NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1099/2016

PRABOTH KUMAR SHUKLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESH KUMAR BHAWNANI

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2425 OF 2015
(Against the Order dated 25/06/2015 in Appeal No. 346/2014 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. PRABODH KUMAR SHUKLA
S/O LATE SHRI SHIVKUMAR SHUKLA, R/O FRIEND STDPCO, TATIBANDH CHOWK, NEAR APOLO TYRE, RAIPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
RAIPUR
C.G.
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAJENDRA NAGAR,
RAIPUR
C.G.
...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1099 OF 2016
(Against the Order dated 11/01/2016 in Appeal No. 381/2012 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. PRABOTH KUMAR SHUKLA
S/O LATE SHRI SHIVKUMAR SHKULA, R/O FRIEND STDPCO, TATIBANDH CHOWK, NEAR APOLO TYRE, RAIPUR, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT-RAIPUR
CHHATTISGARH
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESENT ADDRESS RAJENDRA NAGAR,
RAIPUR
CHHATTISGARH
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER :
MR. RAJESH KUMAR BHAWNANI, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT :
MR. RAJUL SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE

Dated : 08 August 2024
ORDER

1.         These two Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 25.06.2015 in RP/2425/2015 and 11.01.2016 in RP/1099/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 346 of 2014 (RP/2425/2015) and First Appeal (FA) No. 381 of 2012 (RP/1099/2016) in which order dated 23.04.2014 (RP/2425/2015) and 26.06.2012 (RP/1099/2016) of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 378 of 2009 (RP/2425/2015) and Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 267 of 2008 (RP/1099/2016) were challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 25.06.2015 and 11.01.2016 respectively of the State Commission.

 

2.         In RP/2425/2015, the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission in FA/346/2014 and Non Applicant before the District Forum in Complaint No.378/2009.

 

3.         In RP/1099/2016, the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/381/2012 and Opposite Party before the District Forum in Complaint No.267/2008.

 

4.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 11.04.2016 in RP/2425/201 and on 21.12.2016 in RP/1099/2016.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 30.05.2022 (Petitioner) and 30.06.2023 (Respondent) in RP/2425/2015 but in RP/1099/2016 Respondent has not filed Written Arguments. Additional Written Submission filed by the Petitioner on 19.12.2023 in both the cases.   

 

5.         Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

In RP/2425/2015

  1. In this case, the Respondent authority has allotted one plot in 1978 in the name of Mr. V.G. Mohrik in Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur. After the death of Mr. Mohrik, an alternate plot 277 in Katora Talab was allotted to the wife of Mr. Mohrik as scheme of Jalvihar Colony was closed. Thereafter, an application for transfer of said plot in the name of late Sh. Shiv Kumar Shukla, father of the complainant/petitioner herein was made, which was allowed by Respondent authority and in place of said plot, a new plot no. C-189 Katora Talab scheme was allotted, for which an amount of Rs.15,590/- was directed to be paid upto 15.07.1983, which was paid by Sh. Shiv Kumar Shukla, in full and final settlement as per market value.
  1. Mr. Shiv Kumar submitted documents for registry in 1983, but the same was not done. In the meanwhile, said plot no. C-189 Katora Talab was transferred to one Sh. K.P. Kasla. After the death of Sh. Shiv Kumar, his son Mr. Prabodh Shukla, the complainant, demanded documents from the OP which were provided on 07.08.2008. The complainant demanded that as the said plot C-189 was allotted to someone else, he may be allotted an alternate plot of same size at katora talab at Devendra Nagar.
  1. OP informed complainant on 01.10.2008 to intimate whether he was willing to take the plot at present market rate. Thereafter, OP issued a letter dated 17.07.2009, proposing to allot a plot no. C-64/5 of 2400 sq. ft. Devendra Nagar Scheme, and Complainant was asked to deposit Rs.28,39,200/- till 31.07.2009.
  1. The complainant filed complaint before District Forum praying to allot plot no. C-189 katora talab of 2400 sq. ft. or in the alternative plot no. C-64/5 Devendra Nagar Scheme, Sector 5, 2400 sq. ft. at the original rate. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to allot the plot of 2400 sq. ft. at sector 5 Devender Nagar on the same rate as of 1983. Relevant portion of orders of  District Forum is extracted below:

“18. Therefore, upon the base of above mentioned complete investigation, after accepting complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of consumer protection act 1986, it is ordered that within one month from the date of order.

