From this site: http://confonet.nic.in/ConsumerRights.html Right to Safety Means right to be protected against the marketing of goods and services, which are hazardous to life and property. The purchased goods and services availed of should not only meet their immediate needs, but also fulfill long term interests. Before purchasing, consumers should insist on the quality of the products as well as on the guarantee of the products and services. They should preferably purchase quality marked products such as ISI, AGMARK, etc |
| Right to be Informed Means right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices. Consumer should insist on getting all the information about the product or service before making a choice or a decision. This will enable him to act wisely and responsibly and also enable him to desist from falling prey to high pressure selling techniques. |
| Right to Choose Means right to be assured, wherever possible of access to variety of goods and services at competitive price. In case of monopolies, it means right to be assured of satisfactory quality and service at a fair price. It also includes right to basic goods and services. This is because unrestricted right of the minority to choose can mean a denial for the majority of its fair share. This right can be better exercised in a competitive market where a variety of goods are available at competitive prices |
| Right to be Heard Means that consumer's interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums. It also includes right to be represented in various forums formed to consider the consumer's welfare. The Consumers should form non-political and non-commercial consumer organizations which can be given representation in various committees formed by the Government and other bodies in matters relating to consumers |
| Right to Seek Redressal Means right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers. It also includes right to fair settlement of the genuine grievances of the consumer. Consumers must make complaint for their genuine grievances.Many a times their complaint may be of small value but its impact on the society as a whole may be very large. They can also take the help of consumer organisations in seeking redressal of their grievances. |
| Right to Consumer Education Means the right to acquire the knowledge and skill to be an informed consumer throughout life.Ignorance of consumers, particularly of rural consumers, is mainly responsible for their exploitation. They should know their rights and must exercise them. Only then real consumer protection can be achieved with success. |
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
0 Consumer Rights
0 You are trapped by experts -marketing/ sales team MONGAREALTORS Pvt. Ltd.
This post is regarding, How you trapped in such projects?
Basically, Trapping is done by very talented and educated peoples like MBA. yes - they are managers having degrees in Managements like MBA. They are professionals.
& You are ......
What today's builder doing?
Genrally cheap builder's higher third party sales team like here Mongarealtors. So that a buyers to and fro in between them. Marketing team will tells you- to go to the builder, and they will tell you to go sales team... In the result- you lost your peace of mind and everything-literally they sucks you...... In coming post i will post more on such entry points of trapping from my experience and about others experience too...
But here just beware- you are paying your hard earned money- don't go on verbal communication and do both types of agreement. Copy of everything in written in between you and builder on behalf of marketing/ sales team, but also do in between marketing/ sales team and you.
Snapshot of coming post like below:
Very First Wrong commitment done by this Mongrealtors.
Possession on a specific month. they will not give you anything in written because they know-- it could leads their business suck.
Tell/ Show you only positive things.
wrong commitments
Hide original things
manipulate the actual things then present.
so on....many mores...
Basically, Trapping is done by very talented and educated peoples like MBA. yes - they are managers having degrees in Managements like MBA. They are professionals.
What today's builder doing?
Genrally cheap builder's higher third party sales team like here Mongarealtors. So that a buyers to and fro in between them. Marketing team will tells you- to go to the builder, and they will tell you to go sales team... In the result- you lost your peace of mind and everything-literally they sucks you...... In coming post i will post more on such entry points of trapping from my experience and about others experience too...
But here just beware- you are paying your hard earned money- don't go on verbal communication and do both types of agreement. Copy of everything in written in between you and builder on behalf of marketing/ sales team, but also do in between marketing/ sales team and you.
Snapshot of coming post like below:
Very First Wrong commitment done by this Mongrealtors.
Possession on a specific month. they will not give you anything in written because they know-- it could leads their business suck.
Tell/ Show you only positive things.
wrong commitments
Hide original things
manipulate the actual things then present.
so on....many mores...
0 Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
This Post based on three points only:
1: Is I get justice? from LAW(court)......
2: I am paying since two years for this property..
Check the ROI of bank- They always Increase
3: Today State/ Condition of My Flat: (post this in next post)
Do anyone think is anything going in my favor... Its simply:
District Consumer court: Case-12/167 [done by my - got decision from the court (court section me a reward of 3.10lakh Rs, But not getting any amount from builder and court - also not satisfied from the decision, that's why I moved to higher in state commission court and their what I am getting till today is dates and dates. ]
State commission court: Case- FA/12/1258 [appeal in state commission: done by me]
State commission court: - FA/12/1319 [appeal by Somdatt Builder SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against that reward sanctioned by District Court]
Case Screen Shot taken from: http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcusersWeb/login.do?method=caseStatus
2nd Point: [ I am paying since two years for this property..]
1: Is I get justice? from LAW(court)......
2: I am paying since two years for this property..
Check the ROI of bank- They always Increase
3: Today State/ Condition of My Flat: (post this in next post)
Do anyone think is anything going in my favor... Its simply:
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
basically a common man don't have any right to buy a home
basically a common man don't have any right to buy a home
1: point: [ Is I get justice? from LAW(court).....]
My case numbers are as follows :
District Consumer court: Case-12/167 [done by my - got decision from the court (court section me a reward of 3.10lakh Rs, But not getting any amount from builder and court - also not satisfied from the decision, that's why I moved to higher in state commission court and their what I am getting till today is dates and dates. ]
District Consumer Court: Case- 13/1345 [this case is about their humiliation- in this they cut my power backup. ]
State commission court: Case- FA/12/1258 [appeal in state commission: done by me]
State commission court: - FA/12/1319 [appeal by Somdatt Builder SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against that reward sanctioned by District Court]
Now see the Today status of my cases. I am still not getting any single rupee from the builder and from court. What I get that are DATES and DATES.......
