State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Naredlalakshmikanth Reddy, S/O. ... vs M/S. Aliens Space Station Gachibowli, ... on 29 April, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana Complaint Case No. CC/264/2013 1. 1. Naredlalakshmikanth Reddy, S/o. Nageswara Reddy, Aged 34 Years, Occ:Employee, Residents of USA Rep. by their GPA holder Smt. M. Kalpana W/o. Srinivasreddy, Age 57 Years, Occ: Employee, 2. R/o. H.No.11-14-285, Sirinagar Colony, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. 3. 2. Smt. B @ N. Deepthi, W/o. N. Lakshmikanth Reddy, Aged 31 years, Occ: Employee, Residents of USA Rep. by their GPA holder Smt. M. Kalpana W/o. Srinivasreddy, Age 57 Years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No.11-14-285, Sirinagar Colony, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Aliens space Station Gachibowli, Tellapur, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Directors, 1 Mr.Venkata Prasanna S/o. CVR Chowdary, 2. Mr. Hari Challa S/o. CVR Chowdary, Residing Home Navadweepa Apts, 2. Hi-tech City, Madharpur, Hyderabad. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD CC NO. 264 OF 2013 Between :
1) Naredla Lakshmikanth Reddy S/o Nageswara Reddy, aged 34 years, Occ: Employee, 2) B.N.Deepthi W/o N.Lakshmikanth Reddy, Aged 31 years, Occ: Employee, Both residents of USA, rep. by their GPA holder M.Kalpana W/o Srinivas Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No.11-14-285, Sirinagar Colony, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. Complainants And M/s Aliens Space Station, Gachibowli, Tellapur, Hyderabad. Represented by its Managing Directors. 1) Mr.Venkata Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary, 2) Mr.Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary, Both residing at 911, Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments, Hi-tec City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Opposite parties Counsel for the Complainants : M/s M.Indrasena Reddy Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President Friday, the Twenty Nineth day of April Two thousand Sixteen Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) ***
The complaint is filed under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainants complaining deficiency in service against the Opposite parties and claimed refund of principle Rs.28,17,204/-; interest @ 18% p.a. on the total amount as on 17.10.2013 amounting to Rs.27,74,942/- and difference amount of USA dollar exchange amount of Rs.21,49,971/-, in all a total sum of Rs.77,42,117/-; Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony; Rs.10,00,000/- towards escalation charges; Rs.4,20,000/- towards rental amount; Rs.3,00,000/- towards travelling charges; Rs.1,50,000/- towards legal expenses and costs of the complaint.
2. Lured by the wide publicity made by the Opposite parties, the Complainants were impressed and reserved a flat on 19.09.2007 by way of entering into an agreement for reservation of flat bearing No.611 at Station No.2 for a total sum of Rs.51,00,925/- under the pre-launch scheme agreeing to come to a definite understanding over the exact amount of consideration after the floor plans and permissions in Sy.No.384 and 385 of Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram (M), Medak district.
3. As per the terms agreed, the Complainants paid monies on various dates either in the form of cash or in the form of cheques. All the payments were acknowledged by the Opposite parties. As against the same, the Opposite parties reserved the flat No.A9/SS/354 in the name of Complainant No.1 under Project ID Space Station-1, Tellapur transferring it from B.Ramani. Altogether, the Complainants paid an amount of Rs.28,17,361/- as against the total sale consideration amount of Rs.56,36,839/-. The Opposite parties entered into an Agreement of sale on 24.07.2008 in respect of Flat No.611 in Station No.2, 6th floor, area measuring 1674 sqft. The Opposite parties agreed to deliver the flat duly completed in all respects within a period of three years i.e., on or before 15.03.2010. Even with an extension of six months, by 15.09.2011, the Opposite parties have not even commenced the basement level.
4. Non-commencement of the construction work even after the stipulated period amounts to gross negligence on the part of Opposite parties. Hence, complainants sought for refund of the amount with interest. Upon which, Opposite parties agreed to reduce the cost of the flat and thereby cancelled the agreement of sale by taking back the original documents and entered into another agreement in respect of flat No.1409 at Station 2 in 14th floor admeasuring 1432 sq.ft. with two car parking on 20.09.2010 where the Opposite parties did not even commence the ground work and similar situation is existing as on today. By second agreement, the Ops agreed to give possession of the flat by 11.11.2011 and the total sale consideration of said flat was Rs.39,02,041/-.