A. Non-applicant will give vacant possession of alternative plot of land No. 64/C Davender Nagar, Sector 5, area 2400 square feet in lieu of plot of land No. C-89 Katora Talab, Raipur, area 2400 Square feet to the complainant without delay and non-applying will give plot of land to the complainant on the same price, which had been proposed for providing plot of land after obtaining complete prove of plot of land in year 1983.

B. Non-applicant will pay to the complainant Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) in lieu of enhancement of construction cost.

C. Non-applicant will pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to the complainant for the mental pain which was caused due to the above mentioned act of the non- applicant.

D. Non-applicant will also pay interest at the rate of 18 percent per year to the complainant on the above mentioned amount from 05.10.2009 the date of its payment.

E. Non applicant will also pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand to the complainant in the shape of advocate fee and litigation expenses.”

  1. Appeal filed by the OP before State Commission was allowed, order of District Forum was set aside and following orders were passed:

“15. Therefore, it is decided that respondent/ complainant has no right for obtaining that plot of land which had been allotted earlier and which order has been given by the district forum for allotting the plot of land to the respondent/ complainant at the earlier allotted rate only, that is erroneous, therefore, the same is cancelled. In this situation, which demanded of amount, at the market rate, for the alternative plot of land has been made by the appellant/ non applicant Raipur development authority, there is no kind of any irregularity and illegality and which plot of land is being given to the respondent/ complainant the same is in sector-5, Devender Nagar and certainly its price will be different from that plot of land which had been allotted earlier and in that situation, by the applicant/ non applicant demanded of Rs.28,44,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lac forty four thousand only) has been raised for new plot of land No. 64/5, area 2400 sq. ft. illegible sector-5, Davender Nagar, Raipur and there no irregularity of any kind in it and after making demand of the above mentioned amount, no deficiency of any kind has been done by appellant/ non applicant.

16. That in the back ground of above mentioned investigation, appeal filed by the appellant/non-applicant is accepted. Impugned. Order dated 23.04.2014 passed by District Forum is set-aside No order is being given in connection with expenses of appeal.”

  1. In the written statement filed before the District Forum, OP had stated as follows
  • E.W.S. house no. 266, was allotted in Katora Talab to Smt. Mohrik. Whatever pleadings have been made in respect of the plot of land no. 277, the same are absolutely false.
  • Request was made by Smt. Mohrik for transferring the allotted house. On that request by the Opposite party on 23.06.1983, plot of land no. C-189, in Katora Talab, Raipur was allotted to Shiv Kumar Shukla
  • Allotment of the complainant in connection with allotted plot of land No. C-189 has been cancelled on 24.11.1983.
  • Because earlier allotment had been cancelled, therefore, new allotment had to be done.
  • Clear information had been given to the complainant by the opposite party that if he agrees for taking the alteration vacant plot of land at the present market rate, then proceeding related with allotment can be done.
  • Complainant had also given his consent for taking plot of land at the present market rate. Consent letter is dated 01.12.2008.
  • After receiving the consent of the complainant, plot of land no. 64/5, area 2400 square feet has been allotted to him in Davender Nagar Scheme. 
  1. The complainant has placed on record receipt dated 02.07.1983 issued by Respondent evidencing receipt of Rs.15,790/- from Sh. Shiv Kumar Shukla, his father and a letter dated 23.06.1986 addressed to Respondent for registration of the plot, and another letter dated 22.09.1986. OP issued a letter dated 08.09.1992 to Sh. Shiv Kumar as follows:

“Sub: Regarding the plot No. C-189/5 under Katora Talab Scheme.

       Regarding the said subject you have to appear before the sub committee in Room No. 108 on 17-09-92 at 12 O'clock alongwith the following details.

1. The Original receipts regarding the amount which you have deposited with the authority and its photocopy.

2. Documents regarding the plots and the photocopy of the letters regarding the correspondence with the authority.

As per the order of the sub committee of Director”

  1. Further, OP issued a letter dated 17.07.2009 to complainant as follows:

“Sub: Regarding the allotment of the plot

Ref: Your application dated 28-08-2008 and 10-12-2008

       Under the Katora Talab Scheme the plot allotted to late Shiv Kumar Shukla was disputed therefore you have filed the application for allotting the plot in any other scheme and to register your name as legal heirs. Therefore under Devendra Nagar Scheme plot No. C-64/5 of 24 sq.ft. is to be allotted to you under the following terms and conditions:

1. Under the Devendra Nagar Scheme the price of present market rate Rs.1185/- per sq.ft. and total price of plot Rs.28,44,000/- have to be deposited.

