Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

805/2004

K.SureshKumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vasanthakumari and 3 others - Opp.Party(s)

A.G.Damodaran

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   15.09.2004

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 805/2004

THURSDAY THIS  16^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

K. Sureshkumar,

S/o. A.Kandasamy,

No.1, Karunanidhi Street,

Mettupalayam,

West Mambalam,                                  .. Complainant.

 

                                   ..Vs..

1. Mrs. Vasanthakumari (died),

W/o. Mr.A.Gopalakrishnan,

1, Karunanidhi Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai 600 033.

 

2. Mrs. R.Vanathi (died),

W/o. Mr.G.Rajaram,

49/25-A, Brindavan Street,

West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.

 

3. M/s. G.R. Builders,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

G.Rajaram,

49/25-A, Brindavan Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai 600 033.

 

4. The Commissioner,

Corporation of Chennai,

Rippon Town,

Chennai 600 003.

 

5. Mrs. Geetha Mahesh,

D/o. A.Gopalakrishnan,

 

6. Mrs. Radha,

D/o. A.Gopalakrishnan,

7. Mr. A.Gopalakrishnan,

Opposite parties 5 to 7

Are residing at No.1,

Karunanidhi Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai 600 033.                                         ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant        :  M/s. A.G.Damodaram

Counsel for opposite party-1  :  M/s. P. Ravi Shankar Rao

Counsel for opposite party-2  :  M/s. S. Baskar.

Counsel for opposite party-3  :  M/s. S. Balaji

Counsel for opposite party-4  :  M/s. H.Adaikala Arockiaraj

Counsel for opposite party-5 to 7:  M/s. P.Ravi Shankar Rao.

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

 

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to demolish the W.C. in the A-1 Flat and projected Portico of the North and Eastern side  and to refund the balance  amount of Rs.6,94,500/-  and also to rectify the defects and to pay cost the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

         As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said General Power, the third opposite party constructed a flats/apartments  in the said schedule mentioned property and also the second opposite party to negotiate for the sale of the said Flat “A” the  property more fully described in the schedule hereunder either the whole or in parts in divided or undivided share or shares to such or persons for sale price and consideration etc.  stipulated the said power of attorney on 9.7.2001.   Accordingly the 1 to 3 i.e. opposite parties and the complainant herein entered an agreement to purchase the said schedule “A” flat in ground floor i.e. 1/5^th undivided share of total 2700 sq. ft. in the schedule property for a sale consideration of the land alone ie. 1/5^th share of is Rs.1,11,000/-.  Accordingly, the complainant herein paid Rs.10,000/- towards the advance amount on 19.8.2002 and the same was duly received by the opposite parties and the opposite parties 1 and 2 here and complainant entered an oral agreement about the said “A” Flat construction and building materials namely fittings and fixtures and all of the three opposite parties are agreed the oral terms and conditions and proposals.

2.     Accordingly the complainant paid entire amount of sale consideration i.e. land value is Rs.1,11,000/- and super structure fittings and fixture of the said “A” flat is comes to Rs.6,94,500/- and 1 to 3 of the opposite parties are also received the said amount of Rs.8,05,500/- and acknowledged the above said amount but registered the said “A” flat to the complainant’s favour only on 7.11.2002 on the file of the Joint Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai and the same was registered as document No.5232 of 7.11.2002 and the complainant also taken possession on the same date but the said sale deed only 397 sq. ft. mentioned but the opposite parties are cleverly not registered the superstructure to the complainant favour and further the complainant has got right 1/5^th share out of 2700 sq. ft. but the  3 opposite parties have registered only 297 sq. ft.  

3.     Though the opposite parties are received huge amount from the complainant but the opposite parties registered only 397 sq. ft. out of 2700 sq. ft. for which the sale consideration is of Rs.1,11,000/- but the opposite parties collected from the complainant is Rs.8,05,500/- this act is highly illegal and improper and against law. The complainant demanded several requests and reminders but the opposite parties are failed and neglected the complainants demand for the past 1½ years.  The complainant further states that the said superstructure are not affixed properly as per terms and conditions and also detailed estimate for the proposed.   Flat “A” was not properly constructed and there are deficiencies viz., the doors, windows, fixtures and fittings put up by the opposite parties are not used good materials and also cracks on the walls.   The opposite parties are purchased the old and used materials and useless and improper materials were put up to the complainant’s flat A.  

