State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Rajanikant Codavalli, ... vs 1.21St Century Investment And ... on 15 February, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. C.C.58/2011 Between: Mr.Rajanikant Codavalli, S/o.C.S.Madanmohan, Aged about 36 years, Occ:Software Engineer, Temporarily residing at H.No.319, Vista Roma Way, San Jose, California, USA, Rep. by Father/GPA holder, Mr.C.S.Madanmohan, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 61 years, Occ:Retd.Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.33-94, Plot No.70/A, RTC Colony, Trimulgerry, Secunderabad-3 .Complainant And 1.21st Century Investment and Properties Pvt. Ltd., At Plot no.18, Vertex Privilege, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad , Rep. by its Director Shri A.Ramakrishna, S/o.A.Samabashiva Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.2, Rassi Green Avenues, Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.Dist. A.P. 2. K.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Tulsi Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-70, Nizampet village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.Dist. 3. S.Santhosh Kumar, S/o.S.Ashok, Aged about 28 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3-5-82/16, Vivekanand Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 4. K.Raja Reddy, S/o.K.S.Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.775/A/1, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 33. 2 to 4 are represented by their Development Agreement-cum GPA Holder by no.1 5. ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, RAPG, Level II, East Wing, 1-11-256, Begumpet, Hyderabad Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellant : Mrs.J.Sudanyata Deepak Counsel for the Respondents : R1 to R4- remained exparte. R5-(Mr.J.Lokesh Reddy-died) Notice served. None appeared. QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, And SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member).
*** The complainant represented by his father/G.P.A.Holder filed the complaint under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection ,1986 against the opposite parties seeking directions to opposite parties as follows:
1). to direct opp.parties 1 to 4 to deliver the duplex house in plot no.32 in Sy.No.340 & 341 & 341/p Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.Dist with all the specifications mentioned in the agreement of sale dt.19.9.2007 and Construction Agreement dt.26.9.2007, or in the alternative
2) to direct opp.parties 1 to 4 to refund a sum of Rs.16,13,559/- out of total amount of Rs.24,93,559/- after deducting sum of Rs.8,80,000/- paid towards the sale consideration of plot with interest @ 18% p.a.
3) to direct opp.parties 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental torture and agony suffered by the complainant and
4).Direction to opp.party no.5 ICICI Bank to pay compensation of Rs.14,93,559/- for causing mental pain and anguish .
5) direct opp.party no.5 not to demand further EMIs and consequently direct opp.party no.5 to release the original sale deed dt.17.10.2007 in favour of the complainant
6.
to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant and opposite party no.1 entered into an agreement of sale with regard to the complaint schedule property on 19.9.2007. Subsequently, they also entered into Development Agreement on 27.9.2007, under which, the opposite party no.1 promised to develop the schedule plot. Opposite party no.1 executed Agreement of Construction in favour of the complainant on 26.9.2007 to have an independent house constructed on the schedule plot and opposite party no.1 agreed to construct an independent duplex house with four bed room accommodation of total built up area of 2466 sq.ft. in the schedule plot of land along with the specifications annexed to Agreement of Construction, for a total sum of Rs.80,00,000/-. Opposite party no.1 executed a registered sale deed bearing document no.297 of 2007 in favour of the complainant on 17.10.2007.
The complainant has approached opposite party no.5 (ICICI Bank) for availing the house loan and entered into Facility Agreement with opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.5, on 23.9.2007, for a total amount of Rs.30,99,000/- agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.37,194/- towards the EMI. The complainant has also entered into second facility agreement dt.14.8.2008 with opposite party no.5, for a total transaction amount of Rs.28,47,000/- agreeing to repay the same at Rs.31,471/- per month towards EMI. Thus the complainant applied for home loan of Rs.59,37,000/- .
