State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. M.Madhu, S/O P.N.Madhava Panicker, vs M/S Apple A Day Properties (P) Ltd., on 29 June, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram Complaint Case No. CC/11/25 1. MADHU.M HARISREE,PATTANACADU.P.O,CHERTHALA ALAPUZHA KERALA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. K.A.SAJU,MD,APPLE FOR A DAY APPLE TOWER,PALARIVATTOM,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI ERNAKULAM KERALA ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.A.RADHA MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
CC NO. 25/11
JUDGMENT DATED:29.06.2013
PRESENT:
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.A. RADHA : MEMBER
Mr. M.Madhu, S/o P.N.Madhava Panicker,
Harisree, Pattanacaud.P.O, Cherthala, : COMPLAINANT
Alappuzha District.
(By Adv: Sri. V.Ajakumar)
Vs.
M/s Apple A Day Properties (P) Ltd.,
Apple Tower, Palarivattom, Edappally-
Bye Pass Road, Edappally.P.O,
Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025, Ernakulam Dist.
R/by its Managing Director,
K.A.Saju @ Saju Kadavilan.
K.A.Saju @ Saju Kadavilan,
Director, M/s Apple A Day Properties (P)Ltd.,
Apple Tower, Palarivattom, Edappally-
Bye Pass Road, Edappally.P.O,
Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025, Ernakulam Dist.
: OPPOSITE PARTIES
Rajeev Kumar Cheruvara, Director,
M/s Apple A Day Properties (P) Ltd.,
Apple Tower, Palarivattom, Edappally-
Bye Pass Road, Edappally.P.O,
Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025, Ernakulam Dist.
M/s Federal Bank Ltd., Statue Branch,
Statue, Thiruvananthapuram, R/by its
Branch Manager.
(By Adv: Sri.V.K Radhakrishnan Nair)
K.Anandan Nambiar, S/o T.K.Nambiar,
Kokkunnath House, Satalite Township,
Kakkanadu, Vazhakkala Village, Kochi,
PIN - 682 030.
(By Adv: Sri.N.G.Ajith)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegations in the complaint are the following. The 1st opposite party is a construction company and opposite parties 2 and 3 are its Managing Director and Director respectively. The 4th opposite party is a scheduled bank which gave financial assistance to the complainant to purchase apartment from opposite parties 1 to 3. The 5th opposite party is the owner of the land and he granted power of attorney to opposite parties 1 to 3 for development of his property. Believing the wide spread advertisements for the sale of apartments the complainant approached opposite parties 1 to 3. The promise in the advertisements was to construct and hand over promptly according to schedule apartments to prospective buyers. The complainant entered into an agreement on 26.3.2007 with opposite parties 1 to 3 for purchase of a Studio Apartment No.1-B having a super built up area of 33.558 Sq.Mtrs (361 Sq.ft) in the first floor of the multi storied apartment by name Apple Com at Kakkanadu which was proposed to be constructed over a property having extent of 6.75 Ares comprised in Resurvey No.583/17 in Block No.8 of Kakkanadu village. The complainant also entered into an agreement on 8.10.07 with opposite parties 1 to 3 for purchase of 0.55% of undivided share in the 6.75 Ares of property mentioned above. The complainant also entered into an agreement on 26.3.2008 for construction of apartment No.1-B in the first floor with super built up area of 33.558 Sq.Mtrs for a consideration of Rs.11,83,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement opposite parties 1 to 3 are bound to complete the construction of the apartment No.1-B in the first floor within 18 months from the date of signing the construction agreement subject to payment of total consideration mentioned earlier. The agreement is seen dated: 26.3.2007, instead of 26.3.2008. This agreement was executed on completion of payment of 40% of the agreed consideration. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have agreed to provide additional furnishings and quality amenities for consideration mutually agreed. Complainant made prompt payments as stipulated in the agreement. In addition he paid the statutory and other charges which were calculated by opposite parties 1to 3 at Rs.1,19,520/-. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to opposite party No.1 on 16.9.2007, the date of booking Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.9.2007, Rs.1,35,000/- on 3.10.2007, Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.3.2008, Rs.7,71,622/- on 4.10.2008 and Rs.1,26,982/- on 5.11.2008. The last two instalments were paid by the complainant by availing loan from the 4th opposite party, the Statue branch of the Federal Bank Limited. As per a tripartite agreement entered into between the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 4 the complainant paid Rs.7,537/- on 4.11.2008 to the 4th opposite party towards interest and Rs.2,62,600/- towards payment of loan instalments up to 9.2.2011. Thus, the complainant incurred a total cost of Rs.15,13,741/- till 9.2.2011.