2. Rs. 4/- per sq.ft. of road cost total of Rs.9600/- have to be deposited.

       In the said para 1 & 2 total amount of Rs.28,53,600/- out of which the amount deposited previously Rs.14,400/- and after adjusting the said amount, amount of Rs.28,39,200/- has to be deposited upto 31- 07-2009 and on your own cost stamp has to be purchase and lease agreement has to be executed. In the its period if amount is not deposited then the propose allotment in your favour will be automatically cancelled.

As per order of C.E.O.”

  1. It is this letter, vide which amount was demanded at the then market rate, which was challenged before District Forum.

 

In RP/1099/2016

(i)        In this RP, the Respondent authority informed Shri Mahesh Kumar Udasi about the allocation of Plot No. 401 (400 sq. ft.) under the Economically Weaker Section’s category in Katora Talab Scheme. The original plot was exchanged for Plot No. D419/5 Corner, Katora Talab, which was then transferred to Shri Shyam Panjwani and subsequently to Mr. Prabodh Kumar Shukla (the complainant) upon Panjwani's request. On 17.06.1983, the Respondent authority demanded Rs.15,790/- for Plot No. C-188/5, which was allotted to the complainant, the said letter is reproduced below:

“Sub   :           Regarding the registration and allotment of the plot under Katora Talab Scheme.

Ref.     :           Your registered application dated 16.06.1983.

        Under the Katora Talab Scheme of the Authority, allotment of plot No. 419 was given to you to pay the amount of Rs.7450/-, but the said amount was not paid by you and application for given to transfer the said property in favour of Sh. Prabodh Kumar Shukla.

           On your application, the permission to transfer under the said plot No. C188/5 Sh. Prabodh Kumar Shukla is given on following conditions.

              1.The beneficiary will have to pay the entrée fee of Rs.114350/-.

              2.The beneficiary will have to pay 10% of entry fee of Rs.1440/-.

       After repaying the said amount, the lease will be executed at the stamp of the fair value of the transfer and the registration will be done at the expense of itself.

       Accordingly, kindly inform Mr. Prabodh Kumar Shukla that arrange them to proceed as on 20.07.1983.”

 

(ii)       Despite the complainant's request on 18.09.1986 for a favorable decision, the Respondent authority demanded payment at the current market value and required a consent letter from the complainant agreeing not to pursue any legal action vide letter dated 15.05.2008, the relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below:

“The application referred to for allotment and registration of plot number C188/5, area 2400 sq. ft., under the Katora Pond Scheme, has been submitted by you. If you agree to buy the plot at the current prevailing market rate and interest amount of Rs.750.00 per sq. ft. and not to file any court case in future regarding the interest amount, then submit your consent letter (affidavit) in this regard. It will be possible to take further action only after receiving the consent letter.”

(iii)     Vide letter dated 10.07.2008, a demand of Rs.17,95,200/- was made, with a direction to complete the registry by 31.07.2008, which is reproduced below:

Sub: Allotment of plot No. C-188/5 under Katora Talab.

       Based on the agreement and affidavit given by you in the above mentioned subject, the allotment of plot No. C-188/5 area 2400 sq. ft. under Katora Talab Scheme is made subject to the following conditions:-

1. The current prevailing rate of the said plot will be Rs.18,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.750/- per sq ft. In order to adjust the deposited deposits of Rs.14,400/- in advance, Rs.17,85,600/ will be deposited.

2. Road maintenance fee of Rs.9600/- will be charged at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq ft.

           Therefore, according to paragraphs 1 and 2, total Rs.17,95,200/- should be submitted by 31.07.2008 and execute and register the lease deed on their own expenses.”

                       It is this letter, vide which amount was demanded at the then market rate.

 

(iv)      The Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum praying to allot plot No. C188/5, area 2400 sq. ft. Sector-5, Katora Talab, Raipur  at original rate. District Forum dismissed the complaint and passed the following order:

“13. Therefore, after the above investigation it was found by the Forum that the complainant against the opposite party desired compensation for plot No. C188/5, 2400 sq. ft., Sector-5, Katora Talab, Raipur situated or plot no. C-64/5, Area 2400 sq. ft., Devendra Nagar project, Sector-5 situated on the basis of new allotment is not eligible to receive from this Forum. As a result the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. In the situations of the case the parties will bear their own litigation charges.”

