Bangalore District Court
Mr.L.John Chandran vs M/S Brigade Metropolis on 31 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63) BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2019
PRESENT:
Sri Parameshwara Prasanna,
B.A.LL.B.,
LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O.S.No.606/2017
PLAINTIFF: Mr.L.John Chandran,
S/o late S.Lawrence,
Aged about 44 years,
M/s Pyramid Engineering,
No.45, 2nd cross,
Green Park Layout,
Banasawadi,
Bengaluru-560 043
[By Sri.S.Vishwajith Shetty,
Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: M/s Brigade Metropolis
Apartment
Owners Welfare Association,
Whitefield road,
Garudacharpalya,
Mahadevapura post,
Bengaluru-560 048
Represented by its
President
[By Sri.KNM, Advocate]
2 O.S.606/2017
Date of institution of the : 23.01.2017
suit
Nature of the suit : Money Suit
Date of commencement of : 19.04.2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 31.01.2019
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
02 00 08
(Parameshwara
Prasanna.B)
LXII ACC & S.J, B'LORE.
JUDGMENT
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.11,65,517.25 from the defendant together with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit till realization.
2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the plaint is that, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of work order dated 23.11.2013 with the defendant, for constructing a Community Hall inside the premises of defendant-Association. The total value of the work order initially entrusted to the plaintiff was Rs.13,61,800/-. Subsequently, certain changes were made in the construction plan of community hall, as per 3 O.S.606/2017 the directions of the defendant's architect and with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff carried out the additional work assigned to him. That as per the terms of work order, the plaintiff completed the works by end of January 2014 except finishing touches to the extent of 2 to 5% of the work. Since the plaintiff was suffering from kidney stone issue, he could not complete the remaining 2 to 5% balance work. The plaintiff has under
gone Gallbladder surgery on 03.02.2014 in St. Philomenas hospital, Richmond road, Bangalore. That in- spite of plaintiff apprising the defendant the fact about his illness and admission in the hospital, the defendant by taking coercive step unilaterally cancelled /terminated the work order and workers of the plaintiff were not permitted to enter into the premises of the defendant and to complete the remaining work. The hand tools equipments belonging to the plaintiff at the site were also not handed over to the plaintiff and his men and hand tools and raw materials were also locked inside the community hall by the defendant. That in- respect of the work done by the plaintiff, the plaintiff on
03.03.2014 has submitted the invoices for a total 4 O.S.606/2017 amount of Rs.15,16,493/- to the defendant. Out of the said amount, the total amount paid by the defendant as on 03.03.2014 was Rs. 10,50,000/-. That as on 03.03.2014 a sum of Rs.5,63,493/- was due from the defendant towards work done by the plaintiff. The defendant has illegally retained the hand tools belonging to the plaintiff worth of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant is liable to pay interest @ 18% on the balance amount of Rs.5,63,493/-. In addition to the hand tools, the defendant has forfeited the raw-materials worth of Rs.1,00,000/- belonging to the plaintiff. That due to unilateral termination of the contract, the plaintiff has suffered a loss, for which, the defendant is liable to pay damage of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.11,65,517.25 from the defendant and particulars of his claim are as under:
Payment due in respect of the 5,63, 493-00 work done as on 03.03.2014 Interest on the said amount since 2,62,024-25 03.03.2014 upto date at 18% per annum Value of the hand tools belonging 50,000-00 to the plaintiff which was forfeited by the defendant Value of the surplus raw materials 1,00,000-00 5 O.S.606/2017 available at site which were forfeited by the defendant Value of the loss sustained by the 2,00,000-00 plaintiff due to unilateral termination of the Contract Total 11,65,517-25 That the plaintiff issued notice dated 02.04.2014 to the defendant for permitting him to complete the pending work, but surprisingly the defendant by issuing reply notice, refused the request of the plaintiff. Since the defendant has not paid the aforesaid amount claimed by the plaintiff, according to the plaintiff he has been constrained to file suit for recovery of Rs.11,65,517.25/-.