2. The complainant originally believed that payments from the bank were obtained by opposite parties 1 to 3 on behalf of the complainant by giving false impression to the bank as well as the complainant that the building was completed in all respects and apartment No.1-B in the first floor would be handed over to the complainant with all furnishing and other amenities immediately on receipt of the last instalment of payment from the bank. But it was later revealed that the officers of the 4th opposite party released the amount in collusion with opposite parties 1 to 3. The 5th opposite party has also failed to exercise due diligence to keep the commitments to the customers. Inspite of payment of the entire amount to opposite parties 1 to 3 by 5.11.2008 they have not completed construction of the building and apartment 1-B till date and have not handed over the apartment to the complainant and executed sale deed in respect of the apartment as promised by them. Thus the complainant suffered loss due to the deliberate breach of agreement committed by opposite parties with intent to deceive the complainant. Complainant also suffered mental agony as a result of clear deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. The complainant approached them several times requesting them to hand over flat No.1-B as promised but they failed to do so. Hence the complainant issued notice through his lawyer. The request was to hand over apartment No.1-B as promised along with Rs.12,000/- per month from 10.7.2009 to the complainant. 10.7.2009 is the promised last date for delivery of the flat and Rs.12,000/- being compensation for the delayed handing over of the flat. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are responsible for the day today operations of the 1st opposite party and they are personally liable regarding all the undertakings and verbal assurances given by them. The officers of the 4th opposite party colluded with opposite parties 1 to 3 and made the complainant believe that investment made with opposite parties 1 to 3 are safe and induced the complainant to enter into a tripartite agreement on 20.9.2008 and in total violation of the terms of the agreement released the entire loan amount to opposite parties 1 to 3 without any proper verification regarding the stage and progress of construction. Hence the 4th opposite party is equally liable to compensate the complainant.
3. On the above allegations the complainant seeks an order directing opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 to complete construction of flat No.1-B in the apartment complex, Apple Com and hand over the flat with all furnishings and common amenities as stipulated in the agreement dated:26.3.2008 to execute sale deed pertaining to 0.55% of undivided share in the 6.75 ares of property mentioned in the agreement and further to pay compensation by way of rent at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month from 10.7.2009. Alternatively the complainant seeks compensation of Rs.24,09,561.80 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for Rs.15,13,741/- from the date of complaint till realization from opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 incase they fail to hand over possession of flat No.1-B in the apartment complex. The relief sought against the 4th opposite party is to direct them not to make any demand for payment of instalments towards housing loan granted by them for the purchase of flat No.1-B and further to direct them not to take any step to recover the loan amount or interest thereon from the complainant or his assets other than the secured asset.
4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 did not accept notice despite intimation given by the postal authorities. Hence they were declared exparte. Opposite parties 4 and 5 filed separate version. The 4th opposite party contended that the Statue branch of the Federal Bank Limited has no separate existence. Federal Bank Limited is the legal entity with independent existence. Hence the Federal Bank Limited with registered office at Aluva is a necessary party to the proceedings. The complainant has no allegation that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 4th opposite party in the matter of discharge of its obligations as per the tripartite agreement dated:20.9.2008. The allegation that officers of the 4th opposite party colluded with opposite parties 1 to 3 in releasing the loan amount of the complainant to the builder as per tripartite agreement is totally incorrect. Relief if any regarding the alleged collusion can be obtained from the Civil Court and not from the Consumer Commission. Therefore no proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable against the 4th opposite party. The 4th opposite party has no involvement in the agreement dated:26.3.2007 entered into between the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 for construction of the apartment. He had also entered into agreement dated:8.10.2007 for purchase of 0.55% of undivided share in the property where apartment complex was proposed to be built. The complainant after making payment of Rs.3,35,520/- only requested the 4th opposite party to grant him loan of Rs.9,67,000/- to be paid to the builder for purchase of flat No.1-B. The 4th opposite party found the complainant eligible for housing loan. Hence they sanctioned the loan after complying with all conditions normally stipulated by the bank. The wife of the complainant and his son were the co-obligants and they are necessary parties to the complaint. At the time of sanctioning the loan, 85% of the construction of the flat was completed. The loan was granted on the securities of demand, promissory note, security delivery note, agreement for housing loan and agreement in lieu of interim collateral security. In view of the conditions in the tripartite agreement, the 1st opposite party by their letter dated:20.9.2008 requested the 4th opposite party to disburse an amount of Rs.7,71,622/- at the earliest. Though the 4th opposite party was free to disburse the entire amount to the builder as per the provisions of the tripartite agreement, the request of the builder was referred to the complainant and he by his letter dated:4.10.2008 requested the bank to transfer Rs.7,71,622/- to the builder since 85% of the construction of the flat was completed. Therefore the bank disbursed the amount to the builder. Subsequently the bank paid an amount of Rs.1,26,982/- on 5.11.2008 to the builder at the request of the complainant and the builder dated:16.10.2008 after ascertaining the progress of the project through site inspections of the officials of the 4th opposite party in the Kakkanadu Airport branch. Thus, the bank paid a total amount of Rs.8,98,604/- to the builder but withheld an amount of Rs.68,396/- from the sanctioned amount as the furnishing work of the flat was not completed. The officers of the 4th opposite party have conducted site inspections on 5.10.2008, 4.11.2008 and 24.06.2009. Thus, the 4th opposite party had taken sufficient precautions while transferring the amounts to the account of the builder inspite of requests of the complainant and the builder. The bank took all precautions to see that no amount was unduly paid to the builder. There was no collusion between the 4th opposite party and opposite parties 1 to 3.
5. The borrower was prompt in repayment till May 2011. It was not the duty of the bank to verify the progress of the work. That was the responsibility of the complainant. The tripartite agreement also specifically authorizes the bank to pay the loan amount directly to the builder without any further correspondence with the borrower. The whole attempt of the complainant is to avoid repayment of the loan amount to the bank. The bank is legally entitled to recover the amounts due under the facility extended to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or relief from the 4th opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6. The 5th opposite party contended that he has revoked the power of attorney executed infavour of opposite parties 1 to 3 when they violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated:2.3.2007. He has not entered into any agreement with the complainant. The land handed over by the 5th opposite party was utilized by opposite parties 1 to 3 for the construction of apartments but he did not so far get the agreed consideration for handing over the said land. If at all the complainant had sustained any loss the 5th opposite party is not liable for the same. The 5th opposite party has not received any payment from the complainant and therefore the complainant is not a consumer in so far as the 5th opposite party is concerned. He has not done anything to deceive the complainant. The 5th opposite party has not offered any service or goods to the complainant. Nor did he receive any remuneration from the complainant. So, the complainant is not a consumer in so far as the 5th opposite party is concerned. The 5th opposite party has not received any land value from the complainant and there was no request to him to transfer the undivided share of land. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as against the 5th opposite party.
7. On the above allegations and contentions raised the following points arise for determination:-
1. Whether deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 is established by evidence?
2. Whether the 4th opposite party is in any way liable to compensate the complainant?
3. Whether the 5th opposite party has committed any deficiency of service?
4. What are the reliefs to be granted to the complainant?
8. The complainant is examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. One witness was examined on behalf of the 4th opposite party. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the 4th opposite party.
Point No.1
9. The 1st opposite party is a private limited company engaged in Real Estate Development, Construction and sale of residential apartments, villas etc. The 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party is the Director of the Company. The complainant entered into Ext.A1 agreement for sale with opposite party No.1 represented by opposite party No.2 on 8.10.2007. From the recitals in Ext.A1, it can be seen that an extent of 6.75 ares of property in resurvey No.583/17 in Block No.8 of Kakkanadu village belonged to the 5th opposite party as per a sale deed in his favour executed in 2005. The 5th opposite party had executed power of attorney in 2007 in favour of the 1st opposite party to develop the said property and construct a multi storied building therein by name Apple Com consisting of apartments with exclusive areas and common areas. The power of attorney is not produced in evidence. The recitals further show that the 1st opposite party company purchased 69% of undivided share, right title and interest in the said property as per a sale deed executed in 2007. As per Ext.A1, the complainant agreed to purchase 0.55% of undivided share in the said property together with the right to construct apartment No.B in the 1st floor with super built up area of 33.55 Sq. meters for a consideration of Rs.9500/-. Ext.A2 is styled as agreement for construction of apartment and is entered into between the complainant and the 1st opposite party represented by the 2nd opposite party. It bears the date 26.3.2007. The allegation is that really the date of execution of Ext.A2 is 26.3.2008. As per Ext.A2 the 1st opposite party agreed to construct for the complainant an apartment with super built up area of 33.55 Sq.meters purchased as per Ext.A1 at a cost of Rs.11,83,000/- which is inclusive of land value of Rs.9500/- mentioned in Ext.A1. Right to undivided share in common areas in the property is also provided. Ext.A2 also provides the payment schedule. Clause 5 of Ext.A2 is important and it provides that the company shall construct the apartment as per the specifications attached to Ext.A2 and try the utmost possible to finish the work within 18 months and possession will be handed over after completion provided the entire amount due to the first party company from the complainant had been paid by him. It is further provided that delay in the completion of the construction for reasons beyond the control of first party including natural calamities like heavy rain, floods, earth quake, drought, famine, pestilence or riot strike or civil commotion or by reason of any Governmental restraint on construction or short supply or non availability of essential items like cement, steel, sand, brick, timber or other building materials, non-payment of instalments in time, the time during which such contingency continues or any force majeure conditions shall be excluded in calculating the period of completion of construction. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have no case that any of the contingencies mentioned in the exclusion clause intervened. So that aspect is beyond question in the absence of any plea from opposite parties 1 to 3.
10. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- to the 1st opposite party on 16.9.2007 as booking charges. Ext.A4 evidences the same. On 23.09.2007 he paid towards the construction cost a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Ext.A5 evidences this payment. On 3.10.2007 the complainant paid Rs.1,35,000/- towards the construction costs. Ext.A6 evidences the same. The complainant further paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.3.2008. Ext.A7 evidences the same. At this juncture the complainant approached the 4th opposite party, the Statue branch of the Federal Bank Limited for granting him a housing loan. It was accordingly loan was granted and Ext.A3 tripartite agreement was executed between the 1st opposite party represented by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant and the 4th opposite party. The agreement is dated:20.09.2008. Among other things Ext.A3 recites that an apartment as per the specifications in B schedule was agreed to be purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.13,02,520/- including statutory and other charges amounting to Rs.1,19,520/- (approximately). In furtherance of the agreement the complainant had paid Rs.3,35,520/- out of the total consideration agreed. The complainant had approached the 4th opposite party for a loan of Rs.9,67,000/- and agreed that the said amount shall be paid to the builder towards the full and final settlement of the sale consideration. The 4th opposite party has sanctioned or agreed to sanction the loan amount of Rs.9,67,000/- to the borrower subject to the directions and conditions agreed and executed between the borrower and the bank. The borrower had agreed to mortgage the B schedule flat along with proportionate undivided share or interest in the A schedule property to the bank on execution of the sale deed by the builder. The mutual agreement was that the bank would make payment of the loan amount of Rs.9,67,000/- directly to the builder on execution of loan documents by the borrower infavour of the bank. The borrower specifically agreed and undertook that the loan amount paid by the bank directly to the builder was at the specific request of the borrower. The disbursement of payments to the builder was agreed to be as per schedule C of the agreement. Schedule C provided that minimum 15% payment was to be paid to the builder by the borrower and balance amount should be paid in lumpsum within a week of signing agreement subject to the directions and conditions stipulated by the bank. Ext.A8 is the copy of the letter dated:20.08.2008 written by the 1st opposite party to the 4th opposite party confirming that they had sold flat-B with super built up area of 361.Sq.Ft. in the first floor of Apple Com at Kakkanadu to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.13,02,520/- including statutory and other charges amounting to around Rs.1,19,520/- and they had no objection in the Federal Bank Limited giving loan of Rs.9,67,000/- to the complainant. Ext.B1 is the copy of letter dated:4.10.2008 written by the complainant to the Manager, Federal Bank Limited, Statue Branch requesting them to transfer a sum of Rs.7,71,622/- from his housing loan infavour of the 1st opposite party. As per Ext.B2 the 1st opposite party requested the 4th opposite party to make disbursement as per the payment schedule in the construction agreement at the earliest. Ext.B3 is the copy of Ext.A8 letter itself. It is not a disputed fact that as per the tripartite agreement between the parties the 4th opposite party had disbursed loan amount of Rs.7,71,622/- to the 1st opposite party on 4.10.2008 and paid Rs.1,26,982/- on 5.11.2008. This specific allegation is also not disputed by opposite parties 1 to 3. It follows that the complainant had paid the entire amount as per Ext.A2 agreement by 5.11.2008. Then as per clause 5 in Ext.A2 referred to earlier, opposite parties 1 to 3 were bound to complete the construction of the apartment and hand over the same within 18 months from the date of execution of Ext.A2. As already indicated, that any of the contingencies which would have justified delay in the construction is neither pleaded nor proved by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Ext.A9 is the letter written by the 1st opposite party to the complainant announcing that they would be completing the project Apple Com by July 15, 2009. As per Ext.A10 dated 13.4.2010 similar promise to complete the project within next 20 days was announced but it appears that so far the project is not completed and a B flat was handed over to the complainant. Thus there is total violation of the agreement to construct the flat and hand over the same to the complainant within 18 months from the date of execution of the agreement, Ext.A2. This is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complainant is entitled to suitable reliefs against them. The point is found accordingly.
Point No.2
11. We have referred to the provisions in the tripartite agreement executed between the complainant, the 4th opposite party and the builder. It was pursuant to Ext.A3 that the 4th opposite party disbursed a total amount of Rs.8,98,604/- to the builder. The allegation in the complaint against the 4th opposite party is that at first the complainant thought that payments from the bank were obtained by opposite parties 1 to 3 by giving false impression to the bank as well as the complainant that the building was completed in all respects, but later he understood that the officers of the 4th opposite party had released the amount in collusion with opposite parties 1 to 3. The grievance alleged is that officers of the 4th opposite party have colluded with opposite parties 1 to 3 and made the complainant to believe that investments made with opposite parties 1 to 3 are safe and induced the complainant to enter into the tripartite agreement (Ext.A3) and in total violation of the terms of the agreement released the entire loan amount to opposite parties 1 to 3 without any proper verification or check regarding the stage and progress of construction and that was due to collusion between opposite parties 1 to 3 and the 4th opposite party. Hence the 4th opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. In this regard the contentions raised are that collusion is a matter to be decided by a Civil Court and therefore the Forum lacks jurisdiction to decide such issues. Secondly collusion is something to be precisely pleaded. When a plea has no foundation in pleadings or evidence it cannot be considered and when the party has acted in accordance with the terms of agreement, no question of deficiency of service arises. It is unnecessary to consider in detail the decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th opposite party in this regard.
12. The allegation as seen already is that the officers of the 4th opposite party induced the complainant to enter into tripartite agreement dated:20.9.2008 and that was in collusion with opposite parties 1 to 3. It is pertinent to notice that prior to that the complainant had decided to purchase the flat and had entered into Exts.A1 and A2 agreements. Not only that bank loan was availed after the complainant had paid to opposite parties 1 and 2 an amount of Rs.3,35,520/-. The evidence in this regard is already referred to. So, there is no scope for the argument that the officers of the 4th opposite party had induced the complainant to enter into the agreement to purchase the flat in collusion with opposite parties 1 to 3. The 2nd part of the allegation is that loan amount was disbursed in total violation of the terms of the agreement and without proper verification or check regarding the stage and progress of the construction. That was also due to collusion between the 4th opposite party and opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5. But we have referred to the several clauses in Ext.A3 which authorized the bank to disburse the loan amount immediately to the builder. There was no obligation on the part of the officers of the bank to verify the stage and progress of construction. The letter written by the complainant also wanted immediate disbursal of the loan amount as per schedule. So there is absolutely no evidence to show that the officers of the 4th opposite party had in any way colluded with opposite parties 1 to 3 as alleged in the complaint. In fact the contention of the 4th opposite party is that their officers had verified the progress of the construction before disbursing the amount though they had no obligation to do so. Further it appears that the loan transaction between the complainant and the 4th opposite party was an independent one and the obligation was always on the part of the complainant to repay the loan. In the tripartite agreement opposite parties 1 to 3 were joined only to facilitate transfer of the loan amount to them. In the above circumstances the 4th opposite party has the right to recover the loan amount from the complainant and relief sought by the complainant against opposite party No.4 cannot be granted.
Point No.3
13. The only allegation against the 5th opposite party in the complaint is that he had also failed to exercise due diligence to keep up the commitment to the customers. Several recitals in Exts.A1 and A2 show that the 5th opposite party was the owner of the property handed over to opposite parties 1 to 3 for development, construction of flat and for sale. Further opposite parties 1 to 3 had purchased 69% undivided share in the entire property from the 5th opposite party. Ext.A2 construction agreement is between opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complainant and the 5th opposite party has not undertaken to construct or hand over the flat to the complainant nor is there any allegation that he had received any consideration from the complainant either towards the value of the undivided share in the land or for making construction. In the above circumstances no deficiency of service on the part of the 5th opposite party can be attributed to him. It follows that he has also to be exonerated from liability.
Point No.4
14. It follows from the conclusions arrived at while discussing point Nos.1, 2 and 3 that the complainant is entitled to appropriate relief against opposite parties 1 to 3 only.
In the result the complaint is dismissed as against opposite parties 4 and 5 and allowed as against opposite parties 1 to 3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to complete construction of flat No.1-B in the apartment complex, Apple Com being constructed over 6.75 ares of land in Resurvey No.583/17 in Block No.8 of Kakkanadu village and hand over the same along with all furnishings and common amenities as stipulated in Ext.A2 and execute sale deed pertaining to 0.55% of undivided share in the said property without any encumbrance within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,02,520/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER A. RADHA : MEMBER VL.
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS
Ext.A1 : True copy of agreement for sale dated:8.10.2007.
Ext.A2 : True copy of agreement for construction of apartment dtd:26.3.2007.
Ext.A3 : True copy of Tripartite agreement dtd:20.9.2008.
Ext.A4 : True copy of Receipt voucher dated:16.9.2007 of RS.10,000/-.
Ext.A5 :True copy of bank receipt voucher dtd:23.9.2007 of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Ext.A6 : True copy of receipt voucher dtd:3.10.2007.
Ext.A7 : True copy of bank receipt voucher dtd:26.03.2008.
Ext.A8 : True copy of letter dtd:20.9.2008 by the opposite parties to the Federal Bank Ltd.
Ext.A9 : True copy of letter dtd:26.5.2009 by the opposite parties to the customer.
Ext.A10 : True copy of letter dtd:13.4.2010 by the opposite parties to the customer.
COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS
PW1 : Madhu.M
OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS
Ext.B1 : Photocopy of letter dtd:4.10.08 by the complainant to the Manager, Federal Bank.
Ext.B2 : True copy of letter by the opposite parties to the Federal Bank for disbursement of the particular amount.
Ext.B3 : Photocopy of letter dated:20.9.2008 by the opposite parties to the Federal Bank Ltd.
OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS
DW1 : Anni Jacob
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A. RADHA : MEMBER
VL.
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SMT.A.RADHA] MEMBER