5. The amounts paid by Complainants to the Ops by 24.07.2008, the exchange rate of dollar with Indian currency was Rs.38/- per dollar, but the present rate is Rs.67/- per dollar. The difference in exchange value is coming to more than Rs.21,49,971/-. The Opposite parties also agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.3/- per sft. Per month and these charges would be adjusted to the dues payable by the purchaser. One Sarada, family friend of Complainants also agreed to purchase similar flat from Opposite parties and parted with huge amounts, her fate too remained the same. As such, correspondence was being made sometimes by Complainants and sometimes by said Sarada or else jointly by both of them. As such, the Complainants cancelled the second agreement also and sought for refund of the amount. Hence, prayed to allow the complaint as prayed for.
6. The Opposite parties resisted the claim on the premise that the complainants filed the complaint to gain out of their breach of contract and the complaint is not maintainable in view of there being no consumer dispute and the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement of sale providing for settlement of disputes by means of arbitration process. The complainants suppressed some facts and camouflaged some facts in order to make out a case. That the complaint is filed with all concocted allegations giving colour as if there is a consumer dispute.
7. The Opposite parties submitted that originally the land in Sy.No.384 was an agricultural land and they filed application for conversion of the same into non-agricultural land on 23.10.2006 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006. Permission was granted on 14.04.2007 for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the Opposite parties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone.
8. It is averred by Opposite parties that Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in Sy.No.384 as residential use zone. The project could not be commenced in view of proposed road under Master plan, until realignment of the proposed road without affecting the land in Sy.No.384 is made. Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008. Opposite parties have obtained NoC from the A.P. Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and subsequently it was reduced from 91.40 meters to 90.40 meters. After following due procedure and process, the Opposite parties obtained NoC from Airports Authority on 10.07.2009.
9. It is further averred that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 floors and release of building permission upto 29 floors is awaited. In view of arbitration clause in the agreement the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same has to be referred for arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That they have taken necessary steps to complete the project. The project is a massive project and due to reasons beyond their control, the Opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame and they informed the complainant that the project required sanction from statutory authorities and mentioned the same as 'force majeure' in the agreement of sale. It also agreed to pay compensation at agreed rate to maintain goodwill and relationship with the customers.
10. It is stated that for the delay, the Opposite parties have agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sq.ft. in terms of clause VIII(g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and they agreed to adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainants. The complainants filed the complaint with ulterior motive to defame the opposite parties. The Complainants shall file relevant receipts and documents to prove the payments.
11. The Complainants are not entitled for any compensation and their claim is illegal. The complainants are not entitled for refund of amount and interest thereon and any compensation and costs. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. On behalf of the Complainants, M.Kalpana, their General Power of Attorney holder filed her evidence affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A45. On behalf of the Opposite parties, the Managing Director of the OP No.1 Company has filed the affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B18.
13. The counsel for the complainants and the Opposite parties have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version. Heard both.
14. The points for consideration are :
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of arbitration clause in the agreement of sale ?
ii) Whether the complaint is not a 'consumer dispute'? iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties? iv) To what relief ?
15. POINT NO.1 : The Complainants entered into "Agreement of Sale" at the first instance on 24.07.2008 with the Opposite parties for purchase of flat bearing No.611 in 6th floor of Space Station No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.56,36,839/- and thereafter the Complainants paid the part consideration amount as per the pricing pattern of the flat issued by the Ops on various dates. The said agreement of sale was cancelled on 20.09.2010 and again, the Opposite parties entered into another agreement on 20.09.2010 in respect of Flat No.1409 at Station 2 in 14th floor admeasuring 1432 sft. With two cars parking and the said agreement provides reference to arbitration. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Complainants cannot maintain the complaint before this Commission. Clause XVIII of the Agreement of sale provides for deciding the disputes arising under the agreement by arbitration proceeds reads as under:
a) This agreement shall be construed according to the laws of India and the legal relations between the Parties hereto shall be binding accordingly.
b) That all disputes/issues arising out of and/or concerning this transaction will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Ranga Reddy district, A.P.
c) That all disputes or differences relating to or arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be mutually discussed and settled between the parties.
d) However, disputes or differences arising out of and or in connection with and or in relation to this transaction/agreement, which cannot be amicably settled, shall be finally decided and resolved by an Arbitrator appointed by Developer in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration as aforesaid shall be a domestic arbitration under the applicable Laws.
e) That the venue of arbitration shall be at Hyderabad and the language for the Arbitration proceedings shall be English.