4.     Though the three opposite parties received huge amount but the opposite parties herein not put up proper materials as agreed by them.   The complainant already informed, but the opposite parties are never cared and neglected to comply the said complainant’ demand and request.   Inspite of  the complainant’s requests and demands the complainant put to mental agony including the complainant’s family member and further the said flats was approved only five flats by the 4^th opposite party, but the opposite parties 1 to 3 herein constructed, another two more flats without obtaining any planning permission from the 4^th opposite party herein.   

5.     The complainant further states that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are not constructed as per plan approved by the 4^th opposite party and the defects are  as follows :

1. Poor quality painting of doors and windows and all four side walls.
2. Cracks on the Eastern bed room on the West wall and Western bed room corner of North East.
3. The cracks are developed on the Eastern side wall of the Hall.
4. All the doors, frames and windows frames are substandard materials and also bend in the materials.
5. Not provide compound wall, etc.

6. Written Version of  opposite party-1 is  in brief as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegation in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein.   The complaint filed is barred by limitation as per section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Hence the complaint filled is liable to reject on this ground itself.   The 1^st opposite party states that there has been no privity of contract between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant and there has been no consideration received.   The complainant is not a consumer as per Sec.2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The 1^st opposite party had granted power only for the sale of undivided share of land as per para 1 of the deed of power dated 9.7.2001, and nothing more and the same has been accomplished with.

7.     The 1^st opposite party was not a party to any oral agreement or written agreement entered between the complainant and the builder.  The 1^st opposite party is made a unnecessary party.  It is denied the allegation that the she had received a huge amount of money from the complainant.   She is not aware of the agreement entered between the complainant and also the complainant has not produced the construction agreement before this forum.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.   Written Version of opposite party-2 is  in brief as follows:

        The 2^nd opposite party denies all the allegations made in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein.   This complaint is a vexatious one and has been filed beyond the limitation period as mentioned in Sec.24A of the Act and hence liable to be dismissed.   Based on the power executed and on instructions from the first and third opposite party the 2^nd opposite party had executed documents conveying proportionate undivided share of land in the property to various purchasers.  The consideration received was duly handed over to the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party was entrusted with the job of executing the sale deeds for the 60% undivided share as per the 1^st opposite party’s instructions.

9.     She is not a party to the said agreement between the complainant and the third opposite party.  As such she is not aware of the same and there is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant.

10.    This opposite party had executed a sale agreement dated 2.9.2002 in favour of the complainant agreeing to convey 397 sq.ft of undivided share in the land for a sum of Rs.1,11,000/-.  On receipt of the said sum this opposite party on directions from the other opposite parties had executed sale deed on 7.11.2002 conveying the agreed undivided share which was duly registered in the sub-registrar’s office at Saidapet.  No other amount had been received by this opposite party and all the other allegations do not bind this opposite party.  There is no deficiency of service rendered and as such the complaint ought to be dismissed.

11. Written Version of  opposite party-3 is  in brief as follows:

        The 3^rd opposite party denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted hereunder.  The complaint is time barred as per Sec.24A of the C.P. Act. 1986.   It is submitted that the power of attorney was executed by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the 2^nd opposite party only for executing sale deeds in respect of 60% undivided share of land in favour of the nominees of third opposite party as per the memorandum of agreement between the 1^st opposite party  and this opposite party. 

12.    It is submitted that the complainant entered into an agreement of sale with the 1^st opposite party for purchase of undivided share of land out of the 60% share allotted to this opposite party as a nominee.  The said agreement was executed on 2.9.2002 and the undivided share of land was 397 sq. ft and the consideration for the same was fixed at Rs.1,11,000/-.  The complainant had entered into a construction agreement with this opposite party for the construction of flat in ground floor on the same date.  There was no such oral agreement as alleged by the complainant with regard to construction and building materials.  There was no agreement for purchase of 1/5^th undivided share of total 2700 sq. ft. which is the total extent of the property.

13.    It is submitted that the cost of the land of 397 sq. ft. undivided share was fixed at 1,11,000/- and the cost of the construction of flat was fixed at Rs.6,93,000/- as evidenced by the agreements entered into by the parties.   The full payment for the land was received on 6.11.2002 and the sale deed conveying 397 sq. ft. undivided share was executed by the 2^nd opposite party on 7.11.2002.   The complainant had approached Tata Finance for loan for payment of construction cost of the land and flat.  The complainant had his application approved and offer letter for sanctioning of the loan was issued.    The complainant wanted only the registration of the undivided share of land proportionate to the flat constructed and did not want the super structure registered in order to avoid stamp duty.  This opposite party had the 2^nd opposite party convey the undivided share of 397 sq. ft.  The complainant had verified all the documents and had ascertained the position and the allegation that he had been deprived of 1/5^th of 2700 sq. ft. is only to harass the opposite parties and also to extract money from them and thereby enrich illegally.    

