old No.828, New No.268, Poonamallee High Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai-10….Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s.NatanaRajan and 4 others

 

Counsel for the opposite parties            : M/s. Aiyar and Dolia

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.      : PRESIDENT

 

          This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to deliver the Flat No.2, measuring 1811 Sq., Ft., in floor No.5., of Block No.42 in the apartment construction of the opposite party, known as “Garden City DLF OMR” to the complainant and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards the caused deficiency in service by the opposite party as a builder and thereby made the complainant to suffer unnecessary loss, shame, anguish and mental agony and cost of complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that based upon the persuasions made by the opposite parties General Manager Marketing, Sri.K.Srikanth at Chalam Towers Chennai-4, the complainant agreed to purchase an Apartment is known as ‘Garden City DLF OMR” and paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance in 24.01.2008. The apartment Buyers agreement between the complainant and opposite parties on 08.05.2008 for purchase of Flat no.2, measuring 1811 Sq.ft, in floor No.5 of Block No.42 of the said project at Chalam Towers, III floor, Old No.62 New No.113, Dr.Radhakrishnan road, Chennai-4. The complainant further submitted that as per the said agreement the complainant was directed to pay a total sum of Rs.49,26,710/- of total price which includes the basic sale price and cost of parking space etc.,At the time of entering into the said agreement it was impressed by K.Srikanth General Manager marketing that the payment of total price has got to be made by the complainant on installment basis, based on the periodical demands made by the opposite parties. It was impressed by the K.Srikanth that rebate would be given for prompt payment. So the complainant had been making the payment without any delay or default. The complainant made several payment totally aggregating of Rs.4692211.67 inclusive of the service tax of Rs.13,495/- as claimed by the opposite party. The last payment of Rs.504950.83 made by the complainant was on 12.11.2010.  The complainant submitted that as per the demand notice dated 29.10.2010 issued by opposite party the net amount payable by the complainant towards the said apartment buyer’s agreement is Rs.504950.83 was made by the complainant and receipt dated 16.11.2010.  The total payment made by complainant by 16.11.2010 within 32 months of the first payment is 95% of the total demand raised.  The balance 5% amount as stated in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement  has got to be paid only on notice of Possession.  From the opposite party’s letter dated 10.04.2012 the said apartment has not yet been made ready despite the assurances given by the opposite parties that the vacant possession of the said apartment would be given within Thirty Six Months from the date of signing of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. It is further alleged that the complainant was not provided with a rebate for prompt payment as found in the agreement though there was a delay of one day in payment made on 30.05.2010 which is due to the fault on the LIC housing finance and further according to the complainant he has paid entire payment s early as 16.11.2010 except Rs.336885.50 which has to be paid only on notice of possession and possession should have been given on or before 31.05.2011 and because of the delay the complainant put to loss and also has to pay monthly  rent of Rs.36750/- for his accommodation from 01.06.2011 and the opposite party has made a demand to pay excess service tax by letter dated 28.03.2012 and such excess tax arose only because of only delay in completion of opposite party and there was increase in stamp duty and registration fees also due to the delay and by letter dated 10.04.2012 the opposite party demanded excess infrastructure and amenity charges which was not informed earlier and also about payment of Rs.10,000/- towards documentation work to M/s. Anand abdul and Vinod associates which was also not informed earlier and the change in service tax and infrastructure  amenity charges were only from 01.04.2012 but the complainant has made all payments before 16.11.2011 and hence the complainant is not liable to pay the excess amount claimed by the opposite party and the said notices dated 10.04.2012 and 12.04.2012 were sent only with intention to gain time and therefore the complainant and hence the complainant prayed for delivery of possession of apartment and damages.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite party in their written version states that the complaint is not maintainable in law and in facts and there is no lack of services.  They denied all the averments and allegations except those are specifically replied.   The opposite party submitted that the representation of Mr.Srikanth in the complaint is neither true nor valid and the payment of Rs.5 lakhs is not an advance as alleged in the complaint. This payment was paid under the duly accepted and signed application of the complainant, as booking amount by the complainant which is liable to be treated as earnest money and liable for forfeiture in the event of any default of the terms and conditions of the application. It is submitted that the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was entered on 08.05.2009 not in the year 2008.  Further submitted that as per the said agreement dated 08.05.2009 the complainant agreed to pay the total price for the estimated super are of 1811 sp.ft., for the apartment no.2 in the floor no.5 and building no.42.  The total price includes base sale price at the rate of Rs.2550/- per sq.ft., of super area, floor rate charges Rs.60 per sq.ft., and cost of car parking space at Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant has agreed to pay for the Super area ascertained and the same was informed as 1871 sq.ft vide letter dated 12.04.2012. Besides the total price the complainant has agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards membership for first 2 years and Annual Club charges of Rs.7,000/- and a refundable security deposit of Rs.20,000/- vide in Clause no.1.11 and Rs.1,00,000/- towards Electricity, water, sewer service connection and other incidental charges, interest bearing maintenance security deposit at the rate of Rs.50/per sq.ft., of super area of the apartment. The complainant is also liable to bear the taxes, stamp duty, registration fees and incidental charges as well as for execution of the said agreement and conveyance deed.  The complainant agreed to pay the interest on the delayed payments at the rate of 15% p.a. for the 90  days from the due date and for all periods exceeding first 90 days after the due date @ 18% p.a.  The complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.62,89,706/-,towards the total price in the terms of the schedule of payments annexed to Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. But the complainant paid Rs.46,94,408.65  he has chosen to default the same inspite of the demand dated 27.03.2012 from the opposite parties letter dated 10.04.2012.  The complainant has defaulted to a sum of Rs.15,95,095/- as on 10.06.2013.  The said amount has not been paid for more that 1417 days and as on 22.01.2016 and the complainant is liable to pay Rs.21,57,357/- together with interest to get possession and registration of the apartment. The contention of the complainant that the total price of Rs.49,26,710/- is the total price which includes base sale price of the said apartment, cost of parking space etc., are misleading.  Though not obligatory the opposite party has send periodical reminders and inspite of the same the complainant has defaulted to pay Rs.4,92,671.36 due on 30.05.2010 but paid only on 01.06.2010 and thereby made himself not eligible for timely payment rebate. The period of 36 months for possession is not absolute and dependant on various factors mentioned in the agreement.  The complainant himself in para 6 stated that he has delayed one payment by one day and hence not entitled for timely repayment rebate.  It is false to allege that the opposite party received entire payment as early 16.11.2010 It is incorrect to state that possession should have been given on or before 31.05.2011.  There is no proof that the complainant has paid Rs.36750/- per month towards rented accommodation.  The increase in infrastructure amenities is only due to the demand of MLPA which is subject matter of writ petition and the opposite party agreed to refund the excess amount subject to the result of the writ petition. The legal fees and conveyance charges were agreed to be paid by the complainant in the buyer’s agreement.  As per clause 1.3 of the agreement the complainant agreed to pay the increase in tax. The damages claim is untenable and imaginary.  The complainant having default in paying amount agreed has filed this complaint vexatiously and denied the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the complainant is maintainable and  there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed?  To what extent?