Opposite party no.5 bank has released a sum of Rs.30,99,000/- through cheque nos.203547 and 203548, on 28.9.2007, in favour of the opposite party no.1. Subsequently, after entering into second facility agreement, opposite party no.5 released a further sum of Rs.16,88,000/- on 6.10.2008. Thus, opposite party no.5 bank has released a total sum of Rs.47,87,000/- in favour of opposite party no.1, without verifying the stage of construction.
The complainant has paid EMIs regularly from 10.11.2007 to 10.5.2010 amounting to Rs.14,93,559/- to opposite party no.5.The complainant has also paid Rs.10 lakhs by way of demand draft on 2.4.2007 to opposite party no.1. The total amount paid to opposite party no.1 is Rs.24,93,559/-
While so, in the month of October, 2009, the complainant tried to contact the opposite parties 1 to 4 over phone, as he is residing in USA, but there was no response from them. Then, the GPA of the complainant went to the site and found that the construction on schedule plot was still at brick work stage and almost all the houses have been abandoned at brick work stage and no staff of opposite party nos.1 to 4 were available. As per the terms of the Construction Agreement dt.26.9.2007, opposite party no.1 agreed to complete the construction of the independent house and handover possession with all the specifications and amenities, within 24 months, from the date of the agreement i.e. the period commenced from 26th November,2007 and ends on 26.11.2009. The opposite party no.1, further, agreed that in the event of the delay on the part of the second party i.e. opposite party no.1, developer in constructing and delivering possession of the said independent house, opposite party no.1 is liable to pay interest to the complainant @ 12% p.a. on the amounts paid to opposite party no.1 for the period of delay, by way of liquidated damages. Opposite party nos.1 to 4 have failed in handing over possession of duplex house within the period provided in the Construction Agreement, which amounts to. deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4. The construction work was at brick work stage. Therefore the complainant, through his GPA, has issued notice dt.2.3.2010 to opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 has received the notice, but failed to reply or respond to the said notice.
The further case of the complainant is that on 9.6.2010, a legal notice was issued to opposite party no.5 bank and brought it to their notice, that without verifying the stage of construction at site, the bank has released an amount of Rs.47,87,000/- in favour of opposite party no.1. The bank has to make disbursement, under the facility, in stages, as per the progress of the work, in terms of its internal norms and guideline as applicable from time to time. When there was no response from the officers of opposite party no.5, the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite party no.5 on 3.6.2010 informing that there was delay in construction of duplex house and also informed that he shall stop payment of EMIs from June 2010, as there was no progress at the site. The said notice was received by opposite party no.5, who issued reply dt.18.6.2010 without answering the queries made by the complainant. This clearly suggests that opposite party no.5 has colluded with opposite party no.1 by flouting their rules. The complainant, through his legal notice dt. 3.6.2010, informed opposite party no.5 bank that he will not pay EMIs to the bank from June,2010, as there is no progress in the construction and opposite party no.5 has failed to take any action against opposite party no.1, thus violating Clause 86E of the agreement entered with the complainant. Opposite party no.5 did not take any action against opposite parties 1 to 4. Thus the opposite party no.5 is guilty of deficiency in service. Inspite of the contract, the bank has disbursed 90% of amount to opposite parties 1 to 4 without physical verification of construction. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties as mentioned above.
The opposite parties 1 to 4 remained exparte even on receipt of notice.
Opposite party no.5 Bank filed written version denying the material allegations made against it in the complaint and contended that the opposite party no.5 bank had not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant had availed the home loan, from opposite party no.5, by executing necessary agreements, agreeing to the terms and conditions therein and as such, the complaint filed is bad in law and is liable to be rejected, as dispute against opposite party no.5 does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act ,1986.
This opposite party, further, contended, that basing on the application submitted by the complainant and his income profile and the agreement of sale executed by and between the complainant and opp.party no.1, this opposite party bank, as per the norms of the bank, agreed to sanction loan to the complainant, towards purchase of schedule property, for a tune of Rs.30,99,000/- and second account for a tune of Rs.30,00,000/- but disbursed only Rs.16,88,000/- . The opposite party no.5 disbursed the loan amount upon the complainant executing the necessary loan documents. As per the requisition of the complainant and on his demand, the loan amount has been disbursed to the builder i.e. opposite party no.1.
