State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Residents Welfare Association vs Vice Chairman And Housing Commissioner on 11 February, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD. C.D.No.4 OF 2008 Between: Residents Welfare Association, Regd. No.1631/1007 Sanskruti Township, Hyderabad-500 008 Represented by its General Secretary Sri M.Raghava Rao. ..Complainant And Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad-500 001. Opposite party For the Complainant: Mr.M.Raghava Rao, Party in person Counsel for the Opposite party: Mr.J.Prabhakar. QUORUM:THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** The complainant is the Residents Welfare Association, represented by its General Secretary and opposite party is Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, a statutory body constituted under Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956. Opposite party to meet the growing demand for residential accommodation gave advertisements in different news papers and issued brochures in the year 2003 about Singapore Class Integrated Township Phase I, 4 types, 2080 flats at Pocharam. The Township has been renamed as Sanskruti Township with design, construction and architectural services by M/s.CESMA INTERNATIONAL during the year 2005. The complainant submitted that they were given to understand that the township will be having modern facilities as mentioned in the Newspapers Ads and brochures and the construction will be as per International Standard and the flats will be delivered in 24 months i.e. before 11-3-2005. The complainant submitted that APHB has collaborated with Cesma International, a wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore Housing and Development Board to develop a self contained township in line with clean, green progressive township of Singapore Quality living with the provision of advanced infrastructure and well distributed facilities. Sanskruti Township at Pocharam, Hyderabad was only 8 kilometers away from Uppal, Hyderabad with landscaped gardens, club house, adjoining IT park, come Home to Rediscover Life. Block Type A-MIG 704 flats, HIG 704 flats, B High 192 Flats, C HIG 320 flats, PH 40 flats, D Duplex 120 flats Total 64 blocks, 2080 Flats. In this Township-in the park you have about 74% open space and only 26% ground coverage and all apartment units are independent with ample ventilation and no common walls. Special care has been taken to create landscaped pockets in between blocks that will not be disturbed by vehicular traffic with the following facilities:
1.
This project is the first of its kind in the country
2. World renowned CESMA International, Singapore has not only designed the township but also taken up its execution
3. The project is being executed on fast track for completion in 18 months
4. Designed as per vaasthu
5. An integrated township with all modern facilities like swimming pool, club house, sewerage treatment plant, school and commercial centre
6. Construction with high quality specifications
7. 10 passenger automatic door lift for each block comprising of 32 units
8. Lights and fans in common areas
9. Fully underground water, electrical water supply an sewerage lines.
10. Secondary roof over terrace for heat insulation
11. Environment friendly sewerage treatment point
12. Room with attached toilet in stilt floor of each block for common use.
The complainant submitted that as per terms and conditions, the allotment will be made by draw of lots after full payment.
i) Maintenance and upkeep of common areas, facilities etc. the residents shall form a Residents Society
ii) Maintenance and upkeep of common areas and structures therein along with facilities to be provided to the allottees shall be undertaken initially by the Board for a maximum period of two years.
iii) One time fixed maintenance corpus find shall be payable to the Board at the time of possession and on formation of the Residents society, balances, if any of maintenance corpus fund shall be transferred to the society.
The complainant submitted that possession shall be given after full payment of the cost along with all other dues, charges, fees, one time maintenance amount, maintenance corpus fund etc. and after execution of sale deed. Specifications given in the brochure are as follows:
Foundation & Structures:
R.C.C. Framed structure Walls: Brick masonry with cement mortar Plastering:Luppam finish for all inside walls & sponge finish for all external Walls Doors: Custom designed shutters for main door. Commercial flush Shutters for inside doors.
Windows: Glazed aluminum powder coated windows with safety grills Flooring: Good quality ceramic tiles Toilets:Anti Skid Ceramic tiles with ceramic tile dadooing upto 2.1 M Height & sanitary fixtures Kitchen: Polished green marble, stainless steel sink & wall dadooing Painting: Inside coloring with two coats of plastic emulsion, External Walls with cement based paint and Joinery with enamel painting Electrical: Concealed wiring with adequate points for T.V. telephone, Power points & provision for geyser in toilets.
Lift: Ten passenger automatic door lift for each block Fire Fighting: Provision for fire fighting equipment at appropriate places and requisite norms.
Security System: Security posts at suitable locations.
The complainant submitted that having been attracted by the technical specifications and price of 4 types of 2080 flats and modern facilities promised by opposite party through advertisements and brochures, members of the Complainant Association with good faith on opposite party pooled all their resources and purchased the flats in the Township. When the flats were allotted, the allottees paid the consideration as per terms agreed upon and took delivery of flats. After taking delivery, they found that the promises mentioned in the brochures and advertisements in the news paper in the year 2003 published by A.P. Housing Board has not been fulfilled. They started living in the flats from June 2005 and many construction defects have come to light during the past two and half years due to which the maintenance became very big problem. The poor standard is on account of use of substandard materials, bad workmanship, lack of proper water curing at the time of construction, defective design and construction, poor or total lack of supervision, designing defects are very noticeable in the bath rooms, kitchen, service area water, sewerage lines, ducts, internal roads. For example there is no anti-skid flooring in the bath rooms, P.V.C. Main water pipe lines are leaking within the walls and ducts etc. creating electrical short circuit and health hazards problems.
The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly appointed a House Committee in the year 2006. The members of the House committee visited the township along with Vice Chairman and engineers of A.P.Housing Board on 8-11-2006, 300 residents represented to the committee and brought to their notice the deficiency in service, construction defects and non provision of common facilities in the township etc. The Residents represented to the Vice Chairman, A.P.Housing board to form a Owners Association through their letters dated 26-3-2007 and 30-8-2007 and correspondence was made through letters addressed to the Vice Chairman, A.P.Housing Board by letters dated 26-3-2007, 30-8-2007, 15-9-2007, 7-11-2007, 12-11-2007, 19-11-2007, 84 flats claim letters from 30-11-2007 to 30-12-2007, 22-12-2007 which did not yield any result.