3. After admitting of the suit, the summons issued to the defendant and the defendant appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement by raising counter claim. In the written statement, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the work order dated 23.11.2013 issued by it in-favour of plaintiff. The defendant terminated the work order dated 23.11.2013, by issuing a letter dated 25.02.2014 as the plaintiff had failed to meet the agreed time schedule and 6 O.S.606/2017 workmanship did not meet with expectations of the defendant-association. It is further urged that while terminating the work order dated 23.11.2013 it was also informed to the plaintiff that as per accounts maintained with the defendant an excess payment of Rs.1,21,431/- was made in the payment of Rs.10,50,000/- that was already disbursed to the plaintiff, in-respect of the work done and completed till the date of disbursement. It is further contended that the plaintiff has abandoned the project and work assigned to him and the works mentioned in serial numbers 1, 13-16, 18-21, 25-38 and 42 of the work order were not completed and the works at serial numbers 17 and 22-24 were never commenced by the plaintiff. The defendant has sent an E-mail on 06.02.2014 and postal notice on 24.03.2014 asking the plaintiff to come to the spot and take measurements with the help of architects and settle the payment on the basis of actual work and measurements on works executed by him. The plaintiff never complied with the demands of the defendant. As per the report given by external agency appointed by the defendant to review the value of work done by the 7 O.S.606/2017 plaintiff, the actual cost of work along with the material at site and applicable taxes was Rs.9,28,569/- and defendant had paid Rs.10,50,000/- to the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant is not liable to pay Rs.11,65,517.25,, since the plaintiff has received an excess amount of Rs.1,21,431/- from the defendant, the defendant has raised the counter claim. Inter-alia on these grounds, the defendant prays for dismissing the suit and by way of counter claim the defendant seeks for judgment and decree, directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,431/- to the defendant.
4. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11 and during cross-
examination on confrontation defendant got marked Ex.D.1. In order to prove its defence and the counter claim the defendant got examined Mr. S. Manoharan, the President of defedant's Association as DW.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D.2 to D.35.
5. Heard arguments of both the sides. The counsel for plaintiffs and the defendants in addition to 8 O.S.606/2017 oral arguments, submitted the written arguments. Perused the entire documents on record and the written arguments filed onbehalf of the parties.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, this court has framed the following Issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that a sum of Rs.11,65,517=25 ps. is due from defendant to him?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the plaint?
(3) Whether the defendant proves that a sum of Rs.1,21,431/- is due from the plaintiff to the defendant?
(4) Whether the defendant is entitled for reliefs sought for in the counter claim?
(5) What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Points No.1 & 2: In the Negative;
Points No.3 & 4: In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per final order;
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NOs 1 & 2 : Since issue No.1 and 2
are
inter-connected with each other, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
9 O.S.606/2017
The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.11,65,517/- from the defendant together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Where as the defendant in their counter claim sought for recovery of Rs.1,21,431/- from the plaintiff.