This opposite party has disbursed the loan amount only to the extent of plot cost and Rs.16,88,000/- towards the construction cost of the house on the plot no.32, as per the progress of the construction, as such, the remaining amount out Rs.30 lakhs has not been disbursed to the builder/opposite party no.1. This opposite party has not disbursed any excess amount to the developer as alleged by the complainant. It is the duty of the banker to release the loan amount, to the extent of plot cost, the moment the borrower gets the registered Sale Deed in his favour, from the opposite party no.1. The present status of the construction is that 60% of the construction has been completed. The amount disbursed by the bank is only 50% of the total amount towards the construction of 60%. Therefore the allegation of the complainant that the bank has disbursed the amount to the opposite party no.1, without verification of the stage of construction, is false and baseless.
This opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation, damages to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. There exists only contractual obligation and no service is being offered to the borrower by ICIC Bank Ltd. in this regard and therefore the question of deficiency in service does not arise. There also arises no question of unfair trade practice by opposite party no.5.
The complainant, in order to cover up his laches and failure to clear monthly instalments, under loan agreement, have come out with the present false complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party with costs.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant got filed the evidence affidavit of his GPA Mr.C.S.Madan Mohan and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. As against that evidence , on behalf of the opposite party no.5 evidence affidavit of its Manager, Legal, Srinivas Rayala was filed and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
During the pendency of hearing of the complaint, counsel for opposite party no.5 Mr.J.Lokesh Reddy died. After his death, notice was served on opp.party no.5, but they neither approved nor engaged any advocate.
We heard the counsel for the complainant and we perused the entire material placed on record by both the parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? If so, to what relief?
It is the case of the complainant that opposite party no.1 offered to sell and the complainant agreed to purchase plot no.32 admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.340 and 341 situated at Nizamapet Village, Kuthbullapur Mandal R.R.Dist., which is described in the complaint schedule (in short the schedule property) along with construction of duplex house. The complainant and opposite party no.1 entered into an Agreement of Sale (original of Ex.A2) with regard to the schedule property on 19.9.2007. Subsequently, the opposite party no.1 builder executed the original of Ex.A3 Development Agreement dt.27.9.2007 in favour of the complainant with regard to plot no.32. The consideration for development works shall be Rs.51,20,000/-. The complainant and opposite party no.1 entered into the original of Ex.A4 Agreement of Construction with regard to the same schedule property. As per Ex.A4, the opposite party no.1 agreed to construct the independent duplex house with four bed room accommodation with a total built up area of 2466 sq.ft. along with specifications annexed to the agreement, for a total sum of Rs.34,52,000/-. Thereafter, the opposite parties 1 to 4 executed the original of Ex.A5 registered sale deed dt.17.10.2007 in favour of the complainant, with regard to the schedule plot, for a total value of Rs.8,80,000/- . All the above facts are not disputed or challenged by the opposite parties 1 to 4 as they remained exparte. Opposite party no.5 bank has also not disputed the above said facts. However, the opposite party no.5 is not a party to Exs.A2 to A5. The above facts are also proved by Exs.A2 to A5 coupled with evidence affidavit of the GPA of the complainant .
As per Ex.A4 copy of the Construction Agreement executed in September 2007, under Clause 4 of the said agreement , the developer i.e. opposite party no.1 agreed to complete the construction of the independent house and handover the same within 24 months from the date of the agreement. In the event of delay on the part of the opposite party no.1/developer in constructing and delivering the possession of the said independent house, opp.party no.1 shall be liable to pay to the complainant by way of liquidated damages, interest @ 12% p.a. on the amounts paid by the complainant, for the period of delay.