 

(v)       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Complainant approached the State Commission in which State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

 

6.         In RP/2425/2015, Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 25.06.2015 of the State Commission in FA/346/2014 mainly on following grounds:

  1. The State Commission erred by overlooking the important fact that the OP/respondent has allotted the plot to the petitioner and the amount paid by his father was adjusted. This clearly shows that the OP/respondent has allotted the plot in place of the old plot. Therefore the observation taken by the State Commission that the OP/respondent has not committed any deficiency in service is illegal and deserves to be set-aside.
  2. The State Commission further erred by holding that the price demanded by OP/respondent at the new rate is correct. The said observations of the State Commission is against the norms of law and deserves to be set-aside.
  3. The State Commission has overlooked the important fact that the complainant father has deposited the amount long before and he was entitled for the plot at the old rate. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the plot was not allotted to the complainant because of the internal problems of the OP. 
  4. The State Commission without any reason has interfered in the legal order passed by the District Forum. Therefore the order of the State Commission deserves to be set-aside.

 

7.         In RP/1099/2016, Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 11.01.2016 of the State Commission in FA/381/2012 mainly on following grounds:

  1. The State Commission has erred by holding that the price demanded by OP/respondent at the new rate is correct. The said observation of the State Commission is against the norms of law and deserves to be set-aside.
  2. The State Commission has overlooked the important fact that the complainant has deposited the amount long before and he was entitled for the plot at the old rate. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the plot was not allotted to the complainant because of the internal problems of the OP. 
  3. The State Commission has erred by overlooking the important fact that the complainant has purchased the stamp paper and has submitted with the OP long before and upto this date the letter of possession and sale deed was not registered. This was the total fault of the OP for which the complainant is suffering. Therefore the order passed by the State Commission is not as per law and deserves to be set-aside.
  4. The State Commission overlooked the evidence which was before them and has passed the order merely on the basis of presumption. Therefore the order of the State Commission is not maintainable.

 

8.         Heard learned counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

            8.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (Para 6 & 7), the petitioner contended that his father had already paid the amount of the said plot in the year 1983 but Respondent herein stated that they are ready to allot the alternative new plot to the Petitioner herein at the rate of Rs.28,39,200/-. Petitioner further contended that the additional demand raised by the OP was not correct. Therefore, there was no occasion for the State Commission to dismiss the complaint in RP/2425/2015.

 

            8.2       On the other hand Respondent contended that District Commission had failed to consider that the old allotment had been cancelled by order of the Chairman, Raipur Development Authority dated 24.11.1983, as it amounted to illegal allotment of plots meant for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) to persons belonging to non-EWS category. Thus, the allotment in the name of Shri Shiv Kumar Shukla, that late father of the Petitioner, was cancelled and the Respondent is ready to return the amount deposited. He further contended that the Petitioner, through letter dated 01.12.2008 gave his consent to take an alternate plot of land through fresh allotment at the present market rate. As per Memorandum dated 04.09.2009, the Respondent was ready to make fresh allotment of the plot No. C-64/5 in Devender Nagar Scheme in the name of the Petitioner at the present market rate of Rs.28,44,000/- and the Petitioner agreed to the same. However, the Petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount by the due date.  

 

9.         During the hearing on 19.09.2023, the petitioner submitted that the two cases are independent with two different plot numbers. However, it was seen that many documents pertaining to RP/2425/2015 have been placed in the second file of RP/1099/2016 also. Accordingly, petitioner was instructed to file fresh translated copies of all documents and ensure that both the files have proper documents relating to the relevant plot in question. In RP/2425/2015, orders of the District Forum were in favour of the petitioner herein for allotment of alternate plot to him at the old rates. The State Commission in appeal upheld the right of the respondent herein to charge the current market rate prevailing at that time i.e. 10.07.2008, which was Rs.28,44,000/-. As regards RP/1099/2016, both the fora below orders were against the petitioner herein and in this case District Forum did not even allow his relief for the allotment of alternate plot and the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum.

 

10.       During the hearing on 04.01.2024, learned counsel for the respondent stated that even now they have no objection in allotting the alternate plot in both the cases but it has to be at the current market price as on today’s rate. However, as he was not in a position to state as to what is the current market price, he was granted two weeks’ time to file on affidavit respondent authority’s clear willingness to allot the alternate plot in both the cases (stating relevant plot number, location/area etc.) and the current market price/rate at which such plots can be allotted in both cases. Similarly, petitioner was also asked to indicate on affidavit, whether he is willing to pay the market price for the allotment of plot in both the cases.

