AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainants against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP to:-
i. Handover physical possession of Apartment, to the complainants, complete in all respects and in conformity with provisional allotment letter as per quality standards promised;
ii.Pay interest @8% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainants with OP Company, with effect from 39 months from date of provisional allotment letter, i.e. from 01.10.2011, till the period of 45 days from final payment of demand made in the “Offer of Possession” had elapsed i.e. 26.01.2017;
iii. Pay interest @12% p.a. with effect from 26.01.2017 on total amount paid by Complainants to OP company, till the date of actual physical possession as per clause (i) is handed over by OP;
iv. Refund the amount charged from Complainants, on pretext of increase in super area and service tax charged on said increase in super area, with interest @12% p.a. from date of deposit till the date of refund;
v. Refund the excess amount collected from complainants towards car parking slots, with interest @12% p.a. and give car parking slots as promised;
vi. Refund the amount collected from complainants in excess to the demands made by OP company, with interest @12% p.a.;
vii. Refund the amount collected towards Social Club membership and Social Club subscription charges, with interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund;
viii. Pay interest @12% p.a. on the stamp duty charges paid on 30th march 2017 for execution of Sub Lease Deed with effect from date of payment till date of handing over of physical possession of apartment as per clause (i) above;
ix. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the complainants on account of compensation for absence of social club and other common amenities, till date the social club and other common amenities are made ready for use by complainants;
x. Pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainants, as a whole, towards litigation costs as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused.
Notice was issued to the OP on 10.01.2018. Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A. The details of the flats allotted to the Complainant (s)/other relevant details, based on pleadings of the parties and other records of the case are also given in the Table at Annexure-A.
It is averred/stated in the Complaint that: -
i. The original owners booked an apartment on 01.06.2008 in the OP’s project called “Imperial Court” for a consideration of Rs. 1,40,44,450/- and was given the allotment letter by OP on 02.07.2008. Possession of the apartment was to be delivered within a period of 36 months (plus 90 days grace period) i.e., by 02.10.2011. Thereafter the provisional allotment letter was transferred to the complainants vide letter dated 10.03.2012 by OP. Fresh provisional allotment letter was not endorsed in favour of the complainants. Therefore, the allotment with all existing rights and obligations were transferred to the complainants.
ii. The letter dated 12.11.2016 couched as an “Offer of Possession” was mere sham and was circulated in haste by OP to disclaim paying compensation for delay beyond 12.11.2016, in addition to demanding the final payments, stipulated completion of certain pre-possession documentation, which included execution of Sub-Lease Deed within a period of 30 days, prior to the handing of physical possession of apartment, after completion of the finishing work. Complainants were trapped into executing Sub-lease deed prior to completion of finishing work in apartment and handing over of physical possession of apartment. Complainants completed all the paper formalities and deposited the payment towards the stamp duty, other legal charges and got the subject apartment registered in their favour on 30th March, 2017.
iii. OP sought and collected an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for social club membership and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as advance subscription charges for one year. That OP while issuing “Offer of Possession” dated 12.11.2016 claimed that super area of apartment has increased to 2607.04 sq. ft. as opposed to 2430 sq. ft. without consent and knowledge of complainants and without assigning any justifiable reasons and demanded an additional amount on account of alleged increased super area. OP has not provided access of essential documents to complainants, in order to hide details of all common area and facilities. That OP charged extra amount from complainants towards reserved stilt car parking slot. OP in clause 4.4 of terms and conditions acknowledges that parking Slots are part of “common areas and facilities” and it provides that Allottee shall not have any interest, right or title in reserved car parking slots except right of user. That OP has used its position of strength in dictating one sided terms and imposed highly arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable conditions on complainants.
iv. That representative of OP handed over a bunch of 100 odd documents to complainants for their signatures on possession certificate, on which it was written that complainants have taken over vacant and physical possession of apartment and they have no claim or complaint against OP. Mr. SP Singh (representative of OP) assured them that date of actual handing over of possession shall be inserted in possession certificate, and without informing or consent of complainants, inserted date of 30.03.2017. OP has failed to complete schedule of work, install fixtures and handover the possession of apartment.