9. The plaintiff claims that even though the value of the work order initially entrusted to the plaintiff as per Ex.P.1 dated 23.11.2013 was Rs.13,61,800/-, subsequently certain changes were made in the construction plan of Community Hall as per the directions of defendant's Architect and with the consent of the defendant the plaintiff carried out additional work assigned to him. And he further claims that he completed the works by the end of January 2014 except finishing touches to the extent of 2 to 5% of the work. He contends that as he was suffering from Kidney stone issue and as he undergone Gallbladder Surgery on 3.2.2014 in St. Philomena hospital, Richmond road, Bengaluru he could not complete the remaining 2 to 5% balance work. The plaintiff contends that eventhough the defendant was aware about admission of the plaintiff 1 O.S.606/2017 0 to the hospital defendant by taking coercive step illegally cancelled/terminated the work order by issuing the letter dated 25.2.2014. The defendant not permitted the workers of the plaintiff to enter into the premises of the defendant for completing the remaining work and the equipment and raw-materials belonging to the plaintiff at the site were also not handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that in respect of the work done by him he submitted Ex.P. 10 invoice on 3.3.2014 to the defendant for a total sum of Rs.15,16,493/- and he claims that out of the said amount the total amount paid by the defendant as on 3.3.2014 was Rs.10,50,000/-. The plaintiff claims balance of Rs.5,63,493/- towards work done and he claims Rs.2,62,024=25 paise as 18% interest p.a. on the said amount from 3.3.3014. Further the plaintiff claims Rs.50,000/- towards the equipments/hand tools alleged to have forfeited by the defendant and he also claims Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the surplus raw materials alleged to have forfeited by the defendant. Further plaintiff claims Rs.2,00,000/- towards alleged damage sustained by him due to unilaterial termination of the contract. Thus, the total amount 1 O.S.606/2017 1 claimed by the plaintiff in this suit is Rs.11,65,517=25 paise.
10. Where as the defendant in their written statement contends that as per the Ex.P.1 original work order given to the plaintiff, the value of the work is Rs.13,61,800/- and out of it the defendant has paid total sum of Rs.10,50,000/-. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff without adhering to the terms and conditions of the work order dated 23-11-2013 abandoned the project and the work assigned to the plaintiff was never completed. The defendant claims that the works mentioned in Sl.No.1, 131-6, 18-21, 25-38 and 42 were not completed and works shown in Sl.No.17 and 22 to 24 of Ex.P.1 were never commenced by the plaintiff and the defendant claims that the defendant terminated the Ex.P.1 work order dated 23.11.2013 by issuing Ex.P.2 letter dated 25.2.2014, As the plaintiff had failed to meet the agreed time schedules and the workmanship sheet did not meet with the expectations of the defendant's association. It is further contended tat the plaintiff was in habit of collecting money without completing the work and also not providing any 1 O.S.606/2017 2 validation to the completion of any of the works through a Architects. It is further contended that the defendant has sent a E-mail i.e. Ex.D.11 dated 6.2.2014 and postal notice dated 24.3.2014 asking the plaintiff to come to the spot and take measurements with the help of architects and settle the payments on the basis of actual work and measurements on the works executed by him. But the plaintiff never complied with the said demand of the defendant. The defendant further contends that the defendant engaged external agency to review the work done by the plaintiff and to provide the report and as per the said report the actual cost of the completed work along with material at site and taxes is Rs.9,28,569/- where as the defendant had paid an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- to the plaintiff and hence according to defendant they are constrained to seek the recovery of excess amount of Rs.1,21,431/- from the plaintiff by way of counter claim. The defendant further claims that they by paying Rs.5,59,658/- to the others they got completed the remaining balance work of the said project.
1 O.S.606/20173
11. In the instant case, entrusting of construction work of Community Hall to the plaintiff by the defendant as per Ex.P.1 and its termination by the defendant by executing Ex.P. 2 notice and payment of Rs.10,50,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff towards project work are not in dispute. The plaintiff's claims that even though the value of work initially entrusted to him was Rs.13,61,800/- subsequently certain changes were made in the construction plan of Community Hall as per the direction of defendant's architect and with the consent of the defendant the plaintiff carried out additional work assigned to him and he claims that the total value of the work done by him as per Ex.P.10 invoice is Rs.15,16,493/-. The said claim of the plaintiff is denied by the defendant and the defendant contends that the plaintiff has over billed the defendant without due certification from their architect and excess payment of Rs.1,21,431/- was made in the payment of Rs.10,50,000/- that was already disbursed to the plaintiff towards project work.