14.    The flat had been handed over two years back and the complainant had not mentioned of any defect then.  All materials used were of good quality and there has been no complaint from the other flat owners of any defect.  Further right from basement level of construction, the complainant’s father had been frequently visiting the site and inspecting the work and materials used.    The painting of doors and windows and all the walls had been properly done with quality cement and paint.  There has been no complaint from other flat owners.  Depending upon the use there will be certain fading as the painting was done in the year 2002.   After taking possession of the flat, the complainant had erected on the eastern side wall a grill gate with heavy iron plates which could have caused the cracks on the eastern side of the wall and in the walls of the bedrooms.  The doors frames and windows used were of standard quality for all the flats in the property and the allegation of the complainant is denied.  The plastering had been done properly and the peeling off would be due to complainant’s improper maintenance of the flat and its walls.    

15.    The W.C. put up in the first floor of the building is done in accordance and due to FOL in the first floor the health of the complainant’s family members are not affected.  It is a mere allegation done for the purpose of this case.    There is no blockage of light and air as alleged and there is no unauthorized construction of portico in the first floor.  The portico had been sanctioned by the authorities.   The seeking of demolition of flats cannot be granted.  It is submitted that there is no floor deviation, plot coverage deviation and side set back deviation.  Further the floor space index (FSI) have not been exceeded but adhered to the sanctioned plan.  

16.    There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice rendered and the complaint is a vexatious one.  The complainant had not come before this forum with clean hands and also the same has to be adjudicated before Civil Court.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

17. Written Version of  opposite party-4 is  in brief as follows:

        The fourth opposite party herein denies all the allegations made by the complainant herein except those that are specifically admitted herein.   There is no specific allegation against the fourth opposite party herein.  Action was initiated under section 256(1) & (2) of MCMC Act against the present 7 owners of the buildings (flats) at  Door No.1, Kalaingar Karunanidhi I Street, and further action will be taken as per MCMC Act.  There is no cause of action against the fourth opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

18. Written Version of  opposite party-7 and adopted by the 5^th and 6^th opposite parties are  in brief as follows:

        The opposite party denies all the allegation in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    There is no cause of action as against the opposite party.  Also the relief sought for is of civil nature and the complaint is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  Presently impleaded legal heirs of the deceased opposite party cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service for the same.   The complaint is also barred by limitation.  The complainant has not made out any case against the opposite party.  The complaint filed is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

19.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties-3, 5 to 7 filed and no document was marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

20.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether the complaint is barred by limitation as per section

  24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

21.  Point No.1

          On the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3 it is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Regarding this issue on going through the averments made in the complaint as well as written version of opposite parties 1 to 3 and the evidence adduced on either side it is crystal clear that the complainant entered an agreement to purchase of allotted schedule Flat-A with ground floor he has paid Rs.10,000/- towards advance amount on 19.8.2002 and thereafter the sale deed was executed for the UDS of 397 sq. ft for the above said flat-A on payment of entire amount of Rs.1,11,000/- which is marked as Ex.A4.   In fact it has not been disputed by other parties.   As per contention raised by the opposite parties, from the date of payment of advance amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the purchase of schedule Flat-A i.e. on 19.8.2002 and from that date, the cause of action begins with, whereas the complaint was filed by the complainant only on 15.9.2004 and thereby the complaint is barred by limitation.  In such circumstances, on further perusal of the complaint, and Ex.A4 sale deed it is admitted fact the said sale deed has been executed on 07.11.2002 only which is a continuous cause of action.  Such being so, though as stated by the opposite parties 1 to 3 the cause of action begins with 19.8.2002 but the cause of action continuous till 07.11.2002  the date of execution of sale deed which can be accepted under law.  If it is so, since this compliant has been filed within time i.e. filed on 15.9.2004, it goes without saying that the complainant is not barred by limitation as contended by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

22.    POINT No.2.

            On perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is learnt that an agreement to purchase of flat in the ground floor between the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complainant and the sale consideration of the land alone i.e. 1/5^th  share of is Rs.1,11,000/- and accordingly the complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- towards the advance amount on 19.8.2002 and in turn 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and the complainant entered an oral agreement about the said “A” Flat construction and building materials namely fittings and fixtures and all of the three opposite parties are agreed the oral terms and conditions and proposals and the cost of the same comes to Rs.6,94,500/-.  Copy of the plan issued by the 4^th opposite party in favour of the opposite parties 2 & 3 dated 24.9.2001 which is marked as Ex.A1 and the copy of the detailed estimate and abstract estimate of the flat A given by the 3^rd opposite party is marked as Ex.A2.   The general power of attorney executed by 1^st opposite party in favour of 2^nd opposite party is marked as Ex.A3.  