The complainant have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A38 are marked on their side.The opposite party has filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 and B2 document is marked on his side.

4.POINT NO :1

                    The complainant entered into agreement with opposite party to purchase a apartment and paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance 24.01.2008 and therafter on pursuance of Mr.K.Srikanth General manager marketing of the opposite party the complainant signed in the apartment buyer’s agreement on 08.05.2009 for purchase of Flat no.2 measuring 1811 sq.ft., in the 5^th floor of block no.42 and pay totally Rs.4692211.67 inclusive of service tax of Rs.13495/- the total price of the apartment was Rs.4926710/- and further according to the complainant he had made payment of 95% of the total amount and only 5% has to be paid which as per the agreement has to be paid only on notice of possession but by the letter dated 10.04.2012 the opposite party informed that the possession of the apartment was not made ready despite the earlier assurance the possession would be given within 36 months from the date of apartment buyer’s agreement and it is further alleged that the complainant was not provided with a rebate for prompt payment as found in the agreement though there was a delay of oneday in payment made on 30.05.2010 which is due to the fault on the LIC housing finance and further according to the complainant he has paid entire payment s early as 16.11.2010 except Rs.336885.50 which has to be paid only on notice of possession and possession should have been given on or before 31.05.2011 and because of the delay the complainant was put to loss and also has to pay monthly  rent of Rs.36750/- for his accommodation from 01.06.2011 and the opposite party has made a demand to pay excess service tax by letter dated 28.03.2012 and such excess tax arose only because of only delay in completion of opposite party and there was increase in stamp duty and registration fees also due to the delay and by letter dated 10.04.2012 the opposite party demanded excess infrastructure and amenity charges which was not informed earlier and also about payment of Rs.10,000/- towards documentation work to M/s. Anand abdul and Vinod associates which was also not informed earlier and the change in service tax and infrastructure  amenity charges were only from 01.04.2012 but the complainant has made all payments before 16.11.2011 and hence the complainant is not liable to pay the excess amount claimed by the opposite party and the said notices dated 10.04.2012 and 12.04.2012 were sent only with intention to gain time and therefore the complainant and hence the complainant prayed for delivery of possession of apartment and damages.