1 O.S.606/20174
12. The P.W. 1 in his cross-examination recorded on 23.2.2018 has admitted that as per Ex.P. 1 work order the total value of work entrusted to him was Rs.13,61,800/- and he also admitted that except Ex.P. 1 work order no other revised work order was given by the defendant to him. Further P.W. 1 admits that he has received Rs.10,50,000/- from the defendant towards project work. He further admits that Ex.P. 1 work order has been terminated by the defendant by issuing Ex.P. 2 letter dated 25.2.2014.
13. Admittedly, even according to the plaintiff entire work mentioned in Ex.P. 1 is not completed. P.W. 1 in his cross-exxmination recorded on 18.1.2018 confirmed with in Ex.P. 4 notice issued by him to the defendant, it is mentioned that 2.5% project work was pending. He stated that out of 30 items of work mentioned in Ex.P. 1 he has completed 21 items of the work and on that basis he has claimed in Ex.P. 4 that only 2 to 4% of the working was pending. In Ex.P. 10 invoice description of work shown under Sl.No.1 to 42. The defendant has 1 O.S.606/2017 5 disputed the correctness of Ex.P. 10. No document produced by the plaintiff to show that defendant entrusted the additional works mentioned in Ex.P. 10 invoice and he himself has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that except Ex.P. 1 no other revise work order entrusted by the defendant to him. In page No.14 of his deposition P.W. 1 admitted that as per Ex.D.1 E-mail he has confirmed that Smt. Meghana Srivatsava, Director and Chief Architect of M/s New Arch Design Consultants (P) Ltd., was the architect in charge of said project and she had to certify and pass the bills first and after which he received payment from the defendant. In page No.10 of his deposition P.W. 1 stated that he does not know that Ex.P. 10 is not certified by the architect. In Ex.D1. E-Mail issued by P.W.1 to the aforesaid Meghana Srivatsava P.W. 1 has admitted that the Meghana Srivatsava is the incharge Engineer for the said project and she used to certify the bills before making of payment by the defendant. Admittedly Ex.P. 10 invoice/bill is not certified by the incharge architect/engineer Meghana Srivatsava. In page No.14 of his deposition P.W.1 stated that he has sent copy of 1 O.S.606/2017 6 Ex.P. 10 to Smt. Meghana Srivatsava but she has not intimated him regarding the confirmation of Ex.P. 10.
14. In Ex.P. 3 letter dated 24.3.2014 issued by the defendant to the 1st plaintiff, the defendant stated that there are several discrepancy in Ex.P. 10 invoice and in Ex.P. 3 defendant requested the plaintiff to certify his claim through proper bills and measurement.
15. The oral and documentary evidence in this case shows that Smt. Meghana Srivatsava was the architect mutually selected by both the parties to supervise the work and to certify the work prior to release of payment in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.10 invoice is not certified by Smt. Meghana Srivatsava or by any other architect. The plaintiff has not got certified and approved the Ex.P. 10 invoice through the concerned architect/ by engineer. Even the plaintiff has not summoned or examined the said Smt. Meghana Srivatsava or any other architect to certify the correctness of Ex.P. 10 invoice. Since Ex.P. 10 is not 1 O.S.606/2017 7 certified and approved by architect )Expert) the claim made there in cannot be accepted.
16. The defendant in their written statement has specifically contended that the works mentioned in Sl.No.1, 131-6, 18-21, 25-38 and 42 are not completed and works at Sl.No.17, 22-24, were never commenced by the plaintiff and as such the question of billing the defendant for these works do not arise. To substantiate the said contention, the defendant has produced the photographs showing the incomplete work done by the plaintiff which are marked at Ex.D.16 to D.33. During the cross-examination of DW.1 no suggestion was put to the DW.1 by denying the said photographs. Hence, those photographs remains unchallenged and undisputed and the same substantiate that the plaintiff has not completed the work assigned to him. The material on record shows that the defendant has sent Ex.D.11 E-mail dated 6.2.2014 asking the plaintiff to come to the spot and take measurement with the help of architect and settle the payments on the basis of actual and measurements on the works executed by him but the plaintiff has not produced any document to show 1 O.S.606/2017 8 that he has complied with the demands made by defendant in Ex.D.11. Except Ex.P. 10 invoice and the self serving evidence of P.W. 1 there is no other document to show that the plaintiff has carried out the work worth Rs.15,16,493/-. The plaintiff has acknowledged receipt of Rs.10,50,000/- and claims the balance of Rs.5,63,493/- towards work done and Rs. 2,62,024-25 paise as interest on the said amount at the rate of 18% p.a. Since the Ex.P.10 is not certified by the architect, the balance amount of Rs.5,63,493/- from the defendant to the plaintiff is not established. As such the question of the defendant paying the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the alleged balance due does not arise.