The complainant has stated in the complaint as well as in the evidence affidavit filed by him that opposite party no.1 had carried out the construction work of the independent house only 30 to 40% and that the construction is at brick work stage by the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.6.2011. The complainant got issued Ex.A8 notice to opposite party no.1. In the said notice, the complainant has categorically stated that on physical verification at site in February, 2010, it is seen that there is hardly any progress of the work, as only 30 to 40% of the work is done and it is unlikely that the construction will be completed even after two years from then, with the result the complainant is incurring huge loss as he is paying EMI of Rs.40,000/- to ICICI Bank. It is also stated in the notice that the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay liquidated damages by way of interest at 12% p.a., on the amounts paid, as per Clause 4 of the Agreement of Construction. The opposite party no.1 received the said notice but did not choose to give any reply denying the contents of Ex.A8.
As per Ex.A4, opposite party no.1 agreed to handover possession and complete the construction of house within 24 months from the date of the agreement i.e. 17.10.2007 and gets completed by 17.9.2009. Ex.A15 and Ex.B1 photographs clearly show that the construction of the house was not completed even by the date of Ex.A8 i.e. 2.3.2010. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that as per Clause 4 of the Agreement of Construction Ex.A4, the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay liquidated damages by way of interest at 12% p.a. on the amounts paid by the complainant, for the period of delay till the completed was house was handed over to the complainant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complainant established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1, though he failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 to
4. The further case of the complainant is that he approached opposite party no.5 ICICI Bank for home loan and entered into Facility Agreements with opposite party no.5 as per Ex.A6 and A7 and applied for home loan of Rs.59,37,000/-.
The opposite party no.5 has released a sum of Rs.30,99,000/- through cheque no.203547 vide Ex.A12 and Ex.A13, in favour of opposite party no.1. Subsequently, the opposite party no.5 released further sum of Rs.16,88,000/- on 6.10.2008. Thus opposite party no.5 has released a total sum of Rs.47,87,000/-
in favour of opposite party no.1.
It is therefore obvious that the opposite party no.5 has released and paid 90% of the consideration to the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.5 in its written version as well as in the evidence affidavit of his Legal Manager, has admitted that as per the norms of the bank, it agreed to sanction loan to the complainant towards the purchase of the schedule property for a sum of Rs.30,99,000/- vide loan no.LBHYDOOOO1530032 and second amount to a tune of Rs.30 lakhs but disbursed only Rs.16,88,000/- vide loan no. LBHYDOOOO1530033. However, the opposite party no.5 denied the allegation that they have released the sum without verifying the stage of construction and contended that opposite party no.5 disbursed the loan amount, upon the complainant executing the necessary loan documents. As per the requisition of the complainant and on his demand, the loan amount has been disbursed to the builder i.e. opposite party no.1. Thus there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party no.1.
As per Clause 86 D of Ex.A6, ICICI Bank will disburse the Facility for the purpose of construction of property/improvement of the property, only after the borrower commences the construction/improvement of such property and produces documentary proof to ICICI Bank. As per Clause 86 E, if the Facility has been agreed to be granted for the purpose of acquiring the Property(ies), which is under construction/for purpose of construction of the property(ies), ICICI bank may make disbursements under the Facility, in stages, as per the progress of the work, in terms of its internal norms and guidelines as applicable from time to time.
The decision of the ICICI bank in this regard shall be final and binding on the Borrower/s.
Opposite party no.5 have filed Ex.B1 to B4 to prove their case. Ex.B1 are the photographs of the stage of construction of the building, Ex.B2 the xerox copy of customer details and occupancy details signed by Technical Manager of the Bank and Exs.B3 and B4 are the xerox copies of statements of accounts from 24.4.2007 to 7.1.2012 pertaining to both the loan accounts of the complainant maintained by opposite party no.5 ICICI Bank. Opposite party no.5 have not filed any documents to show that they disbursed the loan facility sanctioned to the complainant as per Clause 86 D and 86F of Ex.A6 Facility Agreement. They did not even choose to file the disbursement request form said to have been signed by the complainant prior to the disbursement of loan instalments for release of the loan amount, each time. Even Exs.B3 and B4 do not indicate that the opposite party released the amounts, according to the stage of construction, as provided under 86D and 86F of Ex.A6 Facility Agreement.
Ex.B3 clearly shows that an amount of Rs.30,99,000/- released, at a time, on 28.9.2007 and on the same day, the amount was paid to opposite party no.1, under two cheques . As seen from Ex.B4 statement of account, an amount of Rs.16,88,000/- was sanctioned and the same amount was shown as disbursed and paid, at a time, on 30.5.2008.
Ex.A9 is the copy of the legal notice dt. 9.6.2010 got issued by the complainant through his advocate to the Manager ICICI Bank (Home Loan) and to the Manager, Head Office, ICICI Bank, Mumbai. In the said notice, it is stated that the construction of the duplex house at plot no.32 was only at the brick work stage and that as per Clause 4 of the Agreement of Construction, the developer is bound to complete the construction of the independent house and handover the same within 24 months from the date of the agreement i.e. on or before October 2009, since the agreement of construction is dt.September,2007. It is also alleged in the notice, that without verifying the stage of construction, the opposite party bank has released the loan amount, colluding with opposite party no.1 and as such, he would not pay EMIs to Bank from June,2010 as there was no progress in the construction and opposite party no.5 has failed to take any action against opp.party no.1. Ex.A10 is the reply given by the opposite party no.5 bank to Ex.A9 legal notice. In this reply notice they have not denied the allegations made by the complainant. In Ex.A11 letter opp.party no.5 simply informed that the loan amount will be disbursed after receiving the disbursal request from the loan applicants. They have not stated as to what had happened in the case of the complainant.
Because the contents of Ex.A9 are true, the opposite party no.5 Bank did not choose to deny the same. They have not stated anything in Ex.A10 reply notice that they have not violated clauses 86 D and 86F of Ex.A6 Agreement. Ex.A15 photostat copies of two photos and Ex.B1 photostat copies of the photographs of the construction in question, clearly show that the construction of the duplex house was not completed and it was at the stage of brick work. In our considered view the conduct of the officials of the opposite party no.5 in releasing the amounts, at a time, is contrary to Clauses 86D and 86F of Ex.A6 Agreement and amounts to deficiency in service.
It is the case of the complainant that he paid Rs.14,93,559/- through EMIs from 10th October 2007 till 10th May 2010, to opposite party no.5 and he has also paid Rs.10 lakhs by way of DD Dt. 2.4.2007. Thus the complainant paid total sum of Rs.24,93,559/- to opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.5 has not denied the fact that the complainant paid Rs.14,93,559/- through EMIs . Therefore, it is established that the complainant paid Rs.24,93,559/-
to opposite party no.1 . In the prayer portion of the complaint, the complainant seeking direction to opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund the sum of Rs. 16,13,559/- out of the total amount of Rs.24,93,559/- after deducting a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- paid towards the sale consideration of the plot with interest @ 18% p.a. The complainant is therefore entitled to the refund of the said amount from opposite party no.1 who is a builder but not from opposite parties 2 to 4 , who are the land owners who did not join opposite party no.1 in execution of the original of Ex.A4 Construction Agreement, with interest @ 12% p.a. from 17.9.2009 as per Clause 4 of Ex.A4 agreement, till the date of realisation In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party no.5 is liable t pay compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant in releasing the sanctioned loan amount contrary to the Clauses 86D and 86F of Ex.A6 Agreement.
It is the case of the complainant that he is an employee in USA and with fond hope of purchasing the house , he has bought the plot and entered into an agreement with opposite party no.1 for construction of duplex house by availing house loan from opposite party no.5 bank and he has been regularly paying the EMIs, but opposite party no.1 did not complete the construction of the house within time and as a result, the complainant sustained heavy loss and mental agony, therefore, he is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the opposite parties 1 to 4. As stated above the opp.parties 2 to 4 are not at all liable for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. Due to the act of opposite party no.1, the complainant suffered from mental agony. The complainant therefore is entitled to claim compensation from opposite party no.1 and not from opp.parties 2 to 4 . Further, the compensation claimed by the complainant is on higher side . In our considered view awarding of compensation of Rs.50,000/-
will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.14,93,559/- against opposite party no.5 bank which is the amount paid by the complainant to opposite party no.5 towards the EMIs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to the said amount as compensation. However it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony caused to the complainant .
In the prayer portion of the complaint, the complainant sought direction to the opposite party no.5 ICICI bank not to demand further EMIs and consequently direct opp.party no.5 to release the original sale deed dt.17.10.2007 in favour of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that opposite party no.5 released Rs.47,87,000/- in favour of opposite party no.1, out of total loan amount of Rs.59,37,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has not discharged the entire loan amount and the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.14,93,559/- to opposite party no.5 towards EMIs. It is therefore obvious that the complainant is still to repay the loan amount to opposite party no.5 .
As long as the loan is not discharged , the complainant is not entitled to seek return of original sale deed document dt.17.10.2007. Though the complainant sought direction to opposite parties 1 to 4 to deliver the duplex house in the subject plot no.32, with all the specifications mentioned in the agreement of sale, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is no hope of the completion of the construction of the house as opposite party nos.1 to 4 remained exparte and that they may take two more years to complete and that they may not complete the construction even within two years and therefore the alternative relief i.e. return of the amount of Rs.16,13,559/- may be ordered to be refunded to the complainant by opposite party no.1.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing opposite party no.1 to refund a sum of Rs.16,13,559/- out of total amount of Rs.24,93,559/- after deducting a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- paid towards the sale consideration of the plot, along with interest at 12% p.a. from 2.3.2010 till the date of realization. The opposite party 1 and opp.party no.5 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-
towards costs of the complaint.
The complaint against opposite parties 2 to 4 is dismissed without costs. Opposite parties 1 and 5 are directed to comply with the order within four weeks from the date of this order.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 15.2.2013 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined For the complainant: nil For the Opp.parties Evidence Affidavit and Addl. Evidence Affidavit of complainant filed .
Evidence Affidavit of opp.party no.5 filed.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1: Xerox copy of General Power of Attorney.
Ex.A2:
Agreement of Sale dt.19.9.2007 between OP.1 & Complt.
Ex.A3:
Development Agreement dt. 27.9.2007 between OP.1 & Complt Ex.A4:Agreement of Construction executed in September,2007 between complainant and opp.party no.1.
Ex.A5 : Sale Deed dt. 17.10.3007 between opp.parties and complt.
Ex.A6 : Facility Agreement Ex.A7 : Facility Agreement.
Ex.A8:Copy of notice dt.2.3.2010 by the complt. to opp.party no.1.
Ex.A9:
Copy of legal notice dt.9.6.2010 by complt. to opp.party no.5.
Ex.A10:Reply legal notice dt.18.6.2010 from opp.party no.5 to Complt.
Ex.A11:Reply legal notice dt.16.8.2010 from opp.party no.5 to Complt.
Ex.A12:ICICI Bank endorsement regarding Cheque no.203547 Ex.A13:
ICICI Bank endorsement regarding Cheque no.203548.
Ex.A14:
letter issued by opp.party no.5 to complainant Ex.A15 : Photostat copies of photos (two nos.) Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite party no.5 :
Ex.B1 : Xerox copies of photographs showing stage of construction.
Ex.B2 : Customer details and occupancy details signed by Technical Manager of ICICI Home Finance Co.Ltd.
Ex.B3 : Statement of account of complt. with regard to agreement no.
LBHYD00001530032 issued by ICICI Bank.
Ex.B4 : Statement of account of complt. with regard to agreement no.
LBHYD00001530033 issued by ICICI Bank.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER PM* 15.2.2013