State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sunita Aggarwal & Anr. vs M/S Vatika Ltd. on 8 October, 2024
CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 10.03.2022
Date of Hearing: 21.08.2024
Date of Decision: 08.10.2024
COMPLAINT CASE NO. - 46/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL,
W/O MR. DINESH KUMAR AGGARWAL.
2. MR. ABHINAV AGGARWAL,
S/O MR. DINESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,
BOTH R/O 137, RASHI APARTMENT,
PLOT NO.3 , SECTOR-7. DWARKA,
NEW DELHI - 110075.
(Through: Mr. Parmod Kumar Singal & Mr.
Rahul Singhal, Advocate)
...Complainants
VERSUS
M/S VATIKA LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
4TH FLOOR, VATIKA TRIANGLE,
MEHRAULI-GURGAON ROAD,
SUSHANT LOK PHASE-1, BLOCK - A,
GURGAON - 122002.
(Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate)
...Opposite Party
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 17
CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Rahul Singhal counsel for complainant appeared on VC.
None for OP.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGEMENT
1. The present Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the Complainants alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed for the following reliefs:
"Under The Circumstances It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,23,288, 18/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Three Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighteen only) as mentioned below:
(1) direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 64,66,328/- being the amount paid to it towards apartment.
(ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 33,62,490/- on account of interest till August, 2021.on the said amount of Rs. 64,66,328/- @ 24% per annum.
(iii) Pendente lite and future interest at 24% be also awarded in favour of the complainants.
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
(iv) To award a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of compensation/ damages to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment till realization.
(v) Costs of the complaint be also awarded in favour of the complainants.
Any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit, just and proper be also passed."
2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainants vide application form dated 31.10.2013 applied for the allotment of an apartment in the project "Tranquil Heights" of the Opposite Party, situated at sector-82, Gurgaon, Haryana. Subsequently, the Opposite Party, vide allotment letter dated 12.09.2014 allotted apartment bearing no. 2403 in Tower-A to the Complainants in the aforementioned project. Accordingly, a Builder-Buyer Agreement dated 01.07.2015 was executed between the Opposite Party and the Complainants. As per Clause 13 of the said agreement, the Opposite Party was to complete the construction of the said apartment within 48 months from the date of execution of the agreement. However, the Opposite Party has failed to hand over possession of the said apartment to date. Moreover, the Complainants made several communications regarding the status of the construction of the said apartment but no satisfactory response was provided by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party also failed to explain the inordinate delay in completing the construction of the said apartment.
ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
The Complainants over the time had paid a sum of Rs. 64,66,328/- to the Opposite Party as and when demanded by it. The Complainants also sent a legal notice dated 01.02.2021 to the Opposite Party seeking refund of the amount alongwith interest but was of no avail.
3. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants are not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the Complainants invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. He further submitted that the Complainants have no cause of action to file the present Complaint.
4. The counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the delay, if any, was caused due to reasons beyond the control of the Opposite Party under the clause 17 of the said agreement and the said reasons are reproduced below:
a. Decision of the Gas Authority of India (GAIL) to lay down its gas pipeline from within the duly pre- approved and sanctioned project of the Opposite Party which further constrained the Opposite Party to file write petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Upon the dismissal of the same, the construction plan of the Opposite Party was adversely affected.
b. The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT)/ Environment Pollution Control Authority issued directives and measured to counter deterioration in ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 Air Quality in the Delhi-NCR region and banned on construction activities for total period of 70 days between November 2016 to December 2019.
c. Due to the implementation of MNREGA Schemes by the Central Government, the construction industry as a whole has been facing shortage of labour supply, due to labourers regularly travelling away from Delhi-NCR to avail benefits of the scheme. d. Non-acquisition of land by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the laying of sector roads.
e. Labour issues, disruptions, and delays in the supply of stone aggregates and sand due to court orders, unusually heavy rainfall, delays in the supply of cement and steel, and the declaration of Gurgaon as a notified area for the purpose of groundwater. f. There were several additional partial restrictions like lockdown to curb the spread of the covind-19, etc.
5. The counsel for the Opposite Party further contended that the present complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law, which require detailed examination and cross-examination of witnesses and therefore cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure before this Commission. He further submitted that the Complainants failed demonstrate any deficiency against the Opposite Party under Consumer Protection Act'2019. Lastly, he submitted that the Complainants defaulted making payment towards the said apartment. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
6. The Complainants have filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
7. Written Arguments of both the parties on record.
8. We have heard the counsel on behalf of the Complainants and perused the material available on record.
9. The fact that the Complainants booked the said apartment is evident from the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 01.07.2015 (Annexed at 18 of the present Complaint). The Complainants has made payment to the extent of Rs. Rs. 64,66,328/- to the Opposite Party is also evident from the account statements (Annexed from page 53 to 56 of the present complaint).
10. The first question for consideration is whether Complainants fall in the category of 'consumer' under the consumer protection act, 2019?
11. To comment on this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides as under:
(7) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
12. The above statutory provision makes it clear that a person who buys goods or avail for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment is a consumer. It is evident from the statement of account issued by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had booked an apartment with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had also taken Rs.64,66,328/- from the Complainants towards the total consideration of the said apartment.
13. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Complainants had booked an apartment from the Opposite Party by paying part- consideration of Rs.64,66,328/- and therefore, the Complainant falls under the category of 'consumer' provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
14. Further, we deem it appropriate to refer to Aashish Oberai Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited reported in I (2017) CPJ 17(NC) wherein it is held as under:
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
"6. .......A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose."
15. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in CC-1122/2018 titled Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on 01.11.2019, wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Flats were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainant have purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainant are 'Consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
16. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission, it clear that the purchase of more than one house or plot by the buyer cannot be termed as commercial purpose. In a present case, separate apartment has been purchased by the buyer for the individual use of his family members, therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainants are not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
17. Further, it is for the Opposite Party to prove that said apartment purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainants. In the present case, the Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainants purchased the said apartment for commercial purpose but fail to provide any material which shows us that the Complainants are engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on a regular basis, solely with view to make profit by sale of such apartments. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in the negative.
18. The second issue to be adjudicated is whether the Complainants have cause of action to approach this commission. It is imperative to refer to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein it is provided as under: -
"(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
19. Analysis of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In the present case neither possession of the said apartment in question in all respects with agreed facilities has been delivered, nor the amount deposited by the Complainants have been refunded till date. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts."
20. Applying the above settled law, it is clear that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to the Complainants. The Complainants are within their right to file the present complaint before this commission.
21. The Opposite Party further contented that the delay in handing over the possession of said apartment was due to force majeure circumstances, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties as per clause 12.1 of the said agreement.
22. To deal this issue, we deem it appropriate to Consumer Case no.
1624 of 2018 tilted as Sachin Goel & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 & Construction Limited decided on 13.07.2022, wherein similar case Hon'ble NCDRC held:
"12.Admitted facts of the case are that complainants were to get possession of the apartment within 48 months with 6 months grace period. It is submitted that extraction of ground water was banned in Gurgaon by Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore, construction was delayed. This cannot be a ground for Force Majeure because the opposite party could have used tankers and other sources to get water for the construction purpose and, therefore, this plea of Force Majeure is not a valid plea.
13. As regards ban on the mining of sand in Haryana and Rajasthan is concerned, it is not such an act which was beyond the control of the opposite party or would have made it impossible for the opposite party to complete the construction because dust could have been obtained from other sources. It is also submitted that delay had occurred due to ban on the use of dust in 2015-2016 by the National Green Tribunal. It is expected form the opposite party that while making the promise regarding the date of possession, it should assess the anticipated date of possession after taking construction or the likely impediment in the construction. The opposite party certainly would have considered all these factors and that is why it gave time of 6 months of Force Majeure. It is also clear that no specific period during which the use of dust etc was banned by the National Green Tribunal has been mentioned by the opposite party. It is apparent that promised date of possession was 02.04.2017 and ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 the present complaint was filed in the year 2018 and continued till 2022 and till date, there is no evidence that construction had been completed and the occupancy certificate has been obtained. Therefore, the ground that they could not complete the construction due to these reasons are meritless and baseless and has been taken with the intention to gain some advantage. It is a proved fact that opposite party had failed to give offer of possession of the subject apartment till date i.e. even after the expiry of five years."
23. We also deem it appropriate to refer Consumer Case No. 235 Of 2018 titled Narinder Sachdeva & Anr. V. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited decided on 06.01.2022, wherein NCDRC held:
14. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that the Clause specifies that the delivery of possession is subject to force majeure conditions and that there were several reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the Opposite Party such as interim orders of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby ground water extraction was banned in Gurgaon; orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), whereby mining of sand in Haryana and Rajasthan was banned; reservation agitation in Haryana; orders of NGT to stop construction to prevent emission of dust in the month of April, 2015 and again in November, 2016, demonetization etc.
15. All the aforenoted reasons do not fall within the ambit of reasons beyond their control as it can be seen from the record that the Flat Buyer's Agreement was entered into way back in July, 2013 and the orders of NGT to prevent emission of dust in April, 2015 and in November, 2016 cannot be construed to be any substantial reason and definitely not a force majeure condition. Even demonetization and reservation agitation cannot be construed as force majeure. With respect to other reasons ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 there is no documentary evidence on record that they have led to the delay in the delivery of possession."
24. Above dicta reflect that the bans on groundwater extraction, sand mining, and the orders of the NGT, do not fall within the scope of circumstances beyond their control.
25. Further, The Opposite Party submitted that the construction plan of the Opposite Party was adversely affected due to the decision of the Gas Authority of India (GAIL) to lay down its gas pipeline from within the duly pre-approved and sanctioned project of the Opposite Party, and the non-acquisition of land by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the laying down of 75-meter and 60-meter sector roads. However, the Opposite Party failed to provide any evidence regarding these claims. Moreover, even if it is assumed that such issues did occur, the Opposite Party did not provide any specific dates or details on how much time was required to resolve these issues. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Opposite Party is attempting to use the force majeure clause to cover up its delays, yet it has not provided any evidence to support this defense. Additionally, the Opposite Party has also failed to demonstrate that it took any concrete steps to complete the construction on time, especially given that the agreement was executed in 2015 and time to complete the construction ended way back in year 2019 and the construction still remains incomplete. As a result, there is a lack of concrete documentary evidence to support the claim that these reasons have genuinely caused delays in delivering possession. Therefore, it can be concluded that the contentions made by the Opposite Party in relation to force majeure hold no substantive basis.
ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
26. Furthermore, we are of the considered view that neither any new legislation was enacted nor any existing rule, regulation or order was amended stopping, suspending or delaying the construction of the said project. It is the sole responsibility of the Opposite Party to complete the construction of the said project within time. The Complainants cannot be tormented due to the faults of the Opposite Party. Consequently, the contention of the Opposite Party is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
27. Having discussed the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party, the next issue which arises is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainants. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the Opposite Party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation."
28. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to "Clause 13" of the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 01.07.2015, entered into by both contesting parties. It reflects that the Opposite Party was to complete the construction of the said apartment within 48 months from the date of said agreement. However, the Opposite Party miserably failed to complete the construction of the said apartment within prescribed.
29. The Opposite Party also submitted that the Complainants defaulted in making payments towards the said apartment. However, on perusal of the record, it is evident that the Complainants made a total payment of Rs. 64,66,328/- whenever demanded by the Opposite Party. Furthermore, buyers invest in an apartment with the expectation of residing in it comfortably, but due to the inordinate delay in completing the construction by the builder, the buyer's dreams are shattered. As a result, the consumer suffers ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024 doubly first, their investment in the house is stalled and second, they are deprived of the possession of their unit. In the present case, a similar situation arose as the Complainants applied for allotment of apartment and was allotted the said apartment in year 2014, and the builder-buyer agreement was executed in 2015. As per the agreement, the Opposite Party was obligated to complete the construction within 48 months, but till date, the Complainants have neither received possession nor the apartment despite taking a huge consideration amount. Therefore, the Opposite Party's contention of default on the part of the Complainants, despite the significant time elapsed since booking the of said apartment, is baseless and without merit.
30. Relying on the above settled law, we hold that the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainants as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainants with respect to complete the construction of the said apartment and had kept the hard-earned money of the Complainants.
31. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainants i.e., Rs. 64,66,328 /- along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till 08.10.2024 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 10.12.2024;
ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 17 CC. NO.46/2022 MS. SUNITA AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. M/S. VATIKA LIMITED D.O.D.: 08.10.2024
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 10.12.2024, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.
32. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party are directed to pay a sum of:
A. Rs. 3,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainants; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
33. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
34. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
35. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On: 08.10.2024 LR-ZA ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 17