16. In terms of the agreement of sale, the dispute has to be decided by means of arbitration. However, remedy provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and in the light of law laid in "National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506 wherein the maintainability of the complaint before consumer forum prior to the complainants having exhausted the other remedy was considered as under:
"The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower. Rather, it is an optional remedy. He can either seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Act. If the grower opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot, subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Act. However, if he chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act. Moreover, the plain language of Section 3 of the Consumer Act makes it clear that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.
17. In the arguments, counsel for Complainants reiterated the same facts as averred in the complaint besides stating that the Opposite parties ought to have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act & Rules, 1987 while undertaking such agreements and hence pleading 'force majeure' does not arise. She relied on Section 72 of Indian Contract Act supported by the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority reported in III (2005) CPJ 43 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court opined that grant of interest @ 18% p.a. by way of damages and compensation is justified. She further relied on decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs.Balbir Singh reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 wherein it is stated "in our view, irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies must be returned with interest @ 18%." This Commission perused the said Judgments. In Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the interest shall be payable from the dates of deposit of the amounts till the date of repayment.
18. On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite parties in the arguments submitted that as per agreement, if the Complainants want to cancel the booking of the flat, they shall forego 10% of the total flat cost as charges which is agreed by them and in that regard, relied on Judgment reported in 2009 (2) CPR 197 (NC) : II (2009) CPJ 276 (NC) in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another Vs. Shyam Sunder Tiwari and others, wherein, it is held that "courts cannot add anything or improve upon the terms of contract between the parties." Admittedly, in the instant case, no such Agreement is entered into between the parties except the Agreement for reservation of flat. However, this Commission perused the said order. The facts of the said case and facts of the case on hand are different. In the said case, the Petitioner Authority withdrew the scheme and there was provision for refund of earnest money. In the case on hand, there is no provision for refund of earnest money. Admittedly, on failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreed terms by the Opposite parties, the Complainants sought for refund of the amount. Hence, this Commission does not find any merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for Opposite parties.
19. POINTS No.2 & 3 : The Opposite parties entered into Development Agreement with the land owners of the land admeasuring Ac.19.26 guntas in survey numbers 383, 385 and 426/A situate at Tellapur village of Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district and they agreed to deliver the residential flat to the Complainants in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon and consented thereof and as per specifications given thereto.
20. In pursuance of the development agreement, the opposite parties have obtained permission for construction of the residential building on the land and admittedly there has been abnormal delay in completion of the project in so far as this complaint is concerned. The opposite parties have attributed the delay to the authorities concerned in granting permission and NoC etc., as to the cause for delay in completion of the project. The opposite parties would contend that the cause for delay is beyond their control which is force majeure. The Opposite parties stated the reasons for the delay in completion of the construction of the residential complex as under:
"The reasons, for delay is, project required clearance from statutory bodies which are necessary for execution of the project. The said fact was informed to the complainant and even mentioned in the agreement of sale under clause No.XIV and described as "force majure". The above referred facts mentioned squarely fall under the said clause. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Hon'ble Commission as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp.party in executing the project and if the complainant wants to cancel her booking she can do so in conformity with terms of agreement only."
21. The complainants have submitted that owing to failure of the opposite parties in completing the construction of the flat No.1409, they opted for cancellation of the agreement and the opposite parties have contended that in order to maintain cordial relations with the complainants, they agreed to pay compensation in terms of the agreement which they entered into in normal course with other customers. The complainants sent number of e-mails and also got issued notice dated 11.09.2013 setting forth series of events of delay and negligence and false promises made by the Opposite parties, seeking for refund of the amount on the premise of inaction on the part of the opposite parties.