             5. But on the otherhand it was contended by the opposite party that the complainant voluntarily approached and signed in the agreement on 08.05.2009 and agreed to the terms and conditions of the same and apart from that the complainant agreed to pay a total price which includes basic sale price and floor raise  charges and caused of car parking and agreed to pay actual super area ascertained upon completion which was informed as 1871 sq.ft., by letter dated 12.04.2012 and also agreed to pay membership fees for two years and club charges and security deposit for installation of EB and Water Service and in addition to that the stamp duty and registration and incidental expenses for convenience deed and also agreed to pay delayed payment with interest at 15% p.a. for first 90days and therafter 90 18% p.a. and further contended that since the complainant has defaulter to pay one agreed payment on 30.05.2010 but paid only on 01.06.2010 with one day delay hence not eligible for timely payment rebate and further contended that as per the clause in the apartment buyer’s agreement any dispute between the parties has to referred only to arbitration and the dispute arose from the contract of agreement and hence contended that the complainant has to approach before  competent court and not this commission and further stated that the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- initially is not by way of advance but it is earnest money which is liable for forfeiture in the event of default of the terms and conditions and according to the opposite party the complainant is liable to pay Rs.6289706/- towards total price  in terms of buyer’s agreement and paid only Rs.4694408.65 and defaulter to pay Rs.1595095/- as on 10.06.2013  and further alleged that the period of 36 months for possession is not absolute but depending upon various factors and at any event the opposite party by virtue of terms and  conditions has to pay only Rs.5 per sq.ft., of super area for the period of delay if any and further stated that there is no proof for payment of rent by the complainant for his rented accommodation and there was increased in infrastructure amenity charges at the rate of Rs.88.09 per sq.ft., than the earlier rate of Rs.22.88 per sq.ft., which is claimed by MLPA  which is pending before Hon’ble High Court in W.P.19435/2011 and the excess amount will be refunded subject to the decision in the Writ petition which was duly communication with the complainant on 10.04.2012 and the complainant has to pay all the taxes including the service tax as per clause 1.3 of apartment buyer’s agreement and taxes are payable to the government and not to the opposite party and according to the opposite party all other persons who booked apartment already complied with the terms and conditions and taken possession except the complainant who is acting with ulterior motive and denied the deficiency in service alleged in the complaint.

                6. It is found from Ex.A1 that based on the application of the complainant apartment no.2 in floor no.5 was allotted to the complainant, Ex.A2 is the allotment letter dated 06.03.2009 under Ex.A3 the complainant was informed that he will be eligible for timely payment rebate at Rs.200/- per sq.ft. if the payment were made in time.  But it is not a part of contract and not found in the buyer’s agreement, the buyers’ agreement is dated 08.05.2009 the complainant agreed to purchase a flat in the area of  1811 sq.ft the various demand notices issued by opposite party to the complainant were marked as Ex.A7 to A11  and A13 to A15 it is found from Ex.A13 the complainant was informed that the government has imposed the service tax from 01.07.2010 and he is liable to pay Rs.13525.67 towards service tax it is found from Ex.A17 by letter dated 14.01.2012 the complainant was informed that tentatively the apartment will be delivered from January 2012 to July 2012 in respect of different towers.  Under Ex.A19 dated 28.03.2012 the complainant was informed that there is increased in service tax with effect from 01.04.2012 at from 10% to 12.36%.   Under Ex.A20 on 10.04.2012 the complainant was informed by the opposite party that he is liable to pay the increase in infrastructure amenity charges of Rs.65.21 per sq.ft as demanded by MLPA  which is under challenge before Hon’ble High Court and he was further informed that it will take another 3 months time after completing payment for allowing him to move into the apartment and also to pay Rs.l0,000/- towards counsel fee for preparing convenience deed.  By Ex.A21 dated 12.04.2012 the opposite party claimed that there is increasing super area of the apartment due to changes during the period of construction and requested the complainant to increase the super area of the apartment it is found that Ex.A26 to A37 were Email correspondences between the complainant and opposite party.  Under Ex.A26 on 07.12.2013 the complainant was requested to pay Rs.1595095/- to the opposite party but whereas the complainant says that he has paid entire payment as early in the year 2011 itself it is found from Ex.A27 according to the opposite party the complainant is due Rs.242994.17 with interest for the delayed payment.  It is found that even after the filing of this complaint there was exchange of Emails between both the parties. It is found from Ex.A13 the various payments made by the complainant from 24.01.2008 to 19.11.2010 to the tune of Rs.4692211.67 were totally paid by the complainant but according to the opposite party the above said amount does not reflect the total value of the apartment.  The apartment buyer’s agreement dated 08.05.2009 containing the terms and conditions is marked as Ex.B1.  Under clause 1.10 the allottee agree to pay all taxes which shall be charged in addition to total price,  it is found in Clause 1.6 that the allottee agrees to pay the increasing super area on demand by the company after completion of the construction in Clause 4 it is found that the booking amount of Rs.5 lakhs shall be treated as earnest money for due fulfillment of conditions, under clause 11(a) it is stated that the company will make endeavor to complete construction within 36 from the date of agreement. The schedule of payment is shown in Annexure III the delayed interest calculation sheet is marked as Ex.B2.