17. The plaintiff claims Rs.50,000/- towards hand tools/equipments and Rs.1,00,000/- towards surplus raw material alleged to have forfeited by the defendant. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not mentioned the description of the equipments and the raw materials in the plaint and even the list of the alleged hand tools/raw materials has not been produced by the plaintiff. The P.W. 1 in page No.16 of his deposition admitted that he has not produced the list of equipment and its value to 1 O.S.606/2017 9 establish that the equipment worth Rs.50,000/- has been left in the premises of the defendant. No bills pertaining to hand tools/equipments/raw materials has been produced by the plaintiff. There is no cogent and acceptable evidence to show that the raw materials worthRs.1,00,000/- and equipment/hand tools worth Rs.50,000/- forfeited by the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards damage alleged to have sustained by him due to unilateral termination of the contract by the defendant. The P.W. 1 at page No.16 of his deposition admitted that he has not produced any document before the court to show that he has suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the termination of contract.
18. As per Section 73 and 74 of Indian Contract Act read with Section 101 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his claim/loss which he has alleged to have suffered. But in the case on hand, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden due to want of lack of pleading and evidence. It is settled law that until and unless the party proves the damage actually incurred by him, he is not entitled for damage. 2 O.S.606/2017 0 The plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled for recovery of Rs.11,65,517-25 ps. from the defendant. Hence, I have answered the point No1 and 2 in the negative.
19. ISSUE No. 3 & 4:- The defendant claims that since the plaintiff had failed to meet the time schedule and workman did not meet the expectations of defendant's association, the defendant terminated the Ex.P. 1 work order by issuing Ex.P. 2 notice dated 25.2.2014. The defendant's claims that as per the accounts maintained by the defendants an excess payment of Rs.1,21,431/- was made in the payment of Rs.10,50,000/- that was already disbursed to the plaintiff in respect of workdone and by way of counter claim the defendant seeks for recovery of alleged excess payment of Rs.1,21,431/- from the plaintiff.