23.    It is further learnt that on 7.11.2003 on payment of entire payment of sale consideration for the land with UDS of Rs.1,11,000/- the sale deed was executed by the opposite party-2 but it is only  397 sq. ft but not 1/5^th share out of 2700 sq. ft.  as per agreement.   The sale deed is marked as Ex.A4.   Furthermore, it is stated by the complainant in his evidence that the said super structure are not affixed property as per terms and conditions and thereby flat-A was not properly constructed and there are deficiencies in the doors, windows, fixtures and fittings put up by the opposite parties 1 to 3.   Though they are received huge amount the construction is very poor and thereby cracks on the Eastern and western bed room, Eastern side wall of the hall, no compound wall on the western side of the flats of G.R. Builders, and the air and light are prevented due to unauthorized and illegal construction without planning construction of portico and thereby caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. 

24.    Therefore the complainant issued legal notice Ex.A5 to the opposite parties and copy of the courier service to the opposite parties 2 & 3 is marked as Ex.A6 and postal receipt Ex.A7 of the opposite parties and the acknowledgment received by the opposite party-1, and opposite parties 1 to 3 are marked as Ex.A8 & Ex.A9 respectively.  Though the receipt of the legal notice the opposite parties for never cared and neglected to comply the demands and request of the complainant.  It is further deposed that in respect of the unauthorized construction of building against the plan and in this regard the demolish notice issued by the opposite party-4 is marked as Ex.A10 and the registered letter of the complainant to opposite party-4 is marked as Ex.A11 and the covering letter to the opposite party-4 along with the copy of written version is marked as Ex.A12.

25.    On the other hand, it is seen from the evidence of the opposite party-3, at no point of time there was an agreement entered into for sale of  1/5^th undivided share of the total land 2700 sq. ft. with the complainant by the opposite parties and in fact  the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- was paid towards UDS of land to the extent of 397 sq. ft. and to that effect sale deed was duly executed by 2^nd opposite party on 7.11.2002.  Then only the complainant approached the Tata Finance for loan for the purchase of the said land and for construction.    It is further stated that the cost of construction was fixed at Rs.6,93,000/- and as per agreement, the opposite party-3 had completed the construction of A4 flat and handed over to the complainant in the year 2002 itself and the material sued to the construction of the flat which of good quality and the complainant’s father had been frequently visiting the site and supervising the work right from the basement level of construction and had been checking the materials used and so that the complainant had not mentioned any defects stated at the time of taking over possession.   Furthermore it is stated by the opposite party-3 that the painting of doors and windows and all the walls had been properly done with quality cement and paint and not as alleged.   Depending on the use and misuse there will be certain fading as the painting was done in the year 2002.    There is no blockage of light and air as stated by the complainant and there is no unauthorized construction of portico in the first floor.   The seeking of demolition of two flats in the first floor and therefore the seeking of demolition of two flats is unwarranted.   In fact the construction carried out in accordance with the approved plan, there is no floor deviation, plot coverage deviation as alleged.  The floor space index have not been exceeded and has been adhered to the sanctioned plan and the other defects mentioned in the complaint are all false and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. 

26.    On perusal of the evidence of the opposite parties 5 to 7 it is learnt that the relief sought for by the complainant is of civil nature and the legal heir as deceased of opposite party-1 who was a owner of the land and the complainant had entered into a construction agreement with the 3^rd opposite party and therefore there is no cause of action made against the opposite parties.     

27.    At this juncture on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side,  it is crystal clear,  that there is an agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the purchase of the Flat-A and for which the UDS have been allotted 397 sq. ft. and thereby the total consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- have been paid and in this connection Ex.A4 sale deed was executed on 7.11.2003 and for which the advance amount was Rs.10000/- paid on 19.8.2002.  