The OP in their written statement/reply stated that: -
i. There is no negligence, deficiency in service on part of OP, nor OP indulged in any unfair trade practices. Complainants have no locus to complain about purported delay in completion of project which occurred due to force majeure conditions. That the complainants booked the subject apartment in project for speculating in Real Estate market and that complainants are not consumer as defined in Consumer Protection, Act, 1986. OP has given the offer of possession vide letter dated 12.11.2016 and sub-lease deed pertaining to subject apartment has already been executed in favour of complainants on 30.03.2017. Complainants have been called so many times by OP for handing over the physical possession of apartment but complainants did not come and to gain undue monetary benefit from OP have filed the instant complaint.
ii. The present complainants are not original allottees and therefore the benefit of time frame accorded to original allottee will not be applicable to them and complainants cannot get benefit for it. Complainants were aware of the status of the project and period of 36 months will start from date when the endorsement was done in favour of complainants. The claims are frivolous and raised after execution of sub lease deed which itself shows malafide intention of complainant to file instant complaint. That the complainants have themselves agreed to the car parking charges and paid them at the time of booking.
iii. Clause 6.8 of standard terms and conditions states that super area can be increased or decreased during the time of construction, complainants were well aware that plan was only tentative and subject to change and final construction shall be completed and offered as per “As-Build Plan”. That there is only an increase of 7.29% of super area of apartment. That present complaint suffers with defect of Non-Joinder of necessary party, as Jaypee Infratech Ltd. has not been made a party in instant complaint. That on the basis of joint request the rights under subject apartment was transferred in favour of complainant vide endorsement letter dated 10.03.2012.
iv. For reasons beyond the control of OP, such as force majeure events, orders of NGT, shortage of labour, scarcity of water, restrictions in excavations, villager agitation as well as legal impediments that caused delay in said project and project got rescheduled. It was agreed between parties in clause 7.1 of standard terms & conditions that in case of force majeure events, OP would be entitled to reasonable extension of time without incurring any liability. That State Govt. decided not to handover the Expressway connecting Noida and greater Noida to OP which was to be handed over as per terms of Concession Agreement with an entitlement to collect and appropriate the toll, which resulted in substantial loss of revenue.
v. OP provided rebate on account of delay compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,93,951/- at the time of offer of possession in accordance with terms of clause 7.2. That Clause 10.9 of standard terms and conditions of agreement provides for dispute resolution, that in case of dispute, it shall at first instance be amicably settled and thereafter the dispute not being amicably settled the same may be referred for arbitration.
Complainant in his rejoinder stated that pursuant to order dated 12.04.2018 passed by this Commission on I.A. No. 5316/2018, OP handed over possession to the complainants. That OP has still failed to remove the defects and there are multiple issues in apartment. That complainants in dire need of a house, immediately moved in subject apartment and because of defects and issues in apartment it has become very difficult. That OP has been charging hefty amount of Rs.7500/- per month as maintenance charges from complainants. That complainants after making several complaints and following up with OP and to avoid further damage from seepage, got the shaft and bathroom repaired on their own.
Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the Complaint, based on their Complaint/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
6.1 (a) OP argued that Complainants in the instant complaint are subsequent allottees and therefore, they cannot be treated on the same footing as that of original allottee. From the perusal of endorsement letter dated 10.03.2012, it is clear that the delivery period of 36 months as stipulated in the provisional allotment had already lapsed. The complainants at the time of endorsement were aware of the fact that the possession is delayed and time for performance was not stipulated as the essence of contract. Therefore, the case of complainants herein cannot be compared to the original allottee and the complainants cannot allege that the possession of the apartment has been delayed. In support of its contentions, the OP relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in HUDA Vs. Raje Ram (2008) 17 SCC 407 and judgment of NCDRC in Statish Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. III (2015) CPJ 440 (NC) and Inder K. Chawla Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. –CC/940/2015.
(b) Complainants on the other hand argued that no fresh allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainants and the original allotment letter was endorsed in favour of complainants. Therefore, the allotment with all existing rights and obligations were transferred to the complainants. It was further argued by the complainants that offer of possession letter dated 12.11.2016 was sent prior to the completion of apartment, payment plan annexed to the provisional allotment provided that the final payment shall be made at the time of possession and not prior to completion of the apartment, but OP made complainants to pay all payments and get the sub-lease deed executed on 30.03.2017 prior to the completion of the construction. The complainants alleged that entire payment made pursuant to offer of possession as well as execution of sub-lease deed were done under duress and misrepresentation. As per offer of possession letter dated 12.11.2016, the possession was to be handed over within 45 days of making payment, but despite all payments having been made the final finishing of the apartment was not completed and the possession was not handed over, the complainants regularly followed up with the OP through email enquiring about the status of the apartment. A representative of OP surreptitiously took the signatures on possession certificate, on which it was written that complainants have taken over the vacant and physical possession of apartment and they have no claim against OP. When the complainants objected to the clauses of the possession certificate, the representative of OP assured them that the date of actual handing over of possession shall be inserted in the possession certificate, but the representative of OP, without informing or obtaining the consent of complainants, inserted the date as 30.03.2017. The complainants in order to rescind from the possession certificate handed over a letter dated 03.04.2017 to the OP. During the pendency of the complaint, in March 2018, post receiving a call from OP for possession, complainants inspected the apartment and found various defects/short-comings and made numerous complaints in this regard. Complainants being in dire need of house, immediately moved in the said apartment pursuant to order dated 12.04.2018 of this Commission (OP admits in the written statement that possession was taken by the complainants on 05.05.2018). However, because of the defects and issues in the apartment, it has become difficult for the complainants. With a view to avoid further damage. Complainants got certain items repaired on their own, but OP failed to refund/adjust the amount despite several follow ups. Further, the OP failed to provide the promised additional facilities. Relying on various judgments of this Commission, complainants questioned various reasons advanced by the OP to justify delay in completion and handing over of possession due to force majeure reasons.
(c) It is to be noted that although in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that subsequent transferee inspite of being aware of the delay in delivery of possession of the flats, had purchased the apartment from the original buyer, it cannot be said that the subsequent transferee suffered any agony and harassment comparable to that of the first buyers as a result of the delay in the delivery of the possession in order to be entitled to compensation, but in the subsequent judgment in M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt Ltd vs Charanjeet Singh (2021) SCC Online SC 479 Hon’ble Supreme Court held "this court is of the opinion that per se bar to the relief of interest enunciated by the decision in Raje Ram (supra) (HUDA Vs Raje Ram)which was applied in Wg Commander Arifur Rahman (supra) cannot be considered a good law. The nature and extent of relief, to which a subsequent purchaser can be entitled to, would be fact dependent”. In the instant case, committed date of possession as per allotment letter was 02.10.2011, the provisional allotment was transferred in the name of complainants on 10.03.2012 i.e. after the committed date. As on the date of transfer of allotment, the construction was not complete, which is evident from the fact that the OC was obtained by the OPs on 02.07.2016 i.e. after a period of more than 4 years. It is not the case of OP that construction has not started as on the date of transfer viz 10.03.2012, otherwise we could have considered OP’s contention to count period of 36 months from the date. If at the time of transfer, OP has done a particular level of construction, it would be a fair expectation on the part of subsequent transferee of the apartment that it will get completed in some more time within the 36 months total window. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of OP that 36 months period should begin from date of transfer i.e. 10.03.2012. However, the parties have not placed on record any document or adduced any evidence to show as to how much work had already been done as on 10.03.2012. However, perusal of the payment plan shows that the structure involved 27 plus floors, payments which were due on laying of 27th floor slab was received by OP on 30.04.2012 as per statement of Accounts (SoA) dated 09.02.2017 (i.e. within about one month of date of transfer which happened on 10.03.2012), payment due on laying of top floor slab was received on 29.09.2012 as per SoA (within about 6 months of transfer). Only two next stage payments were on completion of internal plaster and flooring which was paid on 02.09.2013 and on offer of possession. This shows that as on the date of transfer of the unit in the name of complainants on 10.03.2012, major part of the construction was over. Hence, it can be presumed that complainants had a reasonable expectation that the project would get completed soon and possession will be handed over without much delay. Hence OP’s contention to count 36 months from the date of transfer cannot be accepted. At the most, we are inclined to give an additional six months grace period to OP for the purpose of calculating committed date of possession for delay compensation entitlement.
(d) OP has claimed that due to force majeure conditions detailed by them in the written statement, there was a delay in handing over the possession of apartment. However, OP admits that a rebate of Rs.14,93,951/- was paid to the complainants for delay in handing over the possession.
(e) As regards defects/short-comings in the apartment, on going through various documents produced by the complainants and in the absence of any satisfactory response by the OP on these, we find the allegations of some defects/short-comings in the apartment to be correct. Hence, OP is under an obligation to rectify such defects, provide the promised amenities/facilities, and if complainants have incurred some expenses to rectify some such defects on their own with a view to control further damage to the apartment, OP is liable to reimburse the same to complainants, if provision of such facilities/amenities and/or rectification of such details were the responsibility of the OP. OP’s argument that present complaint has been filed by complainants after getting Sub Lease Dead (SLD) and giving an undertaking that SLD is in full and final settlement of all clauses against OP is not acceptable. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan (supra) "Execution of conveyance deed would not operate to preclude the flat buyers from claiming compensation".
(f) In the instant case, there was an inordinate delay in handing over the possession of flat by the OP. The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite time and suffer financially. Hence, the complainants in the present circumstances have a legitimate right to claim fair delay compensation/interest from the OP. In view of this, we hold the complainants are entitled to delay compensation for delay in possession from committed date of possession (02.04.2012 - 36 months from date of allotment plus grace period of 3+6 months) till the actual date of possession (05.05.2018).
6.2 (a) As regards additional charge for increase in super area, the complainants have contended that OP has, as per offer of possession letter dated 12.11.2016 increased the super area to 2607.04 sq.ft. from the 2430 sq.ft. indicated at the time of allotment without assigning any justifiable reasons and without the consent or knowledge of complainants and has put additional financial burden on the complainants. The calculation of super area is to be done by OP based on details of all common areas and facilities approved in the layout plan or building plan. Proviso to Section 4 sub clause (4) of the UP Apartment Act prohibits promoter, such as OP, from revising the plans and consequently super area of apartments, without consent of the respective apartment owners. OP has violated these provisions as no consent of the complainants was taken. Further, OP has not offered any calculations/proof to justify the increase in super area. Even if stipulations to vary the super area are provided in the terms and conditions of allotment letter, same being contrary to statutory provisions, are void and cannot be binding on the home-buyers. In support of these contentions, the complainants relied on the judgment of this Commission in G.G. Associates & Ors. Vs. Commodore Ravindra Kumar Nazrad & Anr. (RP No. 1647 of 2014), which is in context of Section 7 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act 1963, which provides the same principle as Section 4 of UP Apartment Act.
(b) OP on the other hand contended that it had at the very inception, i.e., at the time of booking itself, made it clear to complainants that area referred to at the time of booking is tentative and is subject to variation, which may result in an increase in the total consideration of said unit. The total area increase is only 7.29%. OP, in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Capital Greens Flat Buyers and Ors. Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Ors. (2020 SCC Online NCDRC 3).
(c) We have considered the rival contentions of the parties on this issue and relevant case records. The Allotment Letter/Standard Terms and Conditions do not contain any break up of super area into covered area of the apartment and common areas/facilities and/or the apartment and common areas/facilities and/or proportion of covered area and super area while it is always possible for any allottee to actually get the covered area of his apartment measured physically, the same is not possible with respect to super area. Hence, the allottees always have apprehensions about the correctness of super area and increase thereon from the one indicated in the Allotment Letter/Agreement, especially when such increase in super area is not accompanied with any corresponding increase in the covered area, and is solely on account of increase in common areas, which is generally not possible for the allottees to verify objectively. Hence, in all fairness, it is necessary that the OP/developer/builder declare the unit-wise break-up of super area into covered area of apartment and common areas at the time of booking/allotment/signing of agreement as well as the one claimed by OP at the time of final completion of construction and handing over of the possession, for which OP is supposed to have/might have filed requisite declarations with the Competent Authority. In view of foregoing discussions and in the absence of any break-up of super area details and/or ratio of covered area and super area in the allotment letter/standard terms & conditions, we are of the view that in fairness to both sides, OP may maintain same ratio between the covered area and super area as existing at the time of allotment. In case such details/break up at the time of booking are not available, the super area, for the purposes of charging, may be fixed at a maximum of 120% of the covered area actually given to the complainants at the time of possession or the super area indicated in the offer of possession letter dated 12.11.2016, whichever is lower. Further, the complainants shall have a right to get the covered area of apartment handed over to them measured jointly with the authorized representative of the OP. In the absence of such details/actual measurements being furnished to complainants under joint inspection, OP is not entitled to charge for the increase in the super area.
6.3 (a) As regards car parking charges, the complainants argued that OP has no right to sell parking space as these are not apartments. OP has charged an extra amount from complainants towards two reserved car parking slots, the OP is entitled to charge for the same only as part of ‘common areas and facilities’. In support of their contention, complainants relied upon various judgements of various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and this Commission (Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. Vs. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 2018, Developers Township Property Owners Welfare Society Vs. Jaiprakash Associates (CC No. 1479 of 2015). The OP on the other hand argued that terms of contract contained a break-up of the total price of apartment at the time of booking parking charges for exclusive use of earmarked parking were separately included in the break-up. The parking charges were revealed to the complainants even in the brochure. Thus, charges recovered are in terms of the standard terms & conditions of the agreement. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan (supra), the OP contended that demand of parking charges in terms of standard terms & conditions cannot be termed as deficiency of service.
(b) We have gone through various documents, terms and conditions of allotment and rival contentions of parties on this issue and are of the view that complainants are liable to separately pay for the reserved parking slots allotted to complainants for their exclusive use, provided area of such reserved car parking slots allotted to the allottees has not been included in the common areas for the purpose of calculating the super area. OP should make such declaration/intimation to complainants/allottees in a transparent way to all put on its website.
6.4 The complainants contended that OP has imposed highly arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable conditions on the complainants as part of ‘standard form’ Terms & Conditions annexed with the booking application form. Relying on various judgments of this Commission, complainants argued for higher compensation than the one mentioned by the builder. OP on the other hand argued that compensation sought by complainants cannot be granted in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given delay compensation @6% simple interest.
6.5 As regards OP’s objection for non-impleadment of M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. (JIL), the complainants contended that JIL is merely a ‘confirming party’ to the provisional allotment letter. The terms & conditions annexed with the application form obligate the OP above to complete the construction and deliver the possession. Till date all correspondences have been exchanged between the complainants and OP and JIL has not been made a party to any communication. All payments with regard to unit in question were made by complainants to the OP and not JIL. Therefore, OP alone is liable for the unfair and deficient practices complained for in the complaint and JIL is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present complaint. After going through the Allotment letter and other relevant records, we tend to agree with the contentions of complainants in this regard.
6.6 The contention that complainants are not consumers as they have purchased the unit for speculative/investment purposes is rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OP in this regard. It has been observed by this Commission in various cases (Kavita Ahuja Vs Shipra Estates Ltd, CC 137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, Santosh Johri Vs M/s Unitech Ltd, CC 429 of 2014 and connected Cases, decided on 08.06.2015, Aloke Anand Vs M/s Ireo Grace Pvt Ltd & Others, CC no 1277 of 2017 decided on 01.11.2021) that purchase of a house can only be for a commercial purpose if the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by way of sale of such houses, if the house is purchased purely as an investment and the purchaser is not undertaking the trading of houses on regular basis, then it would be difficult to say that he had purchased it for commercial purpose.
6.7 Plea of the OP for Arbitration as per conditions in the Agreement is also not accepted. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd Vs Anil Patni and Anr (2020)10 SCC 783 "Remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies under special statutes”. In Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs Aftab Singh (2019) 1 CPJ 5 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court held "Arbitration Clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora".
For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the Consumer Complaint is allowed/disposed off with the following directions/reliefs: -
i. OP shall arrange a joint inspection of the unit in question with complainants/their representatives within 15 days of this order. If as a result of such joint inspection, it is found that certain facilities/amenities/items which were promised as per the brochure/allotment letter/standard terms and conditions, have not been provided so far, OP shall provide the same within 45 days of date of such joint inspection. Further, if any such facility/amenity/item, was to be provided by the OP as per brochure/allotment letter/standard terms and conditions, but on account of its non-provision, has been installed/done by the complainants themselves after taking over of the possession, OP shall reimburse the actual cost of such facilities/items subject to complainants submitting the requisite proof along with bills of having provided such item/facility on their own.
ii. Further, as part of above said joint inspection, the OP shall also get the covered area of the unit in question measured and fix the super area, for the purpose of charging the complainants at a maximum of 120% of such covered area or 2607.4 sq.ft. as per offer of possession letter, whichever is lower and make necessary refunds/adjustments, if any excess amount has been received in this regard.
iii. The OP shall pay delay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount paid by the complainants from the committed date of possession viz 02.04.2012 (36 months from date of allotment plus grace period of 3+6 months) till the date of possession viz 05.05.2018.
iv. The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants.
v. The payment in terms of this order shall be paid within three months from today.
The pending IAs, in the Consumer Complaint, if any, also stand disposed off.
Annexure-A
Details of the Unit and other related details
Sr No
Particulars
1
Project Name/Location etc
“Imperial Court”, Jaypee Greens, Noida
2
Apartment no
I1-2403
3
Size (Built up/Covered/Super Area)
2430 sq. ft.
4
Date of application (by the original allottee)
01.06.2008
5
Date of allotment (In the name of original allottee)
02.07.2008
6
Date of signing Agreement (ABA/BBA/IFBA etc.)
7
Committed date of possession as per Agreement (with Grace period of 90 days)
02.10.2011
8
In case the Complainant(s) are not the original allottees, D/o Transfer by the OP in the name of Complainant(s)
10.03.2012
9
D/o Obtaining OC by the OP
02.07.2016
10
D/o Offering Possession
12.11.2016
11
Actual D/o Physical Possession
05.05.2018
12
D/o Signing Conveyance deed/sublease deed
30.03.2017
13
Total Consideration as per agreement
Rs. 1,40,44,450/-
14
Amount Paid
Rs. 1,60,46,230/-
15
D/o Filing CC in NCDRC
26.12.2017
16
D/o Issue of Notice to OP
10.01.2018
17
D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP
02.04.2018
18
D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant(s)
05.02.2019
19
D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant(s)
05.02.2019
20
D/o filing Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by Complainant(s)
05.02.2019
21
D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP
24.10.2019
22
D/o filing Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by OP
24.10.2019
23
D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant(s)
15.10.2019
24
D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP
30.05.2022