National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Green Peak Realty vs Kaushik Mandal & 2 Ors. on 26 November, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3721 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2017 in Appeal No. 829/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. GREEN PEAK REALTY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SUMANT KERKETTA S/O. SHRI SUREN KERKETTA, R/O. MAY FAIR TARUN APARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, 9/5, FEEDER ROAD, P.S. TITAGARH, P.O. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700123 DISTRICT-24 PARGANAS NORTH WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KAUSHIK MANDAL & 2 ORS. S/O. LT. M.G. MANDAL, FLAT NO. 104, 304 FIRST FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, 3, SIDDHESWARI TALA ROAD, MONIRAMPUR, MAJUMDERMATH, P.O. + P.S. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700120 DISTRICT-24 PARGANAS NORTH WEST BENGAL 2. SMT. KALPANA KAR W/O. SRI PRADIP KAR, R/O. FLAT NO. 102, 1ST FLOOR, SNEHALATA APARTMENT, 3, SIDDHESWARI TALA ROAD, MONIRAMPUR, MAJUMDARMATH, P.O. & P.S. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700120, DISTRICT- NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 3. SMT. SESHA KAR, W/O. LT. TARADAS KAR, R/O. FLAT NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, SNEHALATA APARTMENT, 3, SIDDHESWARI TALA ROAD, MONIRAMPUR, MAJUMDARMATH, P.O. & P.S. BARRACKPORE,KOLKATA-700120, NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3723 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2017 in Appeal No. 832/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. GREEN PEAK REALTY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SUMANT KERKETTA S/O. SHRI SUREN KERKETTA, R/O. MAY FAIR TARUN APARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, 9/5, FEEDER ROAD, P.S. TITAGARH, P.O. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700123 DISTRICT-24 PARGANAS NORTH WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KALPANA KAR & 2 ORS. W/O. SRI PRADIP KAR, R/O. FLAT NO. 102, 1ST FLOOR, SNEHALATA APARTMENT, 3, SIDDHESWARI TALA ROAD, MONIRAMPUR, MAJUMDARMATH, P.O. & P.S. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700120, DISTRICT- NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 2. SMT. SESHA KAR W/O LATE TARADAS KAR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.202, 2ND FLOOR, SNEHALATA APARTMENT, 3, SIDDHESWARI TALA ROAD, MONIRAMPUR, MAJUMDARMATH, P.O. & P.S. BARRACKPORE KOLKATA-700120 WEST BENGAL 3. Deleted vide order dated 15.02.2018 - - - ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Barun Prasad, Mr. Dibyendu Sen Gupta
& Mr. Abu Sayem, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Surojit Banerjee, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Debashis Malakar, Advocate for R-2 & R-3
Dated : 26 Nov 2019 ORDER
MRS. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short "the Act") is to the orders dated 22.09.2017 in First Appeal Nos. A/829/2015 and A/823/2015, respectively passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (in short "the State Commission").
2. The facts in brief are that the Complainant entered into an Agreement for purchase of two residential flats ad-measuring 375 sq.ft. and 590 sq.ft, in the first and in the 3rd floor of the building 'Snehlata Apartments' for which the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- for the First Floor flat and paid Rs.5,40,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs.6,90,300/- for the Third Floor flat, respectively. It is averred that Opposite Parties 2 & 3, i.e., the Land Owner and the Developer could not get the Completion and Occupation Certificates from North Barrackpore Municipality and that they are yet to complete the boundary wall, boundary gate, stair case, electrical wiring, water connection, parking space, Get pump, etc. It is further averred that the Opposite Parties did not complete the final registration process despite the said Agreement entered into on 25.02.2011. It is pleaded that several requests were made to both the Opposite Parties to execute the Sale Deed and give the flats in a finished condition with the Completion Certificate, but there was no response.
3. It is also averred that in Flat No.104, as per the Agreement, the Opposite Parties ought to provide 375 sq.ft. including super built-up area, whereas they have provided only 314.5 sq.ft. and in Flat No.304 out of the promised 590 sq.ft., only 461 sq.ft. of super built-up area was provided. Hence, it is pleaded that the Opposite Parties ought to have deducted Rs.2,23,530/- from the sale consideration as the sq.ft. value calculation for Flat No.104 is Rs.1200 x 60.5 = Rs.72,600/- and for Flat No.304, it is Rs.1170 x 129 = Rs. 1,50,930/-. Hence the Complainant seeks the following the prayers :-
"i) to direct the opposite parties to hand over the under described schedule - 'B' related total two flat's area possession of 590 sq.ft (which is physically 461 sq.ft.) and 375 sq.ft (which is physically 314.5 sq.ft.) including super built-up area on the third floor and first floor of 'Snehalata Apartment' situated at 3, Siddheswari Tala Road, Monirampur, Majumder Math, P.O. Barrackpore, Kolkata - 120, District North 24 Parganas as complete basis, i.e., as per terms and conditions of said two Agreement for Sale dated 25.02.2011 in favour of the petitioner;
ii) to give direction upon the Opposite Parties to prepare, execute and complete the Registration process of the Final Deed of Sale/Deed of Conveyance of the said two flats (which morefully described in the schedule - 'B' hereunder) in favour of the petitioner;
iii) to direct the Opposite Parties not to enter into any other Agreement for Sale or any Deed of Conveyance with anyone else save and except with your petitioner in respect of the under described schedule - 'B' related total flat's are possession of 590 sq.ft. (which is physically 461 sq.ft.) and 375 sq.ft. (which is physically 314.5 sq.ft.) including super built-up area;
iv) to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the petitioner/complainant or adjust /deduct Rs.1170 x 129 = Rs.1,50,930/- and Rs.72,600/-, i.e., total Rs.2,23,530/- (from the total consideration fix up amount a sum of Rs.6,90,300/- and Rs.4,50,000/- due to the reason of non-delivering 129 sq.ft and 60.5 sq.ft, i.e., less area possession from actual agreed area possession;
v) to direct the Opposite Parties to pay excess valuation related stamp duty and registration fees as required which is increased on and from July 2013 as per current assessment of market value done by the registering authority;
vi) to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the petitioner / complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain to your petitioner/complainant;
vii) to direct the Opposite Parties to construct the ground floor possession of the entire building as per Municipal Sanctioned Master Plan vide No. 326 of 2010 (which sanctioned on 17.01.2011) and provide the facilities by constructing common parking area, care taker room, common bathroom and main electrical room, under-ground water reservoir, i.e., as per terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale to the Complainant / Petitioner;
vii) to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the Petitioner / Complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as litigation costs;
viii) and pass such other order or orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice".
4. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have filed their Written Version stating that they are only Landowners and no liability can be fastened upon them; all the receipts of payments were issued to Opposite Party No.3 who is the Developer; that a Joint Venture Agreement was entered into between the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with Opposite Party No.3 to construct the building according to the plan sanctioned by the concerned Municipality; that as per the Joint Venture Agreement, the Opposite Party No.3 can enter into any Agreement for Sale, Transfer, Lease, Rent; that Opposite Parties 1 and 2 never tried to construct anything illegal; that the Complainant filed a case before the Learned Executive Magistrate at Barrackpore under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C; that they were in no way connected with the present Complaint as there was no transaction between them and the Complainant and further averred that they are senior citizens and being Land Owners, they only entered into the Agreement with the Developer, but did not take any consideration from the Complainant, hence seeks dismissal of the Complaint qua them.
5. Denying all the allegations made by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties state that a sum of Rs.1,84,265/- is still due and payable by the Complainant towards the cost of extra works done in the Flat; denies that he has handed over possession of the two flats to the Complainant on 30.10.2012 in an incomplete condition without any possession letter; denies that he was attempting to make any illegal construction over the common car parking space, electric room, care taker room; that the Complainant and intending purchasers of other flats have initiated the proceedings against the Developer under Section 107 Cr. P.C. and Section 144 Cr. P.C. and therefore no relief can be sought for in the instant case; that the Complainant had committed to pay the charges of extra works done in both the Flats but thereafter refused to do so; that a demand was made for the amount of Rs.1,84,265/- vide Notice dated 08.01.2014 served upon the Complainant under Registered Post, but there was no response and that there was no deficiency of service on his behalf as the delay, if any, in the registration of the Sale Deed is only on account of the non-payment of outstanding dues by the Complainant.
6. The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint in part, directing the Opposite Party 3 to execute the Sale Deed within two months, failing which, the District Forum shall execute and register the Sale Deed. The Developer was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
7. There is also a further direction to the Developer to construct the Ground Floor possession of the entire building as per Municipal Sanctioned Master Plan and provide the facilities by constructing common parking area, caretaker room, common bathroom and main electrical room, underground water reservoir, i.e., as per terms and conditions of the agreement for sale to the Complainant, within two months from the date of the order, failing which, Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per day from the date of the order, till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the Opposite Party in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, on an Appeal preferred by the Developer, the State Commission, modified the order as hereunder :-
"So far as the first Floor Flat is concerned, it was found that there was less in area measuring 60.5 sq.ft and the total amount of such shortage in area would be Rs.72,600/- which the Complainant would be entitled to get after adjustment with the consideration paid or likely to be paid. In course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the appellant intended to sell out the third floor of the flat measuring 590 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.6,90,300/- but the fact remains, the third floor flat was an unauthorized construction and no sanctioned plan was received from the local Municipality by the Developer/appellant herein. Ld. Counsel for the appellant in course of argument drew our attention to the fact that a sum of Rs.1,84,265/- towards the cost of extra works done or likely to be done as per direction of the complainant would be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,84,265/- subject to adjustment with Rs.2,23,530/- from the appellant for shortage of accommodation in respect of which he paid the consideration to the appellant. Since the appellant proposed to sell out the third floor flat which was constructed without having sanctioned plan, the court cannot ask for regularization of the same by transferring it in favour of the proposed purchaser as per agreement for sale. The transfer of the 1st floor flat in favour of the respondent No.1 by the appellant being an authorized construction, there is no bar to get the deed executed in favour of the respondent No.1/Complainant on acceptance of the consideration, i.e., Rs.3,77,400/- (Rs.4,50,000/- minus Rs.72,600/-). It is brought to our further notice that a total sum of Rs.1,82,465/- was spent by the appellant for the extra works done to the first floor and third floor flat and applied for adjustment, but he did not show the amount spent for extra works done in the first floor. Ld. Trial Forum in the impugned judgment did not work out the cost of such construction nor the appellant showed any interest for the same. Hence, we direct the appellant to work out a proportionate cost of the first floor flat for extra works done subject to adjustment with the amount paid in excess to him in lieu of the first floor flat measuring 333 sq.ft. only. It is already observed earlier that the third floor flat which the complainant intended to purchase from the appellant and two others, but since it was an unauthorized construction, we, instead of permitting them to transfer in favour of the respondent No.1 / Complainant, we direct the appellant to refund the entire consideration of the third floor flat and held that the appellant would not be entitled to any amount for the costs incurred by him for the extra works done in the third floor flat rather he is entitled to refund such consideration received in respect of the third floor flat amounting to Rs.5,40,000/- to be refunded to the Complainant/Respondent No.1, with simple interest @ 10% p.a., from the date of receipt of the same, till the date of its realization. The entire process of such realization with interest shall be completed within the period of three months from the date of the order. We also make it clear that the direction of Ld. Trial Forum concerning completion of the ground floor position shall be effective so far the interest of the complainant / respondent No.1, in respect of his flat in the first floor and if the appellant becomes successful in regularizing the construction of the third floor of the building, the preferential right of the Complainant / Respondent No.1 to purchase the said third floor flat at a consideration of Rs.6,90,300/- shall be operative. With these observations and modifications, this Appeal stands disposed of on contest. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal".
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Developer vehemently contended that two separate agreements dated 25.02.2011 which jointly executed by the Landowners and the Complainant and Developers with the Complainant for Flat Nos. 104 & 304 and the Developer constructed the Ground Floor plus three floors in accordance with the said building plan at the said plot of land and upon completion of each floor Form 'F' under Rule 29(1) of the said Building Rules, 1996 was submitted by the Landowners from time to time to the upto the Second Floor of the building. It was argued that after submission of completion notice, upto the Second Floor, the Landowners started demanding more money and excess constructed area violating the Clauses of the consideration and Owners' Allocation as stated in the Development Agreement dated 28.01.2010. It is the case of the Developer that both the Fora below ought to have given appropriate direction to the Landowners to take further steps to regularize the third floor of the building. He further submitted that the State Commission vide order dated 22.09.2017 directed the Developer to adjust the amount paid in excess to him in lieu of the First Floor Flat measuring about 333 sq.ft. and wrongly calculated the adjustable amount as Rs.72,600/- whereas the actual shortfall area should be 48 sq.ft. (375 - 327) and not 60.50 sq.ft., and hence, the adjustable amount should be 48 x 1200 = Rs. 57,600/- and not Rs.72,600/-.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant vehemently contended that the flat purchaser is unaware of the disputes between the Landowners and the Developers and that the Municipality gave permission only upto 2nd floor, whereas the Developer has unauthorisedly constructed the Third Floor for which the Municipality has given a notice and the Developer had not adhered to comply with the said notice and sold the unauthorized construction illegally.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Landowner submitted that the Landowners are ready to register, but only in accordance with law, after the Developer gets due permission from the competent authorities. Learned Counsel further argued that no consideration was received for Flat No.104 and Flat No. 304 by the Landowners and that the Developer alone is liable for the unauthorized construction made by him and for the sale of said area to the third party.
12. On a pointed query from the Bench, the Learned Counsel submitted that the money collected from the third party towards the sale consideration for the area in the Third Floor was never handed over to the Landowners and that the deficiency of service, if any, is only by the Developer and not the Landowners.
13. It is pertinent to mention that the operation of the impugned order was stayed on 15.02.2018 only with respect to direction with regard to the refund of the amount received in respect of the third floor flat.
14. The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Developer that the Fora below has erred in concluding the measurements of the first floor is untenable in the light of the fact that a commission for local inspection was undertaken and one Mr. P.K. Saniyal, a Chartered Engineer was appointed by the District Forum who took measurements of the subject flat and submitted his report in the Forum against which even the land owner, who is a party to the Agreement, did not raise any objections. The State Commission has also concurred with the findings of the District Forum with respect to the measurements as it was based on the report of a qualified Chartered Engineer. Since there is no other substantial evidence brought on record by the Developer it is observed that the concurrent findings of both the Fora below with respect to the measurements of the flat on the first floor stands confirmed.
15. We also find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Land Owners that though the Developer had submitted the building plan before North Barrackpore Municipality on 29.07.2010 for G+3 floors, the Municipal Authorities sanctioned the building plan for construction only upto the second floor on 24.09.2011. As seen from the record the Developer has violated the building plan by building the third floor. It is also the case of the Land Owner that the Developer violated the building plan of the ground floor and made illegal constructions over the allotted portion of the common area i.e. car parking space, electrical room, care take room, flat owner's common passage etc. It is reiterated by the Learned Counsel that the Land Owners are ready and willing to cooperate for the execution of the Sale Deed only in accordance with law as laid down under Bengal Municipal Act.
16. Though it is the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Developer that the third floor has been built in accordance with law the material on record does not evidences that the third floor was an authorized construction. The permission was accorded only upto the 2nd floor. Therefore, no direction can be given by this Commission to execute the sale deed for an unauthorized construction. The Developer shall make all efforts to regularize the unauthorized construction and the Land Owners shall cooperate in accordance with law. It is directed that the Developer shall get the subject flat in the third floor authorized within 8 weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the direction of the State Commission with respect to the refund of amount with interest @ 10% is modified to 15% p.a. All other directions given by the State Commission stand confirmed. Revision Petition No. 3721 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly.
RP No. 3723/201717. It is seen from the record that before the District Forum, the Land Owners were the Complainants seeking the following directions:-
"(a) To instruct the Opposite Party enter new legal joint venture agreement with land owners to further construction which they have not done before in the joint venture agreement.
(b) To instruct give direction the Opposite Party to commit the "Snehalata Apartment" as for the sanction plan which O.P. had left in a dangerous position.
(c) To instruct the O.P. to take permission from North Barrackpore Municipality to complete the 3rd floor which have been permitted till 2nd floor.
(d) To instruct the O.P. to take permission from North Barrackpore Municipality and legal further new legal joint venture agreement with stamp paper in favour of landlord for papers further construction of New Flat in ground floor which was not mentioned in this the previous agreement.
(e) To instruct the O.P. to clear the North Barrackpore Municipality Tax Khaina and Electric Bill which O.P. rest after the dated 29.10.2010 joint venture agreement and power of attorney.
(f) To instruct the O.P. to submit possession letter in favour of Smt. Kalpana Kar and Smt. Sesha Kar.
(g) To instruct the O.P. to return the all original paper to the landlord before 4 months of the flat registration.
(h) To direct the O.P. before the flat registration the construction of Snehlata Apartment and C.C. in North Barrackpore Municipality as per the agreement of joint venture and also the submit the C.C. certificate Xerox copy of the petitioner before Registration.
(i) To instruction OP as per agreement to submit the electric meter who was the owner petitioner No. 2 which OP No. 1 and 2 took away without information an illegally.
(j) To instruct the O.P. to pay rest Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs.41,480/- for extra working with interest......(illegible).
(k) Instruct the O.P. to pay the petitioner Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) only each causing mental pain of petition.
(l) To instruct the O.P. to pay the petitioner sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) as litigation cost."
18. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint observing that the Land Owner should execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the Developer according to the Joint Venture Agreement. The District Forum has given the following reliefs:-
"OPs are directed to hand over the possession letter and original documents to the complainant before the registration.
OPs are directed to hand over the completion certificate to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.
OPs are directed to complete the incomplete works as per joint venture agreements within two months from the date of this order.
OPs are directed to pay to the complainants the money spent for extra works by the complainants on production of vouchers by the complainants.
OPs are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainants within two months from the date of this order, failing which OPs shall have to pay sum of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the OPs in this State Consumer Welfare Fund."
19. It is relevant to mention that aggrieved by the said order the Complainants/Land Owners did not prefer any Appeal and, therefore, the order has attained finality as far as the Land Owners are concerned. On an Appeal preferred by the Developer the State Commission observed as follows:-
"The OPs in their joint written version contended that complainant case was not maintainable either in law or in facts. Denying the status of the complainants as consumers within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act, they admitted that the complainants were the joint owners of the property over which the OPs intending (sic) to develop, entered into an agreement and there was a power of Attorney executed by the complainants in faovur of the Ops as promoter/developer of the building project. Denying and disputing all the material allegations, the OPs stated that the complainants being the owners of the 'A' schedule property tried to exploit them by exercising their position as owners and they were not entitled to any protection under the Consumer Protection Act. Further denying the allegation of illegal construction on their part, the OPs further stated that the complainants made some baseless allegations against the OPs and in the absence of proof, no relief can be granted to the complainants. Again denying deficiency of service, the OPs further added that the complaint case being a speculative one shall be dismissed with costs.
Ld. Trial Forum upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the materials on record, allowed the complaint case in part as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.
Now the point for consideration is whether Ld. Forum concerned was justified in passing the judgment and order, as prayed for.
Admittedly the complainants are the joint owners of the 'A' schedule property in respect of which they entered into an agreement for development subject to allotment of flat for the owner's allocation. The joint venture agreement clearly points out that the complainants being the owners of the plot of land as per schedule 'A' of the petition of complaint would be entitled to owners' allocation (to be quoted which is at page 123 of the file). Certain documents were produced by the complainants justifying their claims from the OPs who instead of giving such facilities to the complainants and owners, preferred to deny their legitimate right. Ld. Trial Forum in the impugned judgment expressed that no cogent evidence was produced before the Forum to come to the conclusion but when the terms of agreement with regard to owner's allocation is clear about their legitimate claim, they should not be denied to get the services/reliefs, as prayed for. The complainants/respondents did not express their dissatisfaction by filing any cross appeal against the judgment and order, hence we cannot interfere with the judgment though there were sufficient materials on record for interfering with and to give more benefits to the complainants. We dismiss the appeal being devoid of any merit and affirm the judgment and order dated 30.06.2015 passed by Ld. DCDRF, North 24-Paganas in CC/142/2014. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal."
20. The State Commission while concurring with the findings of the District Forum dismissed the Appeal and held that Complainants/Land Owners being the owners of the plot of land as per Schedule 'A' are entitled to the owner's allocation.
21. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Developer challenging the order of the State Commission in FA/832/2015 on the ground that the State Commission did not take into consideration that it is Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Land Owners who have to make an application for permission for construction and for issuing notice of completion of construction of the building under the relevant rules of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 and also that the Respondents are enjoying 47 sq. ft. excess area in both the flats.
22. Vide an order dated 15.02.2018 Third Respondent i.e. legal representative of the Developer has been deleted from the array of parties. It is the main contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner that Respondents No. 1 and 2 being the land owners had failed to issue a Registered Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner and, therefore, he was incapacitated from obtaining the Completion Certificate from the Municipal Authorities, which has been directed to be delivered to the Complainants.
23. It is observed from the record that both the Fora below based on the evidence on record, measurement done by an Engineer and the Joint Venture Agreement have given a finding that there is deficiency of service on behalf of the Developer as he did not adhere to the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. For all the afore-noted reasons, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of both the Fora below specially keeping in view our limited Revisional Jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruby Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269. The Revision Petition No. 3723 of 2017 is dismissed accordingly.
...................... M. SHREESHA PRESIDING MEMBER