28.    At this point of time,  on seeing Ex.A4 the sale deed through naked eyes it is crystal clear that there is mentioning about the extent of UDS 397 sq. ft. and the same was accepted and signed by the complainant before the Sub-Registrar, and the same was registered on 7.11.2002.   The same set of facts have been clearly noted in schedule-B.   It is further seen that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed the opposite party-3 constructed the flat as per the estimation Ex.A2 and after completion of the flat, it has been handed over to the complainant within time the admitted period.   Till the expiry of nearly 2 years, the complainant has not questioned about the extent of UDS and all of a sudden after execution of  Ex.A4 that to after expiry of two years, the complainant questioned about the extent of UDS by stating that 1/5 share of total extent of ground floor 2700 sq. ft. he was only allotted 397 sq. ft..  In fact there is no specific agreements for the allotments of 1/5^th share of 2700 sq. ft. Whereas, on admitting the extent of 397 sq. ft. the Ex.A4 has been executed with the consent of the complainant.   Therefore, the claim of the UDS extent by the complainant has not been proved with relevant evidence.

30.    The next thing  to be taken into consideration is whether the opposite parties 1 to 3 have committed any deficiency in service in the construction of Flat-A purchased by the complainant alleged in the compliant.   First of all,  it is an admitted fact that the estimate of the flat-A given by the Ex.A2 and the total cost of construction arrived by the opposite party-3 that  the said amount have been received by him.   Similarly it is not disputed that the opposite party-3 has constructed the building and handed over the same to the complainant within the stipulated period.   But only the contention raised by the complainant is that the opposite party-3 has not constructed the flat with good material, not engaging good skilled labours, not providing the compound wall, poor quality painting of doors and windows and also  cracks are developed on the eastern side wall of the hall, plastering an peeling out from the walls.   Regarding the said defects quoted by the complainant the opposite party-3 has clearly explained that the defects quoted by the complainant are not true and in fact the opposite party-3 has used good and standard quality of material the skilled labour.  In such circumstances, the duty bound upon the complainant to prove the defects by means of expert opinion and report.  But the complainant failed to produce the expert opinion from the qualified Civil Engineer regarding the defects alleged in the complaint and the cracks and other fault given in the complaint.   Moreover, though the complainant has filed this petition to appoint the  Advocate Commissioner before this forum and the same is allowed but subsequently the complainant’s sought for return of warrant and refund of fees paid to Commissioner, which clearly reveals the fact that there is no concrete evidence on the side of the complainant, as rightly pointed out by the opposite parties.  Therefore, in this fact also the complainant is failed to prove by means of consistent evidence.

31.    Regarding the demolition of construction as sought for by the complainant, there is no contra view that the opposite party-4 stated in his written arguments that action was initiated under section 256 (1) & (2) of MCMC Act against the deviation committed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the same has been marked as Ex.A12, the covering letter of the opposite party-4, but at the same time as per Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in Judgment is as follows:  

2006 (4) CTC 483

Consumer Action Group

..Vs..

State of Tamilnadu

 

It has been held that 

No civil court shall entertain any case and if any case needs to be filed the same has to be filed before the Special Bench nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.   As such the complainant has to knock the doors of the High Court for the allegation of unauthorized construction.

 

Regarding this contents made in the written arguments of opposite parties holds good.

 

32.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances though it is admitted fact of receiving the amount of Rs.8,05,500/- by the opposite parties 1 to 3.  It goes without saying that as already discussed that the land value is of Rs.1,11,000/- for UDS of 397 sq ft. out of above said amount of Rs.8,05,500/-.  The remaining amount of Rs.6,94,500/- has been used for the construction of the Flat-A  as per Ex.A1.    From the foregoing among facts, it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and opposite parties 5 to 7 and the same has been proved.  Regarding the opposite party-4 there is no specific cause of action arose to show about the deficiency of service which is quiet clear.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.  

 

 

33.  POINT No.3:-

          As per the view concluded in points 1 & 2, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

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

 

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  16^th   day  of  February 2017.  

 

MBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 24.9.2001 -Copy of plan issued by the 4^th opposite party.

Ex.A2-         -       -Copy of detailed estimate & abstract estimate of the Flat-A

                              Given by the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.A3-         -       -Copy of General Power of Attorney executed by 1^st opposite

                              Party.

Ex.A4- 7.11.2002  - Copy of Sale deed dated 7.11.2003.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of Courier service by the complainant.

Ex.A7-         -       - Copy of Postal Receipt of the opposite parties.

Ex.A8-         -       - Copy of Acknowledgment card.

Ex.A9-         -       - Copy of returned registered notice two covers.

Ex.A10- 12.4.04    - Copy of Demolition notice issued by 4^th opposite party.

Ex.A11- 3.5.2005  - Copy of Registered letter of the complainant to the

                               4^th opposite party.

Ex.A12- 25.7.2005 – Copy of covering letter with version of 4^th opposite party.

 

Opposite party’s side document: -   .. Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.