The complainant submitted that they purchased flats from A.P.Housing board and are consumers. A house is expected to be well built which would not have any construction defects either patent or latent. Such defects were brought to the notice of the Officers of the Board from time to time and the Association had addressed letters, defects were tabulated and intimated to the Vice Chairman through claim letters by the residents and Association. No reply has been given by opposite party till date in respect on actions taken on receipt of grievances on 15-9-2007. The Association requested the Board to appoint a joint inspection committee to list out the defects and to supervise the maintenance of the buildings and Townships on 15-9-2007 but no response was received from the Board till date. The residents filed their claims of compensation due to deficiency in service and defects in construction to the opposite party from 30-11-2007 and the Association had estimated the break up on receipt of claims from 84 residents and submitted to the Board on 22-12-2007 for Rs.99,22,000/-. The complainant association issued final notice on 2-1-2008 about the deficiency in service, construction defects and non provision of common facilities in the township etc. The complainant submitted that Leakages/dampness in walls and ducts health hazards. These defects appeared as patent and latent construction defects due to the mistakes in design, construction and use of sub standard material, bad workmanship. This defect had occurred subsequent to the use of the flat. So far 600 flats occupied out of 2080 other owners have not occupied due to delay in construction of IT park, lack of school, college, transport, Medical, Shopping, club house which were promised by housing board in the year 2001, 2003, 2006 brochures. The 84 residents had spent Rs.99,22,000/- for rectifying the construction defects. The association is entitled to recover this amount from the A.P.Housing Board.
Details of claims:
As per specifications of the Brochure and Newspaper Advertisement of the A.P.H.B. dt.11-4-2003:
Toilets: Antiskid ceramic tiles should have been used for flooring of toilets. But actually normal floor tiles only have been used. It is found that these tiles are slipping and a few of the residents have fallen down due to slipping needing medical treatment. It is further noted that proper slopes are not provided for the floor tiling, leading to stagnation of water in the bathrooms which is also a cause for slipping and also water coming into Bed rooms and hall. As such in view of the need for replacement of floor, tiles this requires to be compensated. In view of the necessity of replacement of floor tiles of toilets, it is necessary to replace wall tiles and relaying of plumbing work, replacement of additional sanitary fittings installed by the individuals. Due to faulty design, the wash basin and top marble slab provided in the master bath room are sinking down. They have to be replaced with pedestal type wash basin. The concealed water pipelines from duct to bath room and internal lines in bath rooms and kitchen have been carried out with substandard PVC pipes and bad workmanship resulting in leakages in the walls. The leakages are persisting even after repairs by the APHB two/three times since two years on the oral requests of the residents till date. As such, they need replacement with good quality galvanized iron (GI) pipes and fittings, which is a proven system rationally for Indian conditions in the buildings. Replacement with G.I. pipes also needs replacement of wall cladding tiles.
Further, it also requires for replacement of electrical points and wiring provided in this area before repairing of bath rooms as per Estimates given below.
1.
HIG, DUPLEX, PENTHOUSE HAVING THREE BATH ROOMS IT WILL COST Rs.1,13,180/-
2. MIG IS HAVING TWO BATH ROOMS IT WILL COST Rs.77,120/-.
Removal of Existing Tiles:
Master Bed Toilet: MIG 7.4 x 4.11=37 sft.
HIG 7.5x5.25=39 sft.
Wall Tiles Size of toilet 7x20 =140sft.
Removal of toilet tiles 178 sft x Rs.20 per sft. 3,560 Removal of sanitary, electrical fittings and geysers etc. 3,000 Removal of existing PVC canceled water lines in the walls 3,000 Supply, fixing of ISI galvanized iron pipelines and fittings 9,000 Supply and fixing of antiskid floor tiles 40 sft x Rs.75 sft. 3,000 Supply and fixing of ceramic wall cladding tiles in the toilet 140 sft x Rs.75 sft. 10,500 Supply and fixing of sanitary items and Pedestal wash basin 5,000 Supply and fixing of electrical items 1,000 Supply and painting of walls 2,000 Leakages of aluminum windows etc. 1,000 41,060 2nd Toilet 36,060 3rd Toilet 36,060 HIG, Duple, Pent house 1,13,180 MIG Master Toilet 41,060/- + 2nd Toilet 36,060 77,120 The complainant submits that because of non release of the funds by the opposite party, the complainant was forced to suffer with defective flats, non availability of modern facilities and health hazards. The complainant submitted that the opposite party refusing to pay the claim amount in whole is arbitrary and in gross violation of the sprit of the consumer laws . Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party
i) to pay the complainant the sum of Rs.99,22,000/-
ii) to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses he incurred in making correspondence on the issues
iii) to pay Rs.50,000/-
towards mental agony/suffering.
iv) to pay costs of the petition
v) to appoint a Advocate Commission or Approved Engineer to inspect the construction defects and to estimate in the flats at Sanskruthi Township, Hyderabad.
vi) Grant such any other orders and further reliefs as the Honble State Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the complainant is not a consumer and that there is no privity of contract or obligations as between the complainant and them and the complaint is to be dismissed on this ground alone. They further submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reason that the complainant as such has no grievance as per the complaint and the complaint is certain individuals having certain grievances. Each individual has a separate and distinct and personal grievance as against them which the individual owner has to get redressed. Further, merely by complaining different individual claims, who are not parties to the complaint and who as seen from the record available did not give any express authority cannot combine together to enhance the valuation so as to bring the same within the purview of the jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground and also non joinder of proper parties and cause of action(s). Some of the parties on whose behalf the complaint is alleged to be taking up the cause are not the owners of the flats and they have no locus stand to make any complaints. An association styled Residents Welfare Association and another association viz. Singapore Class (Sanskruti) Township Welfare Association are operating on their own without there being any authority. All the owners of the flats are yet to form the society as per the terms and conditions of the sale and the same is under process.
Mr.M.Raghava Rao, the alleged general secretary to the complaint himself does not own any flat in the Sanskruti township and has no authority to be the office bearer and prosecute the complaint on behalf of the association. He has been instigating the residents by collecting individual signatures by visiting their flats.
A perusal of the byelaws of the association will clearly show that the owners of the flats are not the only members and as such any welfare association of the township can comprise of only the owners and not third parties. The rules and regulations are very vogue and do not cater to the needs of the owners of Sanskruti Township Flats. It is to be noted that virtually the persons named in the managing committee are the ones figuring in the alleged extraordinary general body meeting. The names are virtually the same, clearly showing poor response and members on the part of the complainant.
Further as against 2080 flats, as seen from the general body, even assuming to be correct, only the names of 58 people figure but all of them are not owners. Even among this 58 names, 11 members have not signed the resolution. A detailed statement is annexed (Annexure-i) herewith showing the persons who are not owners of the flats from out of general body resolution, therefore, the allegations of the complaint are not correct and the complaint is not maintainable. They admitted that they delivered possession of the flats as per its promise, the allegation that after delivery of possession, APHB did not fulfill the promises are not correct. They denied the allegation of defects in construction, use of substandard material, bad workmanship, lack of proper water curing at the time of construction, defective design and construction, poor or total lack of supervision etc. They submitted that the further allegations about defects in the bathrooms, kitchen, service area, water, sewerage lines, ducts, internal roads are all incorrect. They submitted that the bathroom have been provided with SPARTEK make antiskid tiles i.e. REGENCY make CR 23 tiles and SPARTEK make ASIY tiles and they are antiskid tiles. They have used CHLORONATE POLY VINYL CHLORIDE pipes for water supply and these pipes were introduced by the company named ASTRAL POLY TECHNIK LTD. under license from VUBRIZOL (formerly NOVEON, USA) under brand name ASTRAL FLOW GUARD CPVC. Even as per agreement, as between the APHB, CESMA International Pvt. Ltd. CPVC pipes are to be installed for water supply and are made from speciality plastic chemical known as CHLORONATED POLY VINYL CHLORIDE. They are much superior to regular PVC pipes which are normally used by builders earlier. Presently the builders are using the CPVC pipes for its better quality an the life of CPVC pipes is more than 50 years when compared to GI pipes which is 20 to 30 years and are enclosing the product catalogue of ASTRAL, which would clearly show the correct facts. In so far as the leakages are concerned, the reason is totally different and is not in the magnanimity in which it is now sought to be made out by the complainant. It is submitted that in a venture of this magnitude, some leakages here and there are usual, the facilitator is attending to this work.
However, there has been serious impediment in carrying out the leakage work at the joints as the occupancy of the flats is not full and consequently if the water is leaking from upper floor, and the subject flat is not occupied, it becomes difficult for the facilitator to attend to the work as access to the problem area is prevented. This is not in the hands of the APHB or facilitator in as much as the possession and keys of the flat are already handed over to the concerned allottee. In order to find a solution to this problem, APHB has already issued a press note and also placed the same in APHB website requesting the allottees to handover one set of keys to the facilitator to enable it to attend to repair works as and when necessary and that they are prepared to look into this aspect and plan some alternatives.
Opposite party submitted that the House Committee of Legislative Assembly did not visit the township in connection with the works, construction defects or non provision of common facilities. The visit of house committee was in connection with the joint venture projects and financial viability thereon. At that time a representation was given. However, the observations as alleged were never made by house committee and no correspondence is addressed in this regard to APHB. Opposite party submitted that few residents appear to have formed into an association under the name and style of complainant association. They submitted that any grievance have to be ventilated only through the owners of the subject flats and only residents cannot have any grievance as against them. They further submitted that the provision for modern amenities like swimming pool, club, commercial center etc. are already made and it is in progress.
Opposite party submitted that when the owners/ residents pointed out any defect, the same was attended to. The complaints dt.31-11-2007 and 31-12-2007 relate to certain repairs said to have been conducted by individual flat owners, however, they are general in nature and do not contain any details and submit that a general format was prepared and signatures were obtained on the same format. In some cases, APHB received blank forms and particulars of the works are not mentioned and the complainant is called to furnished the details particulars and they reserve their right to file appropriate reply upon receiving the particulars. They submitted that in a venture of this magnitude where APHB has undertaken the work from the scrap level, it takes some time for the attendant facilities to come up over which they have no control. Moreover in the brochure the statement is about the facilities being provided and several facilities as demanded were never committed in the brochure and APHB does not have control over several other uncertain aspects like power supply etc. and submitted that there is no deficiency of service. They submitted that they attended to the works as and when complaints are received and the alleged break up of expenditure involved in the alleged deficiency of service is totally incorrect, non-existent.
Opposite party submitted that they have not charged for common facilities and had given a promise to buyers of the flats in respect of IT parks, school, transport, Medical, shopping, club house etc. It is a conceptual view of the township coming in near future. However, IT park construction work is going and the place earmarked for the school is also handed over to the school, sanction for construction is also obtained by the party intending to start the school and the construction shall be commenced. The remaining obligations pointed out are inter-related to other organizations. Opposite party submitted that the allottees/owners of the flats have not occupied the flats. The following are the year wise particulars of flats handed over which will throw some light on this aspect:
In the year 2005 84 flats In the year 2006 1377 flats In the year 2007 495 flats In the year 2008 25 flats Total 1981 flats ======== Opposite party submitted that they had been attending to the complaints of individual flat owners/occupant pertaining to the flat. They are required to maintain a register for complaints and the works thereon and accordingly the individual complaints are registered and attended to after which the signature of the person is recorded confirming the factum of their attending to the work. They submitted that there is some delay in the formation of the society as originally envisaged as the occupancy level of the flats has not reached the optimum level.
A.P.H.B. submitted that they never undertook to provide the entire infrastructure. The brochure and also the clarification, which was issued in March,2005 by way of paper publication in the Hindu, Eenadu dt.21-3-2005 this was made clear that the infrastructure for school hospital, shopping area shall be made available and investors were selected for building school, commercial center etc. temporarily a diagnostic center and a nursery school is required to be run till full-fledged facilities are developed. Similarly while the shopping complex may take some time. The following are the particulars of the developments undertaken.
a) School: Srividya Niketan International School has already been started and functioning since 2006 academic year on the temporary space provided by APHB. An extent of 7 acres of land is handed over to Sri Vidya Niketan Education Trust, Tirupathi and plans were already approved by HUDA and construction is likely to begin in a short time
b) Hospital: The NIMS dispensary is working with Post Graduate Doctor in the township. An extent of 2 Acs. of land is allotted to the NIMS for construction of hospital.
c) Shops: 10 temporary shops are provided on temporary space in stilt floor for grocery, tea, snacks, vegetables, pharmacy, dry cleaning, milk booth, mens parlour etc. A sub post office is also functioning in the township. 3 Acs. of land was handed over to M/s.Speck systems in the middle out of the layout and the shopping complex work has already started.
d) Sewerage Treatment Plant: APHB constructed sewerage treatment plant and it is functioning from May 2005. The treated waste water is being supplied to the landscape gardens.
e) Club House: This facility in fact was provided. However, as the bidder is not coming forward, though an extent of 8.0 Acs. of land is allocated for this purpose. Swimming pool also shall come up in this area.
APHB submitted that vide letter No.27106/Category/A6/EE(CD)2005 dt.27-1-2007 pointed out that the defects liability period of the construction firm was going to be expire by 9-3-2007 as per agreement and the defects noticed in the flats were requested to be informed to APHB for attending rectifications. About 1280 complaints were received and all the defects were rectified.
Among 84 complainants, only 44 are allottees which were duly rectified and satisfactory completion was reported by them. Out of 84 persons set out in the list annexed, it is seen that only 44 are owners of the flats, 10 members are through third parties while 7 persons are purchasers from third parties. In so far as third parties are concerned, they never purchased the flats on the representation of A.P.Housing Board, which is inter se, purely a contractual relationship between the respective vendors and the purchasers thereon. The complaint on their behalf is therefore not maintainable either in law or in facts inasmuch as they are not consumers. Similarly 23 persons are not either allottees or purchasers of the flats as such a third party cannot seek a monetary compensation in respect of a flat which is not owned by him. Opposite party further submitted they gave a detailed paper notification and also wide publicity on 19th March, 2005 wherein the Board of Directors of A.P.H.B. agreed to offer to return the money to any of the allottees either in the first or second notifications without mandatory 10% forfeiture and the person desirous of taking back money was requested to avail the opportunity by 5-4-2005 by applying to Executive Engineer, Central Division of A.P. Hyderabad. It is submitted that as per original terms and conditions of the allotment, the Board is entitled to deduct 10% of the amount towards forfeiture in the event of cancellation of the allotment or any party seeking for refund. This one time offer was given to satisfy such of those allottees who were not either satisfied with the quality of construction, the design of the construction, facilities or for any other reasons whatsoever. The members of the complainant also had this option and having not availed this option, the complainant now cannot complain the same. The members of the complainant and all the flat owners got the registration done after the notification dated 19-3-2005. The allottees have purchased flats after satisfying themselves of all these aspects and after personal visits. Even before the actual delivery of possession the Board had shown each flat to the allottee and gave possession of the flat after the allottee/purchaser was satisfied. They submitted that they gave replies to the individual flat owners letters dated 30-11-2007 and 31-12-2007 and replies were sent to individual flat owners who got the flat registered. Among them, 2 flat owners viz., Smt.Ratnakumari (Flat No.A-4/208) and Smt.K.Sridevi (A-28/207) accepted the reply and reported that they are withdrawing the complaints. Opposite party made it clear that they will deal with allottees only and with no such other entity/person. Another association named SINGAPORE CLASS (SANSKRUTI) TOWNSHIP WELFARE ASSOCIATION with Regd.No.21/2008 is also formed and acting on its own giving representations to APHB. Hence the society must be an elected body from all the owners of the flats in the township. They further stated that a model flat is displayed in the premises of the Head Office of A.P. Housing Board at Gruhakalpa, M.J. market and the material used in the present flat is the same as that displayed in the model flat including tiles and was also made clear in the brochure released and it is also made clear that it is only a conceptional presentation and in the second brochure it is made clear that the flat are ready for occupation and the prospective buyers of the site can see details at the site. They submitted that 80% of the purchasers purchased the flats in the subsequent notifications.
Opposite party submitted that they had been attending to the complaints of individual flat owners/occupant pertaining to the flat. They are required to maintain a register for complaints and the works thereon and accordingly the individual complaints are registered and attended to after which the signature of the person is recorded confirming the factum of their attending to the work. In order to pay personal attention and suggest ways and means of resolving the problems, the APHB vide proceedings No.1295/B3/2008 dated 17-4-2008 constituted a high power committee with the following officers to sort out the grievances of the flats owners of Sanskruti Township with immediate effect:
i) Sri Siva Prasad, superintending Engineer
ii) Sri N.Krishnam Raju, Quality Control Consultant
iii) Sri T.V.S.Ratnam, PRO & OSD Out of the above three, Sri N.Krishnam Raju is a retired Engineer in R&B Department, Government of A.P. and was also Quality Control Engineer (Consultant) at the time when the project was underway. The committee has since visited the township and has submitted its preliminary report before this Commission. Opposite party submitted that the Secretary of the complainant, Mr.Raghava Rao, is instigating the other flat owners not to pay the revised monthly maintenance charges. In fact, A.P.H.B. has been spending the monthly maintenance charges from the corpus as the allottees have been irregular n paying the maintenance charges and as all the allottees are not available at their respective flat and the correspondence sent to the address furnished in the APHB office is being returned, the arrears have mounted. A.P.H.B. is also taking steps to realize its due for maintenance. Further the maintenance charges collected are directly related to the expenditure. The following statements would clarify the position:
DCB OF ALL CATEGORIES OF FLATS i.e. PENT HOUSE, DUPLEX, C.A. & A.B. BLOCKS IN SINGAPORE CLASS TOWNSHIP AT POCHARAM FROM NOVEMBER, 2007 TO MARCH, 2008 Month Arrears Due Rs.
Monthly Demand Rs.
Total demand Rs.
Collection Rs.
Balance Rs.
1.
2.
3. 4 5 6
Nov, 07 1,68,02,232 11,52,110 1,79,54,442 7,45,517 1,72,08,925 Dec.07 1,72,08,925 11,52,110 1,83,61,035 8,36,032 1,75,25,003 Jan, 08 1,75,25,003 19,63,120 1,94,88,123 16,38,714 1,78,49,409 Feb,08 1,78,49,409 19,63,120 1,98,12,529 18,77,008 1,79,35,521 Mar,08 1,79,35,521 19,63,120 1,98,98,641 28,01,829 1,70,96,812
1. Revenue at the original rates, when 64 lifts & STP is under Initial free Maintenance period which was expired by 7/2007 11.52 lakhs
2. Projected Revenue at enhanced rates with effect from 1/08 Onwards 19.63 lakhs
3. Projected expenditure from 7/2007 onwards 19.10 lakhs
4. Outstanding balance available in maintenance account as On 31-3-2008 (including Corpus fund of Rs.2.848 crore) 97.74 lakhs
5. Outstanding arrears due to be collected at original rates up To 12/07 and at enhanced rates from 1/08 to 3/08 170.96 lakhs As seen from the above, APHB. is absorbing the expenses for the present and the arrears will be collected from the owners of the flats.
However, A.P.H.B. is encountering difficulties in getting the collections for the reasons stated above. The details of water supplied to the township is annexed to this counter. As seen from the statement as against the standard requirement of 35 Ltrs. Per day per person, the average consumption as on date is bout 326.63 ltrs. per day per person. Of course, the average supply in city may be in the range of 50 ltrs. per day per person. Moreover, in the township, opposite party has taken the average persons per flat as 4 and perhaps the average would be only about 3 persons and the supply per head would come to about 435.50 ltrs and thus the allegation being leveled about sufficient quantity of water not being supplied is absolutely incorrect. The following are the replies to the allegations in the complaint:
(i) Toilets:
The anti skid ceramic tiles have been provided in the flooring of the toilets. It is not correct to state that normally smooth floor tiles have been used and that they are not aware of any of the resident slipping in the bathrooms. One has to exercise care and caution even in respect of anti-skid tiles. The further allegation that proper slopes have not been provided is not correct and hence denied. There is no necessity to replace the tiles or wall tiles, there is no fault in the wash basin and top marble slab provided in the bath room. The washbasin will never sink. There is no necessity to replace with pedestal type washbasin. The further allegation that the water pipe lines and internal lines in bath rooms and kitchens have been carried out with substandard PVC pipelines and bad workmanship is incorrect. The allegation that leakages are persisting even after repairs by A.P.H.B. is also incorrect. It is submitted that GI pipes are not used now days inasmuch as life of a PVC pipe is much less than the GI pipe.
Opposite party further stated that out of the alleged 84 complainants, who are part of complainant association, about 28 flat owners are purchased after March, 2005 i.e. the flats were completed in all respects and ready for occupation. Thus, these flat owners purchased the same after being fully satisfied about the quality and nature of construction and facilities. Thus 56 persons purchased flats prior to March, 2005 and 28 persons purchased after March, 2005. Out of 56 purchasers, only 30 were allottees and balance are third party purchasers, similarly, out of 28 purchasers, after May, 2005 only 12 were original applicants and the balance are third party purchasers. Therefore, it is clear that these flat owners purchased the same after being fully satisfied about the quality and nature of construction and facilities. Further in March, 2005 when the subsequent announcements were made for sale, it was clear that the facilities offered are only conceptual. Opposite party further submitted that certain persons have been threatening the security personnel and the workers at the site and have been complaints during past in this regard.
Mr.Raghava Rao is actively threatening the workers and giving complaints against them to the facilitator, who in turn had to approach APHB complaining about the same. Opposite party further submitted that some allottees/occupants had carried out certain modifications, alterations both inside and outside the flat for their convenience. However, some of these alterations are also affecting others. For instance in some of the toilets certain seepages are being pointed out it is noticed that geysers have been fixed on the walls, where water pipe lines are running. During the fixing the bolts for geysers there is every possibility of disturbance of water pipe lines. Likewise some persons have carried out alterations in the wash basins etc. and APHB if requires shall carry out personal inspection in respect of each flat and thereupon the APHB reserves its right to file additional counter and therefore submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the compliant.
Complainant filed the affidavit of its Secretary Mr.M.Raghava Rao, in lieu of evidence reiterating the facts in the complainant and got marked the same exhibits i.e. Exs.A1 to A72 on his behalf.
Opposite party also filed affidavits of its Executive Engineer (Hg) in lieu of evidence. Deputy Executive Engineer in the office of A.P.Housing Board attached to Sanskruti Township in lieu of evidence and Officer on Special Duty (OSD) Sanskruti Township by way of evidence and reiterated the facts stated in the counter and Exs.B1 to B16 are marked on their behalf.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite party and if the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for in the complaint?
At the outset, we address ourselves to the first contention of opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that some of the parties on whose behalf the complaint has allegedly taken up the cause are not flat owners and as such they have no locus standi to make any complaint and that the alleged General Secretary of the complainant i.e. Mr.Raghava Rao, does not own any flat and therefore he does not have any authority to be an office bearer and file this complaint. The next contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that a perusal of the bye-laws of the Association clearly show that the flat owners are not the only persons and that as against 2080 flats, even assuming to be correct only the names of 58 people figure in all and even among these 58 names, 11 persons have not signed the resolution and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.
We observe from the record that Ex.A7 is a certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies on 10-9-2007 certifying that the Residents Welfare Association, Sanskruti Township, Ghatkeswar is registered under the A.P. Societies Act, 2001. The Memorandum of Articles of Association along with the rules and regulations has also been filed. Ex.A15 is the Resolution passed by the complainant association authorizing the General Secretary to initiate proceedings before the Forum. With respect to the contention of the opposite party that the General Secretary i.e. Mr.Raghava Rao does not have locus standi to file the complaint, the complainant has filed Ex.A73 which is a G.P.A. holder and father of Mr.M.Ravi and Ms.Saritha who are possessing flats in Block A7 i.e. flat No.403, Block C5 i.e. flat No.301 and also in Block A45 i.e. flat No.202 and the said General Secretary has been residing in flat No.403 of block A47 from January, 2007. The Apex court in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. M.K.GUPTA reported in AIR 1994 SC 787 held that the activities of Housing Construction Bodies can be defined as service. In another decision reported in (1998) CPJ page-7 (NC) Vice Chairman, A.P.Housing Board and others v. A.P.Housing Board (LIG) Housing Beneficiaries Association, Bhimavaram, the National Commission has considered that A.P.Housing Board (LIG) Housing Beneficiaries Association as a complaint and has upheld the order of the State Commission which has allowed the complaint with respect to certain deficiencies. Keeping in view the aforementioned judgements, we are of the considered view that the complaint is maintainable under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party has lured the public by printing attractive brochure to purchase flats in their township, which is of international standard and that the design and construction would be carried out by international company, by name, CESMA of Singapore and that it would be a fully integrated township and the flats would be delivered within 24 months i.e. by 11-3-2005. The complainant further submits that the opposite party would pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as penalty as per G.O.Rt.No.229. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party has entrusted the work to M/s.CESMA International Pvt. Ltd. by entering into an agreement on 30-1-2003 and advertisement for sale of flats was given on 11-4-2003 and the construction ought to have been completed by 11-3-2005 but till now opposite party did not provide the amenities technically approved plan sanctioned by HUDA and as promised in the brochure and the basic facilities like schools, shops, hospitals, club house, swimming pool, community centre, telephone services etc. are not provided and opposite party used sub standard material in the construction and also in plumbing and sewerage because of which the complainant association is not able to live peacefully.
C.D.I.A.No.140/2008 was filed by the complainant for appointment of an Commissioner and since a High Power Committee was already appointed to look into the representations and it also filed final report dated 20-10-2008 hnece the main C.D.along with the application is being disposed of. C.D.I.A.No.2800/08 is filed by opposite party with a prayer to receive documents and the same is allowed C.D.I.A.No.139/2008 is filed with a prayer not to cancel registration of the flat and return the money and since the prayer in the main C.D. is different from the prayer in the I.A. and since the main C.D. itself is being disposed this I.A. is disallowed except with respect to receipt of additional documents.
Now we address ourselves to each defect pointed out by the complainant on the respective contentions of the opposite party together with the report of the High Power Committee.
i) Antiskid ceramic tiles: It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party did not provide antiskid ceramic tiles for flooring of the toilet. It used smooth flooring tiles which resulted in slipping and falling down of the residents and incurring lot of expenditure towards medical treatment. The complainant further contend that proper sloping was not provided for the flooring tiles which resulted in stagnation of water in the bath rooms flowing to the bed room and needs immediate replacement of floor tiles. The leakages and seepages are because of bad workmanship in plumbing and usage of sub standard pipes, joints, elbows and solvent joints. As against this allegation, the counsel for opposite party denied that normal smooth floor tiles have been used which led to the residents slipping in the bath rooms. He submitted that there is no necessity to replace the floor tiles or wall tiles and that the water pipe lines and internal lines in bath rooms and kitchen have been carried out with CPVC pipes.
We have gone through the High Power Committee report. In the preliminary report itself, they have stated as follows:
Toilets:
The specification of toilet floor is Antiskid ceramic tiles of size 200x200mmx6mm thick of Romano or approved make. The floor tiles are jointed with neat cement only. The claim of the flat owners is no anti skid tiles are used except normal floor tiles and the surface is slippery. The Manufacturers certificate that the tiles used in Singapore Class Township are mat finished which are generally used for bath room floorings (copy of certificate enclosed) We take into consideration the certificate and the observations of the High Power Committee in their final report with respect to the flooring in the toilets which is as follows:
The flooring in the toilets are as per the specification adopted in the agreement item No.25 of Project Specification (Appendix-3) and as per the decisions given by the Monitoring Committee and to that extent the public were offered to visit the show unit in Gruhakalpa Complex for better understanding of the specification before issuing demand survey.
The Committee has observed that no allottee has changed the bath room floor tiles as claimed in the case provided by the A.P.Housing Board except in one or two flats for their convenience like vasthu. Any changes are not permitted as per clause 4(p) of sale deed.
Keeping in view the aforementioned observation of the High Power Committee and also the fact that the complainants have seen the model house and approved and not protested while taking possession, now to say that the tiles are not antiskid is unsustainable.
Leakages & CPVC Pipes & Ducts: The High Power Committee has observed as follows:
As per the agreement, all the water supply lines i.e. within the toilet area, including vertical lines from the O.H. Tank are provided with CPVC Pipes of 15 mm dia and above B class and fittings with solvent joints including fixing like Tees, elbows, bends, reducers, couplings, running joints etc. which are concealed in the 110mm and 230mm thick walls. APHB have to conduct random tests to identify the standards and specification of CPVC pipes for pressuring rating once again.
The CPVC Plumbing System has several advantages like corrosion, resistance, lower bacterial growth, unaffected by chlorine in the water, hot and cold water compatibility etc. This system has come into usage in all the multi storied high rise buildings making use of the advantages with good workmanship in plumbing erection since the solvent joints to be carefully attended as otherwise leakages may occur from the joints. Even wrong handling during the erection or after the erection may lead to damage of pipes which gives rise to leaking/dampness etc. which can be rectifiable.
Ducts: Closed ducts are provided to carry water, sanitary, sewerage pipes from top to bottom of building duly providing a trap door on each floor for maintenance purpose. All the joints for vertical pipes are provided at floor level and in case of any problem, the pipes to be installed thro the trap door only. However, the leakages from the ducts through the defective joints can be rectified with good workmanship.
Similarly, leakages through the ducts of kitchen block Nos.A7-Flat 1087-dampness in kitchen observed which can be rectified immediately. It is reported that CPVC pipes are provided for water lines and PVC pipes for sewer lines as per the approval by Monitoring Committee. For example, Block No.AB 11-207, some leakages through the kitchen sink are observed which has got to be rectified immediately by the construction agency.
It is the case of the complainant that had the opposite party used GI pipes instead of CPVC pipes, these problems would not have occurred and with GI pipes there is no leakage or seepage and sought replacement of CPVC with GI pipes. The High Power Committee has clearly stated the advantages of CPVC plumbing system and stated in their final report that the defects are rectifiable and concluded as follows:
a) The Committee inspected (54) flats in I & II inspections and 52 flats in final inspection i.e. total 106 flats. In 51 flats, rectifications were carried out by the agency under the supervision of beneficiaries and APHB engineers and subject to co-operation of beneficiaries the rectifications in balance 55 flats will be carried out to the satisfaction of the beneficiaries.
c) The flat wise details like nature of defects, suggested to rectifications to be attended by the construction agency are shown in annexure (2) enclosed.
The construction agency which is undertaking the rectification of defects is directed to rectify the defects and the opposite party is to supervise that they are being done as per the facilities promised in the brochure. With respect to leakages and ducts, the counsel for the opposite party submitted that most of the problems are due to non occupation by the flat owners in the township an atleast 85% of the problems can be solved if the keys are handed over to APHB so that they can have access to other floors as stated in C.D. 3/2008. However, we direct the opposite party to conduct repair works on the leakages and the complainants have to c0-operate by handing over a separate set of keys to the facilitator to enable them to attend to the repair works as and when necessary.
Wash Basin and Top marble slab: It is the case of the complainant that the wash basin and top marble slabs provided in the master bed room are sinking down since they are provided with only two cast iron hanging brakets with four two inches screws and they have to be replaced with pedestal type wash basin. The High Power Committee did not find any defects with respect to wash basin and top marble slab and therefore we are not inclined to allow this prayer of the complainant. The other prayers of the complainant with respect to common areas have already been dealt in C.D.No.3/2008, therefore, we now address ourselves only to deficiency in service with respect to leakages, seepages etc. to individual flats for which the complainant has asked for Rs.1,13,000/- for all duplex and pent houses having three bed rooms and Rs.77,00/- to all flat owners of MIG with two bath rooms.
To reiterate, as observed from the High Power Committee report, the construction agency is carrying on the repairs and the final report has concluded as follows:
b) The Committee inspected (54) flats in I & II inspections and 52 flats in final inspection i.e. total 106 flats. In 51 flats, rectifications were carried out by the agency under the supervision of beneficiaries and APHB engineers and subject to co-operation of beneficiaries the rectifications in balance 55 flats will be carried out to the satisfaction of the beneficiaries.
c) The flooring in the toilets are as per the specifications adopted in the agreement item No.25 of Project Specification (Appendix-3) and as per the decisions given by the Monitoring Committee and to that extent the Public were offered to visit the show unit in Gruhakalpa Complex for better understanding of the specification before issuing demand survey.
d) The flat wise details like nature of defects, suggested to rectifications to be attended by the construction agency are shown in annexure (2) enclosed.
e) The Committee has observed that no allottee has changed the bath room floor tiles as claim in the case provided by the A.P.Housing Board except in one or two flats for their convenience like vasthu. Any changes are not permitted as per clause 4(p) of Sale Deed.
Clause 4(p) of sale deed reads as follows:
The VENDEE shall not have any right to change the external stilt or texture of any Block/Apartment. The same shall always be at the discretion of the VENDOR however the expenses for the same shall be shares by all flat owners.
Therefore, opposite party is directed to supervise the rectification work being done by the construction agency and see that they are as per the facilities promised in the brochure which are as follows:
SPEFICIATIONS Foundation & structure: R.C.C. Framed structure Walls :
Brick masonry with cement mortar Plastering :Luppam finish for all inside walls & sponge finish for all external walls.
Doors :Custom designed shutters for main door, Commerical flush shutters for inside doors Windows :Glazed aluminium powder coated windows with Safety grills.
Flooring :
Good quality ceramic tiles Toilets :
Anti skid ceramic tiles with ceramic tile dadoing Upto 2.1 M height & sanitary fixtures Kitchen :Polished Green Marble, stainless steel sink & wall Dadoing Painting :
Inside coloring with two coats of plastic emulsion.
External walls with cement based paint & joinery with enamel painting.
Electrical :
Concealed wiring with adequate points for T.V.
Telephone, Power Points & Provision for geyser in Toilets.
Lift :Ten passenger automatic door lift for each block.
Fire Firghting :
Provision for fire fighting equipment at appropriate Places and requisite norms Security system :
Security posts at suitable locations.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the amounts prayed for by the complainant with respect to rectification to each flat cannot be allowed in view of the rectification having begun by the construction agency as observed by the High Power Committee. However, since the defects perse exist for which a committee was also appointed, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.5,000/- for each member of the complainant flat owners association, who are members at the time of filing of complaint, is to be paid by the opposite party towards compensation together with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing A.P.H.B. to supervise the rectifications being done by the construction agency as stated in the High Power Committee report and see that the facilities are provided as promised by them in the brochure. The reliefs which are claimed by the complainant and do not reflect in the brochure are being disallowed by this Commission. An amount of Rs.5,000/- is being awarded to each member of the association towards compensation since admittedly there are defects for which a High Power Committee was appointed. We also award costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Time for compliance six months.
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER.
JM Dt.11-2-2009 //APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE// Witnesses examined for Complainant: Opposite Party:
-Nil- -Nil-
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A-Brochures of A.P.H.B. issued in 2003 & 2005.
Exs.A2 & A3-Advertisements of A.P.H.B. in the newspaper dt. 11-4-2003 and 20-3-2005.
Ex.A4-News item about visit of House Committee dated 9-11-2006.
Ex.A5-News item about dampness/health hazard.
Ex.A6-Representation of residents of A.P.H.B. requesting Vice Chairman to form a owners association dated 26-3-2007 and 30-8-2007.
Ex.A7-Registration Certificate of Residents Welfare Association along with Articles of the Society, dated 10-9-2007.
Ex.A8-Representation to Residents Welfare Association to A.P.H.B. on 16 issues dated 15-9-2007.
Ex.A9-Representation to Housing Minister on 16 issues/joint meeting with V.C. of A.P.H.B. dated 17-9-2007 and 12-11-2007.
Ex.A10-Reminder to APHB on 16 issues dated 7-11-2007.
Ex.A11-Invitation of Residents Welfare Association (RWAS for short) inviting Housing Minister & V.C. of APHB for General Body Meeting cum Joint Meeting with residents to resolve issues dt 19-11-2007.
Ex.A12-List of claims and claimants submitted by RWAS to V.C., A.P.H.B. on all issues dated 22-12-2007.
Ex.A13-Final notice dated 2/4/1/12008 for payment of Rs.95,00,000/-.
Ex.A14-Final notice for payment of Rs.99,22,000/- dated 2-1-2008.
Ex.A15-Resolution of RWS E.C. Members dated 01-12-2007.
Ex.A16-Resolution of RWS General Body Members dated 31-12-2007.
Ex.A17-Claims submitted by 97 residents requesting RWS to take up with APHB dated 30-11-2007 and 6-1-2008.
Ex.A18-Regd. Sale deed No.5158/05 dated 19-7-2005.
Ex.A19-Complainant letter to form an Association dated 26-3-2007.
Ex.A20-Letter from Officer on Special Duty APHB for conducting joint meeting on 29-1-08 to discuss maintenance problems dt 26-1-08.
Ex.A21-Minutes of meeting held on 29-1-2008.
Ex.A22-Letter of Officer on Special duty to depute two persons from petitioner association on 29-1-2008 to discuss maintenance problems dated 31-1-2008.
Ex.A23-APHB letter for enhancement of Maintenance charges dt 13-2-08.
Ex.A24-Letter by complainant objecting enhancement of maintenance charges dated 16-2-2008.
Ex.A25-Letter dt.22-2-2008 to refund the maintenance deposit amount.
Ex.A26-Letter of E.E., A.P.H.B. letter about water supply dt 11-3-2008.
Ex.A27-Reply letter by RWAS to APHB on water losses dated 13-3-2008.
Ex.A28-RWAS letter dated 20-3-2008 requesting information under RTA on 11 issues.
Ex.A29-RWAS letter dated 24-3-2008 to V.C., APHB on thefts etc. and copy submitted to Human Rights Commission.
Ex.A30-Petition before A.P.State Human Right Commission dt 27-3-2008.
Ex.A31-Receipt of RTA Act fee for Rs.10/-.
Ex.A32-List of residents prepared by the Association dated 3-4-2008.
Ex.A33-Letter offering voluntary services to maintenance monitoring committee dated 3-4-2008.
Ex.A34-Resolution of RWS Executive Body Members dated 1-4-2008.
Ex.A35-List of issues block-wise and flat wise submitted by the Residents to take up with APHB dated 3-4-2008.
Ex.A36-Resident Complainant for Rs.30,000/-.
Ex.A37-Pamphlet of Singapore Class Township Welfare Association Regd.21/2008 dated 4-4-2008.
Ex.A38-List of 139 complainants list filed before opposite party High Power Committee dated 14-6-2008.
Ex.A39-A.P.Govt. G.O.Rt.No.229 dated 15-9-2001.
Ex.A40-HUDA Technical permission for Development of Group Housing in Sy.No.2 and 10 of Pocharam dated 1-8-2002.
Ex.A41-HUDA Technical approval of building plans for Commercial complex in Sy.No.2 and 10 of Pocharam dated 28-12-2007.
Ex.A42-HUDA supply of information under RTA Act dt.8-12-2007 that Sanskruthi Township, HUDA has accorded only technical approval for the plans submitted by APHB under Building Regulations G.O.Ms.No.423 dated 31-7-1998.
Ex.A43-Dt.24-10-2007 HUDA supply of information along with statement.
Ex.A44-Dated 9-4-2008 of APHB supply of information under RTA Act Sanskruthi township, promised amenities are not provided till date.
Ex.A45-Letter dated 29-5-2007 of Additional Director of Fire & Emergency Services informing that the builder has not obtained NOC for occupancy from the Department.
Ex.A46-Dated 29-6-2004 from Director General of Fire & Emergency Services, supply of information under RTA Act Sanskruthi Township-Plans should be Multistoried Buildings Regulations, 1981 and NBC.
Ex.A47-Dated 14-12-2006 from Director General of Fire & Emergency Services supply of information under RTA Act, Sanskruthi Township and Memorandum to Honble A.P.High Court W.P.No.26365/2005 and inspection report dated 9-8-2006 short false.
Ex.A48-Notice for Violation of Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Measures dated 14-12-2006.
Ex.A49-Letter dated 29-5-2008 from complainant to opposite party pointing deficiencies while implementing the approved plans, development of amenities etc. provision for senior citizens, ladies, TTD temple, Kalyana Mandapam in future expansion.
Ex.A50-Complainant letter dated 9-6-2008 to Chief Minister to implement G.Os. and brochure commitments to provide amenities.
Ex.A51-Complainant letter to V.C.HUDA and APHB to develop 5 parks dated 9-6-2008.
Ex.A52-Details of site plan of proposed development in S.No.2 and 10 of Pocharam belonging to APHB dated 31-7-2002.
Ex.A53-Permit No.3946/mp2/h/02 letter No.3964 dt.31-7-2002 Ex.A54-Huda technical approved vide letter no.3964.mp2/h/2002 dt.1-8- 02 Disallowed C& D blocks.
Ex.A55-Information by APHB under RTA Act dated 21-6-2008.
Ex.A56-Photos.
Ex.A57-HUDA Approval letter dated 1-8-2002.
Ex.A58-Resolution of Executive Committee dated 1-4-2008.
Ex.A59-Letter of Officer on Special Duty, A.P.H.B. dated 17-4-2008.
Ex.A60-Circular dated 25-4-2008 of other association.
Ex.A61-Reply submitted by APHB to Human Rights Commn. dt 30-4-08.
Ex.A62-Reply affidavit in HRC No.968/2008 dated 27-5-2008.
Ex.A63-Deficiencies in approval of plans dated 29-5-2008.
Ex.A64-Representation of Residents Welfare Association to Chief Minister dated 9-6-2008.
Ex.A65-Representation of Residents Welfare Association to V.C. HUDA and APHB dated 9-6-2008.
Ex.A66-FIR No.158/2008 of Ghatkesar Police Station dated 21-6-2008.
Ex.A67-Notice by OSD, APHB to Mr.M.Raghava Rao dated 20-6-2008.
Ex.A68-Reply of Mr.M.Raghava Rao to OSD notice dated 21-6-2008.
Ex.A69-Appeal by OSD, APHB to the residents dated 23-7-2008.
Ex.A70-CRL M.P.No.1051/08 in CR.No.158/08 dated 28-6-2008.
Ex.A71-Anticipatory Bail grant order in 158/08 dated 7-7-2008.
Ex.A72-Representation of Association to United Federation of Residents Welfare Association of Hyderabad dated 31-12-2007.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Opposite party:
Ex.B1-Printout of Website.
Ex.B2-Product catalogue issued by Astral-regarding PVC pipes.
Ex.B3-Notification dated 19-3-2005 issued by APHB.
Ex.B4-List of details for 84 complainants in C.C.No.4/2008.
Ex.B5-Quantity of water received/requirement per day at the township. Ex.B6-Report of High Power Committee dt.17-5-2008, 14-6-2008, 20-10- 2008 and 3-11-2008.
Ex.B7-Extract of contract agreement between APHB & M/s.CESMA dt.30- 1-2003.
Ex.B8-Sale deed dated 2-4-2008.
Ex.B9-Paper publication extract of Saakshi dt.17-4-08.
Ex.B10-Statement showing status of complainants in C.C.No.3/2008. Ex.B11-Status of claimants in C.C.No.4/208.
Ex.B12-List of details for 99 claimants in C.C.No.3/2008.
Ex.B13-List of details for 84 claimants in C.C.No.4/2008.
Ex.B14-Copy of complaint in HRC No.3736/08.
Ex.B15-Extract of register for rectification.
Ex.B16-Pamphlet dt.13-3-2008.
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER.
Dt.11-2-2009