                  7. In the written version of the opposite party it was contended that as per clause 54 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement any dispute in respect of the agreement has to be referred to arbitration and further contended that the complainant by virtue of terms of agreement has to approach the competent court and not this commission for his remedy but, the complainant relied upon AIR 1994 SC 787, AIR 1997 Sc 533, AIR 2000 SC 2008 and contended that the complaint is maintainable before consumer commission.  It is found that since the complaint is based on the delay alleged to be caused by the opposite party in handing over the possession of the apartment and since the complainant has paid amount to the opposite party for completing the construction of the apartment which is a service rendered by the opposite party and therefore the present complaint filed before this commission is maintainable. 

                8. According to the complainant as per the schedule of payment given in Annexure III of Ex.B1 he has paid total payment of Rs.4692211.67 even by 19.11.2010.  But, the opposite party has not handed over possession as agreed in the agreement dated 08.05.2009 though the complainant is liable to pay only Rs.230902.50 which is payable at the time of possession and therefore contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  It is found from Ex.B1 agreement that the complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions and signed the same and as per Ex.B1 the initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by the complainant has to be treated only as earnest money and not as an advance which is liable for forfeiture in the event of default of the terms and conditions.  Further as per clause 1.2 the allottee agreed to pay increase in price of super area and also agreed to pay increase in the caused or charges which may be levied by the government from time to time.  Further in Clause 1.3 the allottee agreed to pay total price as per payment plan in Annexure III and also agreed to pay taxes and other increase as and when demanded by the company. Under clause 1.6 the allotte agreed to pay total price of the apartment calculated on the basis of super area which will be decided after completion of construction.  Under clause 1.10 the allottee agreed to pay total price and also agreed to pay all taxes and in Clause 1.11 the allottee agreed to pay the membership fees, club charges and security deposit.  Under clause 2 the allotee agreed to pay all tax on land, municipal tax and other taxes in clause 11(a) it is found that the opposite party shall make endeavor to complete the construction within a period of ___ months( Number of months not mentioned-left blank) but the period of month was not found in the said clause, but during the proceedings both the parties agreed that it is 36 months from the date of agreement.  If it is so from the date of agreement on 08.05.2009 the completion of the construction should complete 07.05.2012 but by letter dated 10.04.2012 and 12.04.2012 which were marked as Ex.A20 and A21  the opposite party claimed the increase in infrastructure amenities charges (IAC) at the rate of Rs.88.09 per sq.ft., than the previous date of 22.88 sq.ft as demanded by the MLPA which is under challenge before High Court and also claimed increased charge for the change in super area of the apartment.  The complainant argued that he is not liable to pay the amount claimed under Ex.A20 and A21 since it was due to the delay in handing over possession by the opposite party.  But the claim under Ex.A20 and A21 arose only from 01.04.2012 because of the demand made by the MLPA and due to increase in super area of the apartment which was confirmed only after completion of the construction as found in Ex.B1 agreement and further since the complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions in Ex.B1 the complainant is liable to pay the excess amount claimed by the opposite party under Ex.A20 and A21 and also other taxes and charges which were levied by the government and demanded by the opposite party.  The complainant cannot allege that such excess payment was due to delay and deficiency on  the part of opposite party.  Further the complainant is  not entitled to insist upon the timely payment rebate since there was one day delay in making payment towards the installment due on 30.05.2010 as found from Ex.A38.  It is found from Ex.A26 dated 07.12.2013 the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1595095/- as on 17.12.2013 which was not paid by the complainant till today and as on 22.01.2016 the amount due has increased to Rs.2157357/- together with interested for the belated payment as per the terms and conditions and therefore the complainant having become a defaulter is not entitled to allege deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and without paying the balance amount the complainant is also not entitled to seek for possession and handing over the apartment. The total price of the apartment does not denote Rs.4926710/- alone as contended by the complainant as found from Ex.B1 it includes the proportionate charge of the super area and also the other taxes including the service tax and any other tax which is levied by the government before the period of handing over namely 07.05.2012 and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant is liable to pay the same and he is no entitled to allege that he has paid entire amount by paying only Rs.4694408.65 alone, similarly it is not open to the complainant to content that there is increase in stamp duty due to increase the guideline value and undivided share in the land.  It is found that except the complainant other persons who have booked the apartment have taken possession by paying the necessary amount demanded by the opposite party.  As per the terms and conditions agreed if there is any delay in handing over the complainant can only insist upon the payment of 5% compensation for the delay from the date of delay in handing over of possession and according to the opposite party the said amount will be adjusted in the total sale amount during the time of registrations conveyance deed. It is found that there is increase in super area of the apartment after completion to 1871 sq.ft for which the complainant is liable to pay the excess amount claimed by the opposite party, the complainant was informed about the tentative handing over schedule by letter dated 14.01.2012 within the three years period of mentioned in the agreement, the complainant was informed the amount due by him in Ex.A26 and A27 and it is found that even after filing of this complaint there is exchange of letters between the parties with regard to payment of maintenance due in respect of the apartment.  The complainant is liable to pay the applicable taxes along with legal expenses and charges since the same was not paid for the benefit of the opposite party company,  the opposite party is no way gaining advantage by virtue of payment of taxes which is paid to the government.  The counsel for the complainant relied upon decision reported in NCDRC CC.NO.427/2014 batch cases dated 08.06.2015  Satish kumar Pandey & Anr  Vs  M/s. Unitech Ltd  and contended that the increase in service tax was due to the delay in delivery of possession in time and it has to be borned by the opposite party. But the facts of the present case is entirely different and here the increase in tax by the government is within the prescribed time limit.  Further the complainant relied upon 2017 SCC online NCDRC page 1835 and contended that opposite party is liable to pay interest for the delayed possession till handing over of the possession but the same is not applicable to this case for the reasons stated above.  The opposite party relied upon a decision reported in FA.NO. 1/2016 of TNSCDRC Madurai Bench dated 25.03.2019 and contended that mere payment of fee would not come under the category of consideration.  The opposite party contended that by seeking a prayer for delivery of flat the complainant is indirectly asking for registration of sale deed in his favour without paying the amount due and payable by him for which he is not legally entitled to.  There is much force in such argument of the opposite party.  The complainant failed to prove that he was put to loss and damage by paying Rs.36750/- per month to the rented accommodation from 01.06.2011 because of the delay in handing over.  There is no documentary proof filed by the complainant.  Hence it is found that there is no willful delay or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint and the complainant who has defaulted in making payment and having amount due to be paid to the opposite party and hence it is found that the complainant is also responsible for the alleged delay in handing over the apartment.  From the facts it is found that if the complainant has paid the amounts as agreed in Ex.B1 the dispute would not have arose between the parties and the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