22. The opposite parties have promised to complete construction of the flat and hand over its possession to the complainants by November 2011 with a grace period of six months as agreed and on their failure to perform their part of contract, the opposite parties have proposed to pay rents but failed to pay the same. However, there is no communication from the side of the opposite parties in this regard and the opposite parties have not filed a piece of paper to show their readiness to pay compensation and adjust the same towards the dues payable by the complainants. Even otherwise, though the Complainants claimed compensation of Rs.3/- per sft. in the complaint, the same is missing in their notice. Hence, this Commission does not incline to accept this relief as the same is time-barred.
23. Not keeping promise to complete construction of the building and failure to deliver possession of the flat constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have two options left for recovery of the amount, either by filing suit in court of law or by way of filing complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in view of the amount claimed falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. The contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable is not sustainable.
24. The complainants claimed refund of amount paid together with interest but failed to mention the period from which they are entitled to besides claim for damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainants acquiesced to the delay in construction of the project. The complainants have not disputed that the opposite parties have informed them about the cause for delay in obtaining permission and NOC etc., which ultimately was found to be valid. As such, the Complainants cannot claim damages. However, the complainants are entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount paid from the date of complaint till realization.
25. It is pertinent to state here that as per Ex.A1, Ex.A2, A5 and A6, the Complainants paid an amount of Rs.27,54,252/- as against the total sale consideration of Rs.39,02,041/-. Though the Complainant claimed an amount of Rs.28,17,204/- No proof is filed by the Complainants showing the payment of Rs.62,952/-, so as to consider the same.
26. In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly holding that the Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the Complainants.
26. In the result, the complaint is allowed holding that Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable and they are directed to pay an amount of Rs.27,54,252/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realisation, together with costs of Rs.6000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT 29.04.2016 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of M.Kalpana Affidavit evidence of Hari as PW1. Challa as RW1. EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainant :
Ex.A1 is the copy of transfer of booking of flat addressed by Smt.Ramani to the Ops.
Ex.A2 is the copy of acknowledgement of receipt No.1933 for Rs.10,22,204/- dated 9.09.2007.
Ex.A3 is the copy of Agreement of reservation of flat, dated 13.12.2007.
Ex.A4 is the copy of allotment confirmation of flat dated 13.12.2007.
Ex.A5 is the copy of acknowledgement of receipt No.2074 for Rs.1,17,435/-, dated 9.01.2008.
Ex.A6 is the copy of acknowledgement of receipt No.2228 for Rs.15,14,613/-, dt.24.4.2008.
Ex.A7 is the copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 24.07.2008.
Ex.A8 is the copy of Agreement of sale, dated 20.09.2010.
Ex.A9 is copy of letter of cancellation addressed by Kalpana to the Ops.
Ex.A10 is copy of Cancellation and refund letter addressed by Ops to Kalpana.
Ex.A11 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to Ops, dt.16.11.2012.
Ex.A12 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to Ops, dt.24.11.2012.
Ex.A13 is copy of e-mail addressed by Suma to Kalpana.
Ex.A14 is copy of e-mail addressed by P.Sarada to S.Suma, dt.04.01.2013.
Ex.A15 is copy of e-mail addressed by S.Suma to P.Sarada, dated 07.01.2013.
Ex.A16 is copy of e-mail addressed by P.Sarada to S.Suma, dated 07.01.2013.
Ex.A17 is copy of e-mail addressed by S.Suma to P.Sarada, dt.07.01.2013.
Ex.A18 is copy of e-mail addressed by P.Sarada to S.Suma, dated 09.01.2013.
Ex.A19 is copy of e-mail addressed by S.Suma to P.Sarada, dated 15.01.2013.
Ex.A20 is copy of e-mail addressed by S.Suma to P.Sarada, dt.17.01.2013.
Ex.A21 is copy of e-mail addressed by Deepthi to S.Suma, dated 17.01.2013.
Ex.A22 is copy of e-mail addressed by Deepthi to S.Suma, dated 29.01.2013.
Ex.A23 is copy of e-mail addressed by Deepthi to S.Suma, dated 30.01.2013.
Ex.A24 is copy of e-mail addressed by P.Sarada to S.Suma, dated 01.02.2013.
Ex.A25 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to P.Sarada, dt.06.02.2013.
Ex.A26 is copy of e-mail addressed by S.Suma to complainants, dated 06.02.2013.
Ex.A27 is copy of e-mail addressed by complainants to S.Suma, dated 14.02.2013.
Ex.A28 is copy of e-mail addressed by P.Sarada to S.Suma, dated 18.02.2013.
Ex.A29 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to P.Sarada, dated 22.02.2013.
Ex.A30 is copy of reply e-mail from Suma Suresh.
Ex.A31 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to S.Suma, dated 26.02.2013.
Ex.A32 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to S.Suma, dated 28.02.2013.
Ex.A33 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to S.Suma, dated 05.03.2013.
Ex.A34 is copy of reply e-mail given by S.Suma, dated 06.03.2013.
Ex.A35 is copy of e-mail addressed by Complainants to S.Suma, dated 11.03.2013.
Ex.A36 is copy of monthly update vouchers sent by the opposite parties.
Ex.A37 is copy of notice got issued by Complainant to the Opp.parties, dt.10.09.2013.
Ex.A38 is copy of notice sent from the office of M.Indrasena Reddy to the mail address of the harichalla and naveen, dated 11.09.2013.
Ex.A39 is copy of notice got sent from the office of M.Indrasena Reddy, Advocate to the e-mail address of harichalla, dated 11.09.2013.
Ex.A40 is copy of notice got sent from the office of M.Indrasena Reddy to the e-mail address of naveen, dated 11.09.2013.
Ex.A41 is copy of notice got sent from the office of M.Indrasena Reddy to the e-mail address of Suresh.k.
Ex.A42 is copy of reply notice sent from the office of Sheri Vijaya to M.Indrasena Reddy, dated 11.09.2013.
Ex.A43 is copy of Form-32 of the Opposite parties firm.
Ex.A44 is copy of Certificate of Incorporation of the Opposite parties firm.
Ex.A45 is copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Complainants in favour of M.Kalpana.
For Opposite parties :
Ex.B1 Copy of Lr.No.252931/4/2007 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Vice, Chairman, HUDA, Hyderabad for change of land use.
Ex.B2 Copy of G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (I1) Department, dated 03.04.2008 (HMDA revised master plan).
Ex.B3 Copy of (report) Lr.No.D1/3601/2007, dated 05.05.2007 addressed by District Collector, Medak to Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, HUDA along with map.
Ex.B4 Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for HUDA area held on 29.02.08 at 3-00 pm in the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + Ground + 13 Upper Floors).
Ex.B5 Copy of Lr.No.1927/Misc/Plg/H/2008, dated 31.03.2008 addressed by HUDA to the Principal Secretary to Government for 30 meters road alignment in Sy.No.384 & 385.
Ex.B6 Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HUDA/2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to OP No.1 approving 4 basements + Ground + 13 upper floors).
Ex.B7 Copy of Lr.No.621/Pr/Plg/HUDA/ 2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments.
Ex.B8 Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for MSB in HUDA area held on 05.06.2008 at the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + ground + 29 upper floors).
Ex.B9 Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HMDA/2008, dated 14.10.2009 addressed by HMDA to the Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments (4 basements + ground + 20 upper floors).
Ex.B10 Copy of Lr.No.SEIAA/AP/MDK-14/08, dated 12.08.2008 addressed by State Level Enviornment Impact Assessment Authority, Hyderabad to according environmental clearances to Opposite parties.
Ex.B11 Copy of Lr.No.19038/I1/2009, dated 24.11.2009 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Ops (clearance of GOMs.No.111).
Ex.B12 Copy of letter addressed by Opposite parties, dated 08.10.2010 to the HMDA, Hyd (revised application and plans for building permission consisting of 3 basement + ground + 29 upper floors).
Ex.B13 Copy of Lr.No.10186/MP1/Plg/HMDA dated 28.03.2011 addressed by HMDA to the Ops to pay publication charges for change of land use from residential to commercial.
Ex.B14 Copy of cash acknowledgement receipt bearing No.825631 for Rs.1,000/- in File No.2011-2-431 for new water connection.
Ex.B15 Copy of Certificate of best compliments issued by Indian Green Building Council in favour of the Opposite parties company.
Ex.B16 Copy of certificate of best compliments awarded by Cityscape in favour of the Opposite parties company.
Ex.B17 Copy of letter addressed by the Opposite parties to the purchaser by name S.Pragathi intimating to take possession of the flat, dated 02.11.2015.
Ex.B18 Copies of photographs of flat occupants occupying the completed flats.
PRESIDENT 29.04.2016 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER