State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Mrs. G. Padmavathy vs India Bulls Wholesale Services Ltd., on 22 August, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION :: HYDERABAD.
CC.No. 93 of 2017
Between:
1.Mrs.G.Padmavathi, W/o.M.Prabhakara Rao, Aged:59 years, Occupation: Home Maker.
2. M.Praveen, S/o.M.Prabhakara Rao, Aged 33 years, Occupation : Service, Both are R/o.C411,Indiabulls-Centrum, Lower Tankbund Road, Beside Vartha Office, Indira Park, Hyderabad- 500 080. ... Complainants And:
Soril Holding and Ventures Limited, (Formerly known as India Bulls Wholesale Services Limited), A Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its Regd. Office : M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001, Rep. by its Managing Director.
(Cause Title Amended as per Orders dated 10.09.2018 in CCIA No.500/2018).
....Opposite Party Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. T. Mahesh Kumar Counsel for the Opposite Party : Mr.K.Vishweswar Reddy QUORUM: HON'BLE, SRI V.V.SESHUBABU MEMBER - (J) & HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, M EMBER - (NJ) TUESDAY, THE TW ENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TW O THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Order : (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember-Non-Judicial)
01). This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 1(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Party as follows:-2
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.) Amount(Rs.)
1. (a) Compensation for O delay in delivery of the possession of flat...
Agreed date :
16.09.2013
Actual date :
30.11.2015
Delay period : 26.5
months
Agreed price (Rs.5 *
Rs.2,48,517/-
1875.59 SFT) =
Rs.9,378/-
Delay period * agreed
price=26.5 months
*Rs.9,378/-
Rs.66,121/-
(b) Compound interest
@ 18% on
Rs.2,48,517/- for 15
months from
01.12.2015 till Rs.3,14,638/-
30.04.2017
(c) a + b
(Rs.2,48,517/- +
Rs.66,121/-)
2. (a) Loss of interest of Rs.1,02,055/-
10.5% on
Rs.10,76,661/- i.e. 4th
installment collected
without laying 2nd
floor slab (03.11.2012
to 28.09.2013) 10
months 25 days.
(b) Compound Rs.1,10,030/-
Interest @ 18% on
Rs.1,02,055/- till
30.04.2017 Rs.2,12,085/-
(c) a+b (Rs.1,02,055/-
+ Rs.1,10,030/-)
3. (a) Money collected Rs.3,85,560/-
towards increase in
super area.
(b) Compound interest Rs.3,43,601/-
@ 18% on
Rs.3,85,560/- till
30.04.2017.
(c) a+ b (Rs.3,85,560/-
Rs.7,29,161/-
-Rs.3,43,601/-)
4. (a) Car parking Rs.2,00,000/-
amount collected
twice
(b) Compound interest Rs.2,22,210/-
@ 18% on
3
Rs.2,00,000/- till
30.04.2017
Rs.4,22,210/-
(c)Rs.2,00,000/- + -
Rs.2,22,210/-)
5. Repair works Rs.75,000/-
6. To pay to the Rs.1,75,000/-
complainant the
compensation for
deficiency in service
7. To pay to the Rs.3,00,000/-
complainant the
compensation for
causing harassment,
injury and mental
agony.
8. To pay costs towards Rs.1,00,000/-
legal, miscellaneous &
other incidentals
Total Rs.23,23,094/-
02). The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that being lured by the advertisement of the opposite party wherein they have promised to deliver the possession of the flats constructed within a stipulated time and the assurances given by their representatives, the complainants booked a flat by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.03.2010 for flat bearing No.C411, admeasuring 1875.56 sft.
Super Area on 4th floor in building Block C of "Central Park- Hyderabad" later the building name was changed to "Indiabulls Centrum - Hyderabad" and the purchase price was Rs.63,77,106/- i.e. @ Rs.3,400/- per sft. The total amount included Rs.2,00,000/- towards car parking charges and the complainant was supposed to pay the balance amount as per the schedule mentioned in the agreement. From the beginning the opposite party had insisted that time would be the essence of contract. As per the schedule of payment mentioned in the agreement, the opposite party was supposed to collect the 4 th instalment only after commencing of the 2nd floor slab, but in violation of the said condition, the opposite party had demanded the 4th instalment by way of a letter dated 20.10.2012 even before the commencement of the 2nd floor slab, as the opposite party insisted for such payments, as such the complainants have to redeem two fixed deposits and made the payment of 4 Rs.10,76,661/- through the cheque bearing No.000002 dated 3.11.2012. Subsequent, to the said payment, on 13.09.2013 the opposite party issued another letter intimating due date for payment as 28.09.2013, upon commencement of 2 nd floor slab. This act of the opposite party of collecting the 4 th instalment even prior to commencement of the 2nd floor, entitles the complainant to claim interest for the said amount. The opposite party had collected the amount 10 months prior to the commencement of the 2nd floor slab. The complainant vide E-mails dated 11.10.2013 and 18.12.2013 reminded the opposite party about non credit of the interest amount. The opposite party replied to the same on 18.12,2013 without any whisper about the credit amount, but had insisted for balance payments, but the ledger account of the complainant dt.21.10.2015 maintained by the opposite party clearly shows how genuinely the complainants are paying the instalments in time.
While construction was in progress the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.3,85,560/- additionally stating that the Super Built Up area of flat has been increased from 1875.59 sft. to 1989 sft. and as the construction was in progress the complainant could not measure the Super Built-up area and had paid the said excess amount, but the occupancy certificate dated 16.10.2015 issued by the GHMC does not show the same; that the opposite party had fraudulently and illegally collected the excess amount; that as per the agreement the total price of the flat was Rs.63,77,016/- excluding VAT, TAX and registration, but included the car paring charges of Rs.2,00,000/- but due to demands of the opposite party, the complainant ended up paying a total amount of Rs.71,67,077/- break-up is as follows:-
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
a. Purchase price -Rs.3,400/- Rs.63,77,016/-
*1895.59 SFT(this includes
Rs.2,00,000/- car parking)
b. Club House, Security deposit, Rs. 2,04,458/-
electricity and water
c. Amount collected showing Rs. 3,85,560/-
faulty increase in super area
d. Car Parking (Collected twice) Rs.2,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs.71,67,044/-
5
From the above table it is evident that opposite party had collected the car parking twice.
That apart, as per the agreement, the opposite party agreed to handover the possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of execution of agreement with a grace period of six months and also agreed to pay Rs.5/- per sft., per month in case of any delay, as such the agreed date to handover the possession of the flat is 16.09.2013. But infact the flat was handed over on 30.11.2015 i.e. with a delay of 26 ½ months, as such the complainant is entitled for the delayed charges. Further the opposite party had used inferior material for construction and the quality got diluted specially for C Block due to which the complainant had to replace 3 commodes and taps by incurring an amount of Rs.75,000/-, as such the complainant is entitled for the said repair charges. Citing all these deficiencies the complainants had requested several times the opposite party to pay back excess amount collected and also to pay the delay charges, but, the opposite party failed to do so, as such being vexed with the attitude of opposite party, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 05.01.2017 demanding Rs.16,71,979/- which was collected in excess. The opposite party received the same and called the complainant in the month of February,2017 asking them to collect the allotment letter for car parking and possession letter dt.1.12.2015. Immediately, the complainant mailed back to the opposite party asking why the possession letter is being issued back dated and why not in the present date, but the opposite party failed to reply for the same.
For the legal notice of complainant, the opposite party replied with all false and baseless allegations and in the said reply the opposite party had admitted that the sum of Rs.10,76,661/- was collected even before the commencement of 2nd floor slab by mistake and later revised. As the opposite party had failed to return excess amount received and had cheated the complainant by luring to purchase property and had collected the car parking charges twice and collected the excess amount on pretext of Super Built-Up area on false grounds, all these acts of opposite party amount to deficiency of service as such having no other alternative the complainant is before this Commission seeking the excess amount received by the opposite party, additional car parking 6 charges, interest on the amount received in advance along with compensation and costs.
03). The W ritten Version of the Opposite Party:-
The opposite party filed their written version while admitting the purchase of flat by the complainants had pleaded that the present complaint is filed only for the purpose of gaining unjust enrichment and is based on all false allegations and that the agreement of sale contains an arbitration clause, as such the complainants should have approached an Arbitrator before filing this complaint; that as per the clause No.3 of agreement of sale, it was specifically agreed that the purchase price was to be paid by the complainants based on the "Super Area" and since at the time of booking, this opposite party had only submitted the application for approval from GHMC as such area was tentatively mentioned as 1890 sft., and the said fact was informed to the complainants and only after agreeing the same the complainants proceeded with booking of the flat by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, having agreed to the same the complainant cannot now contend that the super area has not been increased. The complainants are bound by terms of the agreement and after the building permit was obtained, this opposite party had insisted the complainants to come forward and sign the agreement of sale but the complainants never come forward to sign the same. After nearing completion of project total building was assessed and the total built up area of each flat was intimated to the individual customers and also the revised price. Similarly, the complainants' apartment super area had come up to 1989 sft, as such, the total price come up to Rs.69,62,594/-. The said intimation was also given to the complainants, as such it can never be said that this opposite party had collected excess amount from the complainants and that the complainants are bound to pay the balance amount as per the schedule and have never paid the amount before the due date and that on several occasions this opposite party had waived the interest for delay of payment received from the complainants and such waiver comes up to Rs.24,475/-, though the opposite party had come across several difficulties such as unexpected bandh by political parties in view of Telangana issue, manual cutting of rocks in the project site due to 7 its close proximity of residential buildings and restrictions on vehicle movements and delay in getting permission from GHMC inspite of the same this opposite party had completed project in time and handed over to their customers. In fact the opposite party had applied on 07.04.2014 to GHMC to extend the building permit but the same was kept pending by the GHMC for a long period and the opposite party had to address letters on several occasions i.e. 09.05.2014, 26.06.2014, 19.09.2014, 17.04.2014. After several letters, the GHMC had issued the Occupancy Certificate with a delay of 1 ½ year as such the complainant cannot allege the delay on the part of opposite party and as per the terms of agreement, the Clause No.5(e) and 5(h) (i) the period of possession shall be extended, automatically in case of force majeure conditions; that the Occupancy Certificate issued by GHMC is for the entire C-
Block and cannot be adopted for the single apartment of the complainant. The complainant have signed these Supplementary Agreement and Registered Sale Deed after having understood that the Super Built up area had been increased and having signed the said documents, the complainants cannot now take a different stand and demand additional amount on the pretext that this opposite party had collected excess amount, break-ups of amounts received from the complainants is as follows:-
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
a. Cost of the apartment including Rs.69,62,594/-
car parking -(Rs.3,400/-x1989 +
Rs.2,00,000/- car parking)
b. Club charges Rs. 30,000/-
c. EWS charges Rs. 75,000/-
d. Corpus Fund @ Rs.50/- per Rs. 99,450/-
Sq.Ft.(50 x 1989)
TOTAL Rs.71,67,044/-
And having paid the above said amounts without any protest and having entered in to a registered sale deed and Supplementary Agreement, the present complaint is filed with all baseless allegations only to enrich himself. The demand for amount made on 20.10.2012 was later withdrawn by this Opposite party which is within the knowledge of the complainants and in order to compensate the same this opposite party had waived the interest of 8 Rs.24,475/- inspite of delay in payment from the complainants. The application form dated 15.03.2010 signed by the complainants at the time of booking clearly excludes the parking charges of Rs.2,00,000/- as such it is denied that the opposite party had collected parking charges twice and being satisfied with the costs and other conditions, the complainant had come forward and paid the total sale consideration and got the sale deed executed. The complainants got issued a legal notice on false and baseless allegations and subsequently filed the present complaint only to enrich the same as such this opposite party prays that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
04). On behalf of complainants, Mr.M.Praveen - complainant no.2 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A19 and on behalf of the Opposite party, Mr.I.Amuthan Inbasekaran, Senior General Manager of opposite party company filed evidence affidavit and Exs.B1 to B15 are marked on their behalf. Both parties filed written arguments respectively.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
05). The Points for consideration are:
i. Whether the opposite parties have been deficient in their services?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
iii. If yes, to what extent?
06). The grievances of the complainant in nutshell are as under:
That the opposite party was supposed to demand the instalments based on the progress of construction, but the opposite party had demanded the 4 th instalment much prior to the commencement of the second floor slab by way of demand letter dt.20.10.2012 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,76,661/- through cheque dt.3.11.2012 i.e. 10 months prior to commencement of second floor 9 slab, as such he is entitled for the interest amount on the said Rs.10,76,661/-;
That the opposite party had collected Rs.3,85,560/- on the pretext that the super built up area had been increased from 1875.59 to 1989 sft., but infact there is no such increase in super built up area. As such, seeking excess amount received by opposite party for super built up area;
That the opposite party had collected car parking charges twice i.e. in total Rs.4 lakhs was collected; That the opposite party had delayed the handover of possession for a period of 26 ½ months, as such the opposite party is liable to pay the delay charges as agreed in the agreement @ Rs.5/- per sft. per month, for 16 months.
On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that in the Agreement of Sale, there is an Arbitration Clause and that the complainant should have approached an arbitrator for his grievance prior to filing this complaint.
07). Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 clearly stipulates that the said Act is not in derogation of any other law, but is in addition to other remedies available to the Consumer and it is settled law that the presence of any Arbitration Clause in an Agreement will not shut the doors of this Commission to any Consumer/complainant.
08). Point Nos. i & ii:
For grievance no.1 the complainant counsel has drawn our attention to Clause no.15 of the Agreement of Sale wherein the schedule of payment is mentioned and also relied on Ex.A5 photographs. A perusal of schedule reveals that the payments were to be made as per the progress of construcitona nd it's a specific allegation of the complainant that 4th instalment was payable only after commencement of the 2nd floor slab whereas the opposite party had demanded the said payment much prior to such commencement of the 2nd floor slab by way of a letter 10 dt.20.10.2012 and believing the opposite party, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.10,76,661/- through cheque dt 3.11.2012 . Ex.A5 photographs reveal that the construction of the second floor slab had not been commenced.
It is pertinent to mention that the Agreement of Sale and Sale Deed are executed on the same day. Hence there is no agreement between the complainants and the opposite party, as such any terms with regard to the claim of interest based on payment does not arise and the complainants cannot invoke any of the terms of the Agreement as the opposite party had already reversed an amount of Rs.24,475/- towards the waiver of interest. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainants are not entitled for any interest.
09). Coming to the second grievance, with regard to collection of Rs.3,85,560/- towards increase in super built up area, counsel for the complainants had argued that the super built up area is not increased and it is same as mentioned in the agreement of sale and relied on Ex.A9 - Occupancy Certificate. What is manifest from perusal of Ex.A9 -Occupancy certificate is that it discloses height and floor area of the whole building i.e. block A, B & C, but does not disclose the super built up area of the complainants' individual flat; that apart Ex.A9 does not disclose any deviations and the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan.
However, either of the party did not choose to file the sanction plan. Based on the Occupancy Certificate, the super built up area of the complainants' flat cannot be ascertained. It is not the case of the complainants that they got it measured by any civil engineer who had given any report to that effect, nor the complainants have put any efforts to get it measured during the pendency of the case. Merely based on the Occupancy Certificate, the super built up area of the complainants' flat cannot be ascertained that too when there is a specific clause in agreement of sale wherein the purchaser had agreed to bear the extra charges in case of an increase in the super built up area and the fact remains that in Ex.A14, Sale Deed, the total built up area is shown as 1989 sft. Having taken possession in the year 2015 and getting the sale deed registered with super built up area 11 mentioned as 1989 sft., now the complainants who are the possessors, owners and enjoying the same and would continue to retain it, cannot now seek for refund of the amount that was paid for increase in super built up area. Hence we feel that the complainants are not entitled for refund of Rs.3,85,000/- that was paid for increased super built up area, it appears that the complainants want to retain the excess area as well as want the refund of the said amount.
10). Coming to the delay in delivery of possession, the opposite party had contended that as Agreement of Sale was never entered into, the complainant cannot invoke the terms and conditions stipulated in the Agreement of Sale and as both the Agreement of Sale and Sale Deed are of same date, question of delay in delivery of possession does not arise.
It is borne by record that the Agreement of Sale and Sale Deed are executed on the same day. But the fact remains that the opposite party had been demanding the instalments and the complainant has also been paying the instalments and Ex.A8 establishes that the opposite party had been receiving the amount since 2010 even in the absence of the Agreement. As such, we feel that it is unfair on the part of the opposite party to contend that as there is no Agreement, there is no delay in delivery. Therefore, we feel that there is a delay on the part of the opposite party in delivering the possession. Now the point would arise how to decide the delay. Calculating the same from the date of booking would be unjustified, as such in the interest of justice we are of the view that the commencement of date for calculating the time for handing over of possession shall be calculated from the date of 3rd instalment paid by the complainant and as per Ex.A8 the complainant had made the 3rd payment on 1.4.2011. Considering 1.4.2011 as the starting date, the date of handing over the possession based on clause no.... including the grace period will come upto 1.10.2014. Ex.A17 is the possession letter which is dated 1.12.2015. As such, the delay would come upto 14 months.
Coming to the repair charges, under Ex.A12 the complainant had filed bills showing the amount incurred for 12 the purchase of sanitary items totaling to Rs.54,570/-. However, as the complainant has not filed any receipt to show as to how much he incurred for the labour charges, as such we feel that he would be entitled for Rs.54,570/- spent for purchase of sanitary items.
11). Coming to car parking charges collected twice, though the complainant had alleged that the car parking charges were collected twice, but did not choose to file any proof to that effect, but had given a breakup of total amount paid. The opposite party had also given breakup of the total amount paid by the complainant and in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the car parking charges were collected twice we need to consider the total cost of the flat, since we have concluded that the complainant is not entitled for refund of the money paid for the super built up area. As such, the total cost of the flat needs to be calculated afresh and the fact that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.71,67,044/- is not in dispute. Now the point is what would the total cost of the flat be as per the agreement. Rs.3,400/- per sft. is the cost of the flat and as the total built up area of the complainants' flat has been concluded as 1989, the total cost would come upto Rs.3,400/- x 1989 sft. = Rs.67,62,600/-. As per Clause 1 ( page no.7) of Ex.A1 Agreement of Sale, it is specifically stated that the total cost of the flat would include cost of parking space, which has been hand written with pen and the same has also been signed by opposite party, in view of the said clause the total cost of the flat includes the car parking charges of Rs.2 lakhs. Now since the cost of the flat has come upto Rs.67,62,600/-. But in Clause No. 3(iv) (page no.11) of the Agreement it has been specifically mentioned that the deposit towards the maintenance security is @ Rs.50/- per sft. and in the instant case, since the total built up area of the complainant's flat was increased from 1875.56 to 1989 sft, as such the maintenance security would increase from Rs.93,780/- to Rs.99,450/-. As per Clause 3(b) of the Agreement Rs.75,000/- is agreed for electricity, sewer, water and other miscellaneous charges, Rs.93,780/- towards deposit of maintenance security and Rs.30,000/- towards club membership .
13Now the total cost of the flat including the other charges as referred above would come to Rs.69,67,050/- which is as follows:
Particulars Cost of the apartment Rs.67,62,600/-
Club charges 39,000/- EWS Charges 75,000/- Corpus Fund 99,450/- Total Rs.69,67,050/-
It is not in dispute that the complainant had paid total sum of Rs.71,67,044/- (Rs.71,67,044/- - Rs.69,67,050/-=Rs.1,99,994/-) which clearly establishes that the opposite party had collected Rs.2 lakhs in excess from the complainant, as such liable to refund Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant with interest.
Based on the above discussion, we are of the view that the opposite party was deficient in the services by collecting the parking charges twice so also delayed the handing over of the flat.
12). Coming to the compensation, admittedly the opposite party had delayed the construction for 14 months and the complainant had paid the total amounts as and when demanded by the opposite party. Inspite of the same there was a delay in handing over of the possession. This might have certainly caused severe hardship and mental agony to the complainant. As such, we feel that the complainant be suitably compensated.
13). In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party as follows:
i. To refund the delayed charges of Rs.1,31,292/-
with interest @ 6% p.a. from 1.10.2014 till the date of actual possession i.e. 1.12.2015 thereafter @ 9% p.a. till realization;
ii. To refund a sum of Rs.2 lakhs that was collected in excess towards car parking with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization;14
iii. To pay Rs.54,570/- towards the repair charges; iv. To pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainants; and v. To pay costs of Rs.10,000/- .
vi. Rest of the claims of the complainants are denied. vii. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
( Dictated to the Steno; transcribed and typed by her; corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 22nd day of August , 2023).
Sd/- Sd/-
--------------------- ---------------------------- M EMBER(M-J) MEMBER (M-NJ) Dt: 22 .08.2023 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESS EXAMINED For the complainant For the opposite party Evidence affidavit of Evidence affidavit of Complainant No.2 filed as PW.1. Mr.I.Amuthan Inbasekaran S.G.M.-Legal Dept. of opp.
Party filed as RW.1.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 : Photostat copy of receipt dt.15.3.2010 issued by by opposite party on behalf of the complainant no.1. Ex.A2 : Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale dt.5.6.2015 between Complainant and opposite party.
Ex.A3 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.20.10.2012 from opposite party to Complainant.
Ex.A4 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.13.9.2013 from the opposite to the complainant.
Ex.A5 : Photostat copies of Photographs showing the stage of construction.
Ex.A6 : Photostat copy of bank pass book of the complainant. Ex.A7 : Mail correspondence between the complainant and opposite party.
Ex.A8 : Photostat copy of ledger account of the complainant Ex.A9 : Photostat copy of Occupancy Certificate dt.16.10.2015 issued by GHMC.
Exs.A10 & A11: Mail correspondence between the complainant and opposite party.
Ex.A12 : Photostat copy of tax invoices/ cash bills issued for purchase of sanitary equipment.
Ex.A13 : Photostat copy of Supplementary Agreement dt.5.6.2015 entered between the complainants and O.P. Ex.A14 : Photostat copy of Sale Deed dt.5.6.2015. Ex.A15 : Photostat copy of legal notice dt.5.1.2017 issued by Complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A16 : Photostat copy of reply notice dt.8.2.2017 issued by opposite party.
Ex.A17 : Photostat copy of possession letter dt.1.12.2015 addressed by the opposite party to the complainants.15
Ex.A18 : Photostat copy of letter of allotment for car parking, addressed by the opposite party to the complainants. Ex.A19 : Mail correspondence between the complainant and opposite party.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.B1 : Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation to change the name issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued on behalf of opposite party. Ex.B2 : Photostat copy of Application Form submitted on behalf of opposite party.
Ex.B3 : Photostat copy of Supplemental Agreement entered between opposite party and complainant. Ex.B4 : Photostat copy of receipt dt.5.6.2015 issued by Sub-
Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyd.
Ex.B5 : Photostat copy of Building Permit Order dt.19.8.2010 issued by GHMC.
Ex.B6 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.12.9.2012 from opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B7 : Photostat copy of list of customers present in the Meeting held on 16.12.2012.
Ex.B8 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.17.4.2014 from opposite party to the Commissioner, Town Planning , GHMC.,Hyd. Ex.B9 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.9.5.2014 from the opposite party to the Deputy Commissioner, Circle no.9, GHMC, Hyd. Ex.B10 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.26.6.2014 from opposite party to the Commissioner, Town Planning , GHMC.,Hyd. Ex.B11 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.19.9.2014 from opposite party to the Commissioner, GHMC.,Hyd.
Ex.B12 : Photostat copy of lr.dt.17.11.2014 from opposite party to the Commissioner, GHMC.,Hyd.
Ex.B13 : Photostat copy of Occupancy Certificate dt.19.8.2010 issued by GHMC.
Ex.B14 : Photostat copy of lr. from opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B15 : Copy of the bank account of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER(M-J) M EMBER (M -NJ)
--------------------- ------------------------
Dt:22 .8.2023.