 

11.       In pursuance to the above stated order, the respondent authority filed an affidavit on 01.03.2024 stating that they cannot ascertain the current market price of the plots in question and that now the plots are now been sold only on auction basis. Hence, these two plots cannot be straightway allotted to the petitioner herein at market price. Learned counsels for petitioner on the other hand contended that he is still willing to pay the price of Rs.28,44,000/- in RP/2425/2015 and Rs.17,95,200/- in RP/1099/2016. This was the price which was demanded by the respondent authority from the petitioner during 2008. Learned counsel for the respondent authority admits that during 2008, such an offer was made but the petitioner did not come forward and pay the required amount and the same cannot be enforced now. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although they were willing to deposit that money and accept the plot at that rate however they could not do so because of the pendency of the case before the Consumer Commission and because respondent authority was allotting plots to other allottees at the old rate. The learned counsel further stated that in fact that they gave a consent letter of willingness to pay the amount. It was vide letter dated 01.10.2008 read with letter dated 17.07.2009 that the respondent authority offered the said plot at market rate of Rs.28,44,000/- in RP/2425/2015.

 

12.       As regard RP/2425/2015 is concerned, it is to be noted that the orders of the State Commission dated 25.06.2015 in FA/346/2014 filed by the complainant/ petitioner herein have not been challenged by the OP/respondent authority hence these have become final as regards respondent authority is concerned and they are bound to implement the same subject to orders of this Commission in the present RP. Hence the contention of the authority now, as outlined in their affidavit filed on 01.03.2024 stating that they cannot ascertain the current market of the plots in question and that as plots are being sold only on auction basis, hence the plot cannot be straight away allotted to petitioner at market price cannot be accepted. Hence as regards RP/2425/2015 is concerned, we uphold of the order of the State Commission for allotment of the plot in question at the market price of Rs.28,44,000/-, which was the price as per letter dated 17.07.2009. As the said price has not been paid by the petitioner herein at that time, the respondent authority is entitled to charge interest on this amount from 17.07.2009 till the date of actual payment. Hence, in partial modification of the orders of the State Commission in RP/2425/2015, we hereby order that the respondent authority shall allot the said plot or an alternate plot of same size and in similar/nearby locality at the price of Rs.28,44,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 17.07.2009 till the date of actual payment (after adjusting the amount already paid, if any). The respondent authority shall issue a formal communication in writing under due acknowledgement/ through registered post to the petitioner herein within 30 days of this order conveying the plot number, size, locality/area etc. and such other relevant details of the plot allotted along with amount to be paid by the petitioner herein, giving details of the calculations as per this order, giving him a minimum of two months’ time from the date of receipt of letter to pay the amount. The respondent authority on receipt of the entire amount as per this order shall complete all requisite formalities for formal registration of the plot/signing of conveyance deed etc. as per the usual laid down procedure.

 

13.       In case the complainant/petitioner herein is not willing to take the above said plot/alternate plot on payment of Rs.28,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 17.07.2009 as per this order (after adjusting the amount already paid), he shall, within 30 days of date of this order, convey in writing/under due acknowledgement/registered post to the respondent authority his unwillingness to take plot and make a formal request for the refund of the principal amount paid by him/original allottee. In that situation the respondent authority shall be obligated to refund the entire amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from date of each receipt till the date of refund within two months of receipt of such communication from the petitioner herein. RP/2425/2015 is disposed off accordingly along with litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the respondent authority to the petitioner herein.

 

14.       As regards RP/1099/2016, there are concurrent findings of both the fora below against the petitioner herein. In this case we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the fora below. More so, as we are allowing the allotment of one plot to the petitioner herein in RP/2425/2015 in accordance with the orders of the State Commission with some modifications, there is no justification in allowing allotment of another plot to the same petitioner herein in RP/1099/2016 at the rates/price demanded in 2008 as it will amount to unjust enrichment.       In view of the foregoing, we find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission dated 11.01.2016 in FA/381/2016 challenged in RP/1099/2016, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, RP/1099/2016 is dismissed.

 

15.       The pending IAs in both the cases, if any, also stand disposed off.

 
................................................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.