20. As per the defendant work done by the plaintiff was supervised by architect Smt. Meghana Srivatsava and it is the case of the defendant that the payment of the bill submitted by the plaintiff was being made after its approval by the said architect. But the 2 O.S.606/2017 1 alleged excess payment of Rs.1,21,431/- has not been approved or certified by the architect Smt. Meghana Srivatsava. In Ex.D.11 -E-mail issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, it alleged that an external agency was appointed to review the work done by the plaintiff and to provide a report and as per the report the actual cost of work done along with the materials at the site and the applicable taxes was Rs.9,28569/- and hence, the defendant has paid excess amount of Rs.1,21,431/-. Which is that external agency appointed to assess the value work of the plaintiff has not been stated in Ex.D.1. Even no report of the external agency has been produced to show that the actual costs of the work completed along with material at site and applicable taxes is only Rs.9,25,559/-. Even the person who alleged to have assessed the cost of completed work along with has not been examined by the defendant. The defendant during the cross-examination of P.W. 1 has claimed that after the cancellation of work order as per Ex.P.2 the defendant got completed the balance project work through others by spending total amount of Rs.5,59,658/-. The defendant has produced Ex.D.12 2 O.S.606/2017 2 which is a letter issued by one Bastiram, the interior contractor who has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.3,13,370/- from the defendant towards completion of certain pending works and the defendant has produced Ex.D.13 issued by one Mirhasan Ali dated 15.3.2014 wherein he has acknowledged receipt of Rs.1,24,857/- from the defendant in respect of painting work carried out in the Community Hall. But the persons who issued Ex.D.12 and 13 have not been examined by the defendant to prove the said payments. During the cross- examination of P.W. 1 it is alleged that Mr. Anil Danti was the President of defendant at the tme of entrusting of the Ex.P.1 work order to the plaintiff but the aforesaid Anil Danti has not been examined by the defendant to prove the alleged excess payment. There is no cogent and reliable documentary evidence to show that the defendant has paid the excess amount of Rs.1,21,431/-. Thus the defendant has failed to prove that he has paid the excess amount of Rs.1,21,431/-. Hence, I have answered the issue Nos.3 and 4 are in the negative. 2 O.S.606/2017 3
21. ISSUE NO.5: In view of the above discussions and my finding to the Issue Nos.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff and the counter claim of the defendant are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her and then corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2019).
[Parameshwara Prasanna.B.] LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 L.John Chandran
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 S. Manoharan 2 O.S.606/2017 4
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 Work Order dated 23.11.2013
Ex.P.2 Work order termination
dtd:25.02.2014
Ex.P.3 Letter dated 24.3.2016 issued by
the
defendant
Ex.P.4 Office copy of Legal notice
dated
02.04.2014
Ex.P.5 Reply to the legal notice
dt.23.4.2014
Ex.P.6 office copy of Notice dated
16.11.2016
Ex.P.7 Postal receipt
Ex.P.8 RPAD acknowledgment
Ex.P.9 Discharge summary
Ex.P.10 Invoice
Ex.P.11 Print out of e-mail correspondence.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant/s:
Ex.D.1 Print out of E-mail sent by the plaintiff to Meghana Srivatsava Ex.D.2 Original copy of the purchase order approved No.346 Ex.D.4 to D.6 - Payment vouchers 3 in numbers Ex.D.7 Office copy of the Cheque bearing No.372774 dtd. 18.1.2014 for Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.D.8 Statement of account from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 Ex.D.9 Original copy of the termination of the work order dated 25.2.2014 along with reconciliation statement.
Ex.D.10 Original invoice submitted by pyramid engineering dated 3.3.2014 along with the e-mail dtd. 6.3.2014.
Ex.D.11 Copy of the e-mail dated 6.2.2014 2 O.S.606/2017 5 Ex.D.12 The letter dated 11.3.2014 issued by Bsthi Ram Interior Contractor.
Ex.D.13 Letter dated 15.3.2014 issued by Mirhasan Ali Ex.D.14 C/c of the registration certificate of the Defendant association.
Ex.D.15 Certified extract of the Announcements of result of the elections to the Managing Committee of the Defendant for the year 2017-18.
Ex.D.16 to D.34 - 19 photographs
Ex.D.35 C.D.
[Parameshwara
Prasanna.B.]
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge BANGALORE.
Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate Judgment) The suit of the plaintiff and the counter claim of the defendant are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge BANGALORE.
2 O.S.606/20176 Salary particulars of Smt. G. Sujatha, Judgment Writer, City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
(CCH 63) Sl. Months Basic Pay D.A. H.R.A. Total L.I.C. G.P.F. No. Gross 1. Apr. 2018 29,600 13,394 8,800 52,549 751 20,000 2. May. 2018 29,600 13,394 8,800 52,549 751 20,000 3. June 2018 52,650 - 12,636 65,611 751 20,000 4. July 2018 52,650 921 12,636 67,032 751 20,000 5. Aug. 2018 52,650 921 12,636 67,032 751 20,000