9. Point No.2

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1  there is no deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.    

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 25^th day of August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	03.06.2008	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A2	06.03.2009	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A3	19.05.2009	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A4	21.09.2009	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A5	08.10.2009	Demand letter by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6	08.10.2009	Letter by the opposite party to the Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Chennai-15
Ex.A7	22.12.2009	Demand Notice by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A8	12.02.2010	Demand Notice by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A9	03.04.2010	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A10	09.04.2010	Demand Notice by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A11	23.04.2010	Demand Notice by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A12	01.06.2010	Remainder one sent by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A13	03.07.2010	Demand Notice by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A14	07.07.2010	Demand Notice by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A15	29.10.2010	Demand Notice by the Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A16	25.11.2010	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A17	14.01.2012	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A18	29.02.2012	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A19	28.03.2012	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A20	10.04.2012	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A21	12.04.2012	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A22	02.05.2012	Copy of the notice by the complainants counsel to the opposite party.
Ex.A23	03.05.2012	Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A24	05.05.2012	Returned postal cover.
Ex.A25	13.06.2012	Letter by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A26	07.12.2013	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A27	17.12.2013	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A28	31.12.2014	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A29	27.01.2015	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A30	05.03.2015	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A31	09.03.2015	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A32	05.05.2015	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A33	07.07.2015	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A34	01.08.2015	E-mails sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ex.A35	23.03.2015	Reply E-mails sent by the complainant’s counsel
Ex.A36	14.07.2015	Reply E-mails sent by the complainant’s counsel
Ex.A37	03.08.2015	Reply E-mails sent by the complainant’s counsel
Ex.A38	NIL	Statement of Accounts submitted by the complainant.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1	08.05.2009	Apartment Buyer’s Agreement between the parties.
Ex.B2	22.01.2016	Delayed Interest calculation sheet.

 

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT