Order Complaint No. 112 OF 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.112 OF 2024
Dated: 30th April, 2025
Quorum:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Sri Lakshmi Narayana
Smt. Sai Lakshmi Renuka Gurram
Sri Prabhukumar Lella
Smt. Apoorva Pantula
Sri Vijayram Yegnala
Sri Harun Abdulhameed Shaikh
Sri Santosh Reddy Vatrapu
Sri Naresh M.
Sri Salam Bin Abdur Rahim Banayeem/Shaheen Amodi

The Complainants are Rep. by Complainant No. 1 Sri. Lakshmi Narayana
R/o- Orchid Edifice, H. No. 3-17/35/36/37/38, Quli Qutub Shah Colony
Beside Mustaffa Masjid, Telangana-500089
…Complainant(s)
Versus
Sri Erusu Praneet Reddy
R/o- Plot No. 519, H/1, Building Name: E.N’S
Road No. 28, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
Nera MCR HRD, Hyderabad-500033

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on
12.11.2024 before this Authority in the presence of and Complainants in person, and
Counsel for Respondent, Sri Sunder Kanaparthy & Sri A. Rajender Reddy appeared
on behalf of the Respondent and after hearing the arguments, this Authority passes
the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants under Section 31

of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate
relief(s) against the Respondent.

1

A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants are residents of Orchid Ediface registered with this

Authority vide Regn. No. P02500001059 and the same expired on 31.03.2022.
4.

The Complainants submitted that there are several structural and functional

deficiencies in the project which require urgent attention and rectification by the
Respondent.
5.

With respect to the driveway on all four sides and the ramp on either side of

the gate, the Complainants alleged that there are many small pits and loose gravel
throughout, posing tripping hazards, particularly to children. It was further stated
that the transformer cable is visibly exposed above the driveway surface, creating a
serious safety risk. They contended that a mason had estimated ₹4 lakhs for the
necessary repairs. They also asserted that due to the improper slope, rainwater fails
to drain into the harvesting pit and instead stagnates, leading to algae formation.
The unevenness of the ramp was also said to cause tilting of four-wheeler vehicles.
6.

The Complainants contended that the outer dark gray ledge around the first-

floor slab lacks proper slope and finishing, resulting in dampness in the walls of the
first-floor flats.
5.

It was averred that cracks have developed on the terrace floor and on the walls

of the overhead tank, which may lead to seepage into the fifth-floor flats and
eventually impact other floors as well.
6.

The Complainants pointed out that rainwater collects in the first-floor

common corridor area, which is aligned with the compound wall elevation. They
submitted that there have been multiple incidents of residents slipping due to water
stagnation. It was also claimed that rainwater seeps into the meter room, posing an
electrical hazard.
7.

Regarding the washrooms, the Complainants alleged that the tiles used were

of substandard quality and that the workmanship was poor. They submitted that a
visible half-inch gap exists above the wall tiles and that the floor tiles are uneven,
causing water to accumulate. Seepage issues were also reported in multiple flats.
8.

It was submitted that several washrooms emit foul odour due to missing filters

in the drainpipes. The Complainants further alleged that the sewage exhaust pipe
has been extended only up to the fourth floor instead of reaching the terrace,
exacerbating the issue.

2

9.

The Complainants contended that the rainwater pit was not properly

constructed. They submitted that during maintenance, a large stone was discovered
inside the pit, and that waste material had been dumped in it, preventing rainwater
from being properly preserved.
10.

The Complainants averred that the staircases were constructed in a

substandard manner, with uneven risers and inconsistently sized treads. They
argued that this created tripping hazards and rendered the staircases unsafe.
11.

The Complainants asserted that there is a discrepancy in the reported depth

of the borewell. They stated that while the site engineer and supervisor informed
them of a depth of 1200 feet, the borewell personnel confirmed it was only 800 feet
deep. Due to this, water scarcity persists and they are forced to rely on water tankers.
They urged that this inconsistency be clarified and verified through proper
documentation.
12.

With regard to the internal and external walls, the Complainants alleged that

the construction was substandard. They pointed out that in Flats No. 501 and 401,
the walls get damaged even while drilling minor holes. They also submitted that
dampness is prevalent on the walls in most flats. Regarding the external compound
wall, it was claimed that an extension had been constructed on top of an existing
wall without proper structural support.
13.

The Complainants stated that the western toilets installed in all flats are

higher than standard specifications, causing discomfort to elderly persons and
children. They also pointed out that in Flat No. 101, the toilet fixture detached from
the wall.
14.

With respect to the transformer and lift earth pits, the Complainants alleged

that there is no provision to regulate incoming voltage, resulting in damage to
household appliances. It was further contended that the earth pits have been filled
with concrete, preventing routine inspection and maintenance, which in turn
compromises the safety and integrity of the electrical system.
15.

The Complainants contended that the parking tiles are of poor quality and

that the cementing work is inadequate, resulting in an uneven and potentially unsafe
surface that may deteriorate further with use.
16.

The Complainants submitted that the UPVC windows are unevenly sized,

creating gaps between the window frames and the grills. They noted that these gaps
were filled with putty, which is not a durable solution. They further alleged that gaps
between the frame and the wall on the exterior side are allowing rainwater to seep
into the hall and bedrooms.

3

17.

Lastly, the Complainants asserted that the internal cabling for internet and

Dish TV has been improperly packed into narrow conduits, resulting in poor signal
reception. Due to insufficient space in the ducts, service providers such as Jio Fiber
have had to route their cables externally.
B. Reliefs sought:
18.

Accordingly, the Complainants sought the following reliefs:
a. Rebuild all 4 sides of the driveway with proper slope and ensure that the
power cables are safeguarded beneath the driveway and rainwater
should be passed easily to the rain water pit
b. Rebuild either side of the ramp with proper slope so that vehicles can
easily pass through the ramp
c. Provide proper slope on the outer dark gray ledge around the first-floor
slab to avoid rainwater stagnancy and seepage
d. Resolve the cracks on either side of the terrace floor as well as on the
overhead tank wall with proper water proofing material.
e. To address the issue of rainwater entering the 1st floor corridor from the
elevation, a retractable awning needs to be installed. Ensure the awning
has a slight slope to allow water runoff away from the building
f. Proper finishing of tiles is required in all the 15 flats for the floor tiles and
the side wall tiles. Cover the gap between the wall and the tile with
proper cementing material. Replace the existing washroom tiles with the
new quality tiles and ensure a proper slope near the drain holes
g. Install the missing filters in the drainpipe in all the 15 flats. Also, extend
the existing sewage exhaust pipe from 4th floor balcony till the terrace to
avoid smell
h. Hire a stone cutting person to dig the rainwater pit a bit deeper and
dispose of all the broken stones
i.

Fix the uneven height of the stairs in all the 5 floors and make the
staircase safe and comfortable to use

j.

Dig the borewell to 1200 feet depth as initially promised by the building
supervisor and site engineer

k. Fix the dampness issues in the flats and corridor areas with water
proofing material like epoxy. Also, provide proper support to both the
internal and external walls

4

l.

Immediate correction is required to adjust the toilet height to the standard
level in all the 15 flats

m. For optimal performance and compliance, transformer and lift earth pits
should be rebuilt as accessible chambers. This ensures easy
maintenance, regular testing and longevity of the earthing system,
enhancing the overall safety and reliability of the electrical installation
n. Source and install good quality durable parking tiles that can bear the
load of the cars with proper slope to the driveway. Use an appropriate
mix of cement and sand to provide a strong and stable base.
o. Conduct a thorough inspection after adjustments to ensure that all
windows are evenly sized and fit correctly with the grills.
p. Try to take out the existing internal cables which are tightly packed (in
to a thin pipe) so that new cable/internet fiber cables can be installed.
C. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
19.

The Respondent filed a detailed reply and submitted Residential Apartment

Complex "Orchid Edifice" is developed by the Respondent jointly along with the owner
of the property namely Mr. Salam Bin Abdul Rahim Baneem (who is arrayed as a
Complainant No.9 in the present complaint) vide Registered Development Agreement
cum GPA dated 17/09/2016 registered before the SRO Gandipet, Ranga Reddy
District as Document No.5967/2016. It was submitted that the Respondent got the
plot of the owner regularized through Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority

(HMDA)

vide

proceedings

bearing

No:

HMDAAL113486/LRS/SKP/Plg/HMDA/2015- 16 dated 31/08/2017.
20.

That subsequently, on 01.11.2017, the Owner Mr. Salam Bin Abdul Rahim

Baneem (Complainant No.9) and the Respondent entered into a Supplementary
Agreement whereunder the above Owner had was allotted 7 the flats in the proposed
residential apartment complex with flat bearing Nos: 103, 203, 302, 303, 402, 403
& 502 respectively towards his share and the Developer was allotted 5 flats bearing
Nos: 101, 202, 301, 401 & 502 respectively while Flat No.503 in the fifth floor was
jointly shared between the Owner and Developer.
21.

That the above development project was duly registered by them before the

Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 23.07.2019 vide certificate of
registration bearing No: P02500001059 and completed construction of the

5

residential complex "Orchid Edifice" with stilt plus 5 floors with 15 apartments within
the agreed time frame and also obtained Occupancy Certificate for the same from the
HMDA.
22.

It was submitted that the Respondent had handed over the fully completed 7

residential apartments falling to the share of the owner Mr. Salam Bin Abdul Rahim
Baneem (Complainant No.9) by handing over the keys to him and obtained
possession handing over letter from the owner on 29.10.2021. Likewise, the
Respondent handed over keys to the Complainant Nos.1 to 8 with respect to the flats
purchased by them.
23.

That at the time of handover of the apartment, each of the Complainants

individually acknowledged the keys and declared that their respective Apartment is
completed to their satisfaction and that they have no claims against the Respondent
whatsoever. That subsequent to the handover of all the apartments, the Respondent
handed over the management of the apartment complex jointly to the Complainants
by handing over all the necessary documents including warranty papers for the lift
and the backup generator etc. That the Respondent also advised the Complainants
to form themselves into a welfare association to manage the day to day maintenance
of the said complex by contributing corpus fund and monthly maintenance charges.
24.

It was submitted that the Complainants herein failed to form any welfare

association nor contributed any sums towards the corpus fund from the date of
taking possession till date. The Respondent is not aware as to whether the
Complainants are contributing any sums towards monthly maintenance of the
apartment complex or not. Each of the complainants have also individually made
modifications to their respective apartments without considering the damage being
caused to the common utilities and other facilities.
25.

It was further submitted that although the Complainants have handed over

the management of the residential complex to the Complainants, even after one year
the Respondent had obliged the request of the Complainants and attended and
resolved most of the issues raised by them at their own cost which the Complainants
have failed to acknowledge.
26.

With respect to the specific allegations made by the Complainants, the

Respondent submitted the following:

6

27.

As regards the issue with the driveway, the Respondent contended that the

driveway is constructed with cement concrete, and any cracks or potholes that have
developed are due to a lack of proper maintenance. It was asserted that stagnation
of rainwater is a result of poor upkeep and not due to any defect in the laying of the
driveway or the ramp.
28.

With respect to the gray ledge, the Respondent denied the allegation that

improper slope or finishing on the outer dark ledge around the first floor has led to
dampness in the walls.
29.

On the issue of cracks in the terrace and the overhead tank, the Respondent

submitted that the cracks have occurred due to stagnation of rainwater, which in
turn is attributed to lack of maintenance. It was further stated that the overhead
tank requires cleaning every three months, which was not done, leading to algae
formation and water stagnation. The Respondent denied that these issues are due to
any construction defect.
30.

As to the allegation of water logging in the first-floor corridor, the Respondent

argued that this issue has been repeated under a different heading and put the
Complainants to strict proof thereof.
31.

On the alleged substandard quality of washroom tiles and slope issues, the

Respondent denied the claims and submitted that the Complainants had inspected
their respective flats prior to accepting possession. It was further contended that all
sanitaryware and fittings used in the bathrooms are of standard quality, and there
were no visible gaps or uneven slopes, as alleged.
32.

In response to the issue of exhaust pipes and foul smells in the washrooms,

the Respondent asserted that such odour is a result of poor maintenance and cannot
be attributed to the construction or design. The Respondent disclaimed responsibility
for this issue.
33.

Regarding the rainwater pit, the Respondent contended that the pit was dug

as per HMDA specifications and categorically denied the Complainants’ allegation
that waste material was dumped into it or that it was inadequately constructed.
34.

In respect of the staircase, the Respondent submitted that the allegations

regarding uneven risers and inconsistently sized treads are bald and without any
substance. It was asserted that there is no deficiency in the construction of the
staircase.
35.

On the issue of the borewell depth, the Respondent submitted that the

borewell was drilled to permissible limits based on the terrain and geological survey.
It was also stated that the Complainants already have a municipal water connection,

7

and if water scarcity is being faced, it is open to them to dig an additional borewell
or obtain a second water connection. The Respondent denied liability in this regard.
36.

Addressing the issue concerning internal and external wall quality, the

Respondent contended that the allegations are unfounded. It was stated that the
entire masonry work has been executed using red brick, and no cement or
lightweight ash bricks were used anywhere in the complex. The Respondent termed
the Complainants’ claims as baseless and without evidence.
37.

On the complaint regarding the height of the western toilets, the Respondent

submitted that the height differs for wall-mounted and floor-mounted water closets,
and the allegation that the height is greater than standard is vague and unsupported.
38.

Regarding the transformers and lift earth pits, the Respondent denied that

any voltage fluctuation or damage to appliances can be attributed to the transformer
provided. It was submitted that the transformer was installed by the Telangana State
Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TSSPDCL) to take the load of the
entire complex. Any fluctuation must be addressed with the utility provider. It was
further stated that the earth pits were constructed in accordance with instructions
from the relevant utility agencies, and the Respondent bears no responsibility for
their current condition.
39.

On the issue of parking tiles, the Respondent denied the allegation that the

tiles were of poor quality or that the cementing work was inadequate. It was
contended that the tiles were laid properly and meet standard specifications.
40.

Regarding the UPVC windows, the Respondent denied that there were any

irregularities in sizing or installation. It was submitted that the alleged gaps between
the windows and grills, and the claim of rainwater seepage, are incorrect and
baseless.
41.

Finally, on the matter of internal cabling, the Respondent contended that the

ducts were designed only to accommodate internet and telephone cables, not Dish
TV wiring. It was submitted that with modern internet-based streaming services, dish
cables are largely obsolete. The Respondent asserted that it would not be feasible to
provide a separate dish cable for each of the 15 apartments, and thus denied any
liability regarding this issue.

8

42.

Respondent

submitted

that

most

of

the

allegations

raised

by

the

Complainants under the present complaint are based on presumptions and
conjectures without any basis. The respondent is willing to attend to any genuine
complaints about the works in the apartment complex with directions of this
Authority on mutually acceptable terms but not at the whims and dictates of the
Complainants.

D. Rejoinder Filed by the Complainants:
43.

Vide rejoinder, the Complainants submitted that after taking possession of

the flats in Orchid Edifice Apartment (developer M/S Edifice Projects Pvt Ltd),
situated in Quli Qtub Shahi Colony, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad 500089, they have
observed a multitude of structural and other deficiencies that have emerged over
time. These issues include but not limited to degradation of the driveway, water
seepage into walls, significant cracks on both the walls and terrace, misalignment of
the staircase, problems with the rainwater harvesting pits, inadequacies in the
earthing and transformer pits, and improper height of the western toilets. That these
concerns were duly communicated to the Respondent via emails and messages.
However, the Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory response, attributing the
issues to alleged negligence or lack of maintenance by the flat owners.
44.

With respect to the driveway, the Complainants submitted that the driveway

is regularly maintained through daily sweeping to remove dust and debris. They
contended that the deterioration is primarily due to the substandard quality of
concrete used during construction rather than a lapse in maintenance. The
stagnation of rainwater has led to the formation of cracks and potholes, which, they
submitted, is indicative of poor material standards. They also stated that erosion of
the top layers has resulted in the transformer cable being exposed, thereby posing a
safety hazard to residents and visitors.
45.

The Complainants submitted that the slope and finishing of the outer dark

ledge around the first floor is improper, resulting in dampness in the walls. They
relied on photographic evidence to substantiate their assertion of substandard
workmanship that has led to seepage.

9

46.

With respect to the terrace, the Complainants submitted that it is regularly

cleaned to remove dust and debris. They contended that the presence of cracks is a
consequence of the use of substandard construction materials and not due to a lack
of maintenance.
47.

On the issue of water logging in the first-floor corridor, the Complainants

submitted that gaps observed between the bathroom tiles and the utility area had
been inadequately filled with inferior quality material. Over time, particularly due to
regular water exposure, this material has degraded, leading to the formation of
cracks. As a result, water seepage has occurred through these cracks, compromising
the integrity of the walls. The Complainants emphasized that this situation highlights
the need for proper workmanship and durable materials in high-exposure areas.
48.

With respect to the foul smell in the washrooms, the Complainants submitted

that the flats were inspected by a qualified plumber, who determined that the foul
odour was due to the absence of a properly installed vacuum seal within the toilet
cubicles. It was further submitted that the exhaust pipes were incorrectly positioned
on the balconies of the fifth-floor flats, with some of them located near the windows.
This improper placement was said to facilitate the flow of stale air into the flats,
aggravating the issue.
49.

The Complainants submitted that during maintenance, a large stone was

discovered inside the rainwater pit, and photographs were annexed to substantiate
the same. They asserted that the pit was not constructed in accordance with HMDA
specifications and that the presence of debris and stones rendered the pit ineffective
for rainwater harvesting.
50.

Regarding the staircases, the Complainants submitted photographic evidence

showing that the stair risers were inconsistent in height. They contended that this
inconsistency presents a serious tripping hazard and compromises user safety.
51.

With respect to the borewell, the Complainants submitted that they were

informed at the time of purchase that the borewell had been excavated to a depth
exceeding 1000 feet. However, subsequent technical issues necessitated the removal
of the pipeline, which revealed that the actual depth was only 800 feet. The
Complainants

urged

the

Authority

to

direct

the

Respondent

to

produce

documentation verifying the actual depth, as the discrepancy raises serious concerns
regarding misrepresentation at the time of sale.

10

52.

The Complainants further submitted photographic evidence of cracks and

delamination on internal and external walls, asserting that these are indicative of
poor-quality construction and the use of substandard materials.
53.

With regard to the western toilets, the Complainants attached documentation

from external sources specifying acceptable toilet height standards and submitted
that the installations in their flats do not conform to these norms.
54.

On the issue of the transformer and lift earth pits, the Complainants annexed

photographs demonstrating how standard earthing pits are typically laid. They
submitted that, contrary to such standards, the current earth pits are entirely sealed
with concrete, thereby preventing routine inspection and maintenance required to
ensure electrical safety.
55.

Accordingly, the Complainants prayed for appropriate directions from this

Authority to the Respondent to address and rectify all the issues enumerated above.

E. Observations and directions:
56.

Section 14(3) clearly stipulates that “In case any structural defect or any other

defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the
promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the
notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of
handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects
without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to
rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive
appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act.”
57.

Admittedly, as per the Respondent’s own version, the Occupancy Certificate

was obtained on 12.07.2021 and therefore, by virtue of the above-quoted provision,
the project still falls within the defect liability period. And therefore, the Respondent
is bound to rectify the deficiencies as enumerated hereunder. However, before going
into the said aspect, it is pertinent to note the Respondents’ argument that, as per
Clause 12 of the Draft Agreement of Sale in Annexure to Rule 38, the following
exclusions are made for seeking rectification from the promoter:
a. Equipment (lifts, generator, motors, STP, transformers, gym equipment etc)
which carry manufacturer’s guarantees for a limited period. Thereafter the

11

welfare association /society shall take annual maintenance contract with the
suppliers. The Promoter shall transfer manufacturers guarantees/warrantees
to the allottee or association of allottees as the case may be.
b. Fittings related to plumbing, sanitary, electrical, hardware, etc. having natural
wear and tear.
c. Allowable structural and other deformations including expansion quotient.
d. The terms of work like painting etc. which are subject to wear and tear.

58.

The Respondent submitted that above-exclusions need to be considered before

issuance of any directions to the Respondent.
59.

The Authority has carefully considered the material placed on record,

including the photographic evidences submitted by the Complainants, the
Respondent’s counter, and the rejoinder. Upon review, the Authority finds that
several of the issues raised pertain to structural defects and workmanship
deficiencies that fall within the scope of the promoter’s obligations under Section
14(3) of the Act. The presence of dampness in walls due to the improper slope and
finishing of the outer ledge, cracks on the terrace, seepage through washroom tiles,
and defects in the rainwater harvesting system and stairs are matters that cannot
be dismissed as mere maintenance lapses, as argued by the Respondent. These
issues indicate underlying construction defects and poor execution, which fall
squarely within the defect liability period. Further, the improper positioning of
exhaust pipes and absence of vacuum seals have resulted in foul odour and poor
ventilation, which impact the habitability of the flats. The complaints regarding the
unusual height of the wall-mounted toilets have been substantiated with
photographic evidence and merit rectification in the interest of safety and usability.
While the Authority takes note of the exclusions under Clause 12 of the draft
Agreement for Sale and Rule 38, these exclusions do not shield the promoter from
the obligation to rectify core defects that affect structural integrity, hygiene, and the
essential utility of the flats. Accordingly, the Authority holds the Respondent liable
to undertake rectification of the said defects.
60.

As regards the remaining reliefs sought by the Complainants, the Authority is

of the considered view that such issues pertain to natural wear and tear of fittings
and fixtures, and fall within the scope of maintenance responsibilities of the allottees.
Specifically, allegations regarding internal cabling constraints, UPVC window

12

alignment, and the quality of parking tiles, while noted, do not indicate structural
defects or deficiencies in workmanship of such a nature as to attract liability under
Section 14(3) of the Act. Likewise, the concerns raised in relation to voltage
fluctuations and internet signal reception are incidental to post-possession utility
usage and are subject to service provider infrastructure, over which the promoter
has no control. Further, where manufacturer guarantees or external approvals (such
as from TSSPDCL) govern installation—like in the case of transformers, earthing pits,
or borewell depth—those aspects fall outside the purview of the promoter’s
independent rectification obligations and ongoing maintenance and enhancements
fall within the Allottees’ collective domain.
61.

Accordingly, vide its powers under Section 37 of the Act, 2016, this Authority

issues the following directions to the Respondent:
i.

The respondent shall Provide proper slope on the outer dark gray ledge around
the first-floor slab in the concerned project “Orchid Ediface” to avoid rainwater
stagnancy and seepage within a period of 60(Sixty) days.

ii.

The respondent shall Resolve the cracks on either side of the terrace floor as
well as on the overhead tank wall in the concerned project “Orchid Ediface”
with proper water proofing material within a period of 60(Sixty) days.

iii.

The Respondent shall install the missing filters in the drainpipe in all the 15
flats of the concerned project “Orchid Ediface”. Also, extend the existing sewage
exhaust pipe from 4th floor balcony till the terrace to avoid smell within a period
of 60(Sixty) days.

iv.

The Respondent shall adjust the toilet height to the standard level in all the 15
flats in the concerned project “Orchid Ediface” within a period of 60(Sixty) days.

62.

In light of the above directions, the present complaint is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/-

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TG RERA

13