But i will fight...............................
| Case No. FA/12/1258 | ||||
| Complainant: | Lokesh Kumar | Respondent: | SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. | |
| Date of Hearing | Date Of Next Hearing | Case Stage | Court Proceeding | Order |
| 4/10/2012 | 2/11/2012 | Issue Notice/Directions | Proceedings | Daily Order |
| 2/11/2012 | 6/12/2012 | Issue Notice/Directions | Proceedings | Daily Order |
| 6/12/2012 | 15/04/2013 | Admit | Proceedings | Daily Order |
| 7/10/2013 | 19/03/2014 | Adjourn | Proceedings | Daily Order |
| Case No. FA/12/1319 | ||||
| Complainant: | SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. | Respondent: | Lokesh Kumar | |
| Date of Hearing | Date Of Next Hearing | Case Stage | Court Proceeding | Order |
| 17/10/2012 | 6/12/2012 | Issue Notice/Directions | Proceedings | Daily Order |
| 6/12/2012 | 15/04/2013 | Admit | Proceedings | Daily Order |
| 7/10/2013 | 19/03/2014 | Proceedings | Daily Order | |
Case Screen Shot taken from: http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcusersWeb/login.do?method=caseStatus
2nd Point: [ I am paying since two years for this property..]
The report will be displayed in a new window. Kindly ensure that Popups are enabled.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monday, November 4, 2013
0 My Illusion was broken..
[I hope- one day I wish to talk to the owner- of SDB Infrastructure Private Limited]
In this post I shown faith on the owners of this company.. I met them in last month when they were here on the visit of this project. The Person name is Dr. Brahm Datt (Managing Director SDB Infrastructure Limited) . We talked to him(with my Freind Sanjeet). We said: Sir Good Morning, We are the resident fo this society. We want to talk with you separately, we want your five minutes only. He said- Ok we will talk after this round of this society, and He moved with the staff including Zora singh. We waited for him for 15 minutes their. When he came- He just moved in Zora singh cabin and close the door. We recollect ourselves- and entered in his cabin. and ask again. sir, we want to talk you. He said came after post lunch without making eye contact with us. We ask again for the time- he said 3:30PM.. We were there at 3:30PM. But he never came....
What we want from him.. Just 5 minutes.. Isn't it so difficult for him........??????
What it shows- Company's owners know everything, The aged person.Dr. BrahmDatt knows everything. Even they don't face/listen the reality..They broke my illusion......
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
0 Society Can Not Charge Service Tax On Maintenance
In this video it is clear that- Society can not Charge Service Tax on Maintenance. But It is Not clear- If the All maintenance done by Builder - than Service Tax is applicable or not. In Somdatt LandMark- Sector-116 Mohali- project done by SDB Infrastructure Pvt Ltd continuously charged Service tax on Maintenance since last more than a year. I already ask them many times- But never reply by them.
I don't know- who is Right or who is Wrong???
anyhow check the video recorded fro tv channel in property guru show- and the maintenance bill too.
Look at my My maintenance bills with service tax, cess, sec. cess tex.
I don't know- who is Right or who is Wrong???
anyhow check the video recorded fro tv channel in property guru show- and the maintenance bill too.
Look at my My maintenance bills with service tax, cess, sec. cess tex.
 |
| Maintenance bill at Somdatt Landmark sector-116 mohali, with various service tax |
 |
| Maintenance bill at Somdatt Landmark sector-116 mohali, with various service tax |
Monday, July 22, 2013
0 No reply from SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. / Somdatt Builder Pvt. Ltd. regarding open parking
Email sent to the company(SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. -formerly named as Somdatt Builder Pvt. Ltd.): but never got any reply on this, at least they must tell- I am right or wrong.
matter from above link:
Open, stilt parking spaces are common areas, builders can’t charge extra: SC -
|
Open, stilt parking spaces are common areas, builders can’t charge extra: SC -
Krishnadas Rajagopal : New Delhi, Thu Sep 02 2010, 02:38 hrs
Flat purchasers need not shell out extra money from their savings to buy parking spaces, both open and closed, from property developers at the time of sale.
"Open-to-sky" areas or "stilted" (covered) portions of their flat complexes, usable as parking spaces, cannot be sold separately by flat builders/promoters/developers as "garage", the Supreme Court has ruled.
These spaces are part of the "common areas" in flat complexes and not "saleable independently as a flat or along with a flat", the court said in a judgment.
The verdict sets a precedent even as the apex court took note that builders/promoters/developers were "indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited".
The judgment delivered Tuesday by a bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik comes in the backdrop of interpreting the legislative intent behind enacting the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1969.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Mumbai promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction against a co-operative housing society to whom they had sold a few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East) in the city. They accused society members of "encroaching" into 25 stilt parking spaces in the building.
The court said promoters will not be put to any financial prejudice by treating parking spaces as common areas since "he (promoter) is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat".
"Can a promoter take a common passage/lobbies or say staircase or the RG area out of purview of 'common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the same in the 'common areas'?" asked the court and illustrated how the Maharashtra law mandates the promoter to describe the "common areas and facilities" in the advertisement as well as in the agreement later with the buyer.
"The promoter is required to indicate the price of the flat, including the proportionate price of the common areas and facilities. If the promoter does not disclose the common areas and facilities, he does so at his own peril," the bench observed.
The court clarified that "stilt" or covered parking spaces were "common areas", and would not cease to be so even if the promoter fails to describe them as common spaces.
Flat purchasers need not shell out extra money from their savings to buy parking spaces, both open and closed, from property developers at the time of sale.
"Open-to-sky" areas or "stilted" (covered) portions of their flat complexes, usable as parking spaces, cannot be sold separately by flat builders/promoters/developers as "garage", the Supreme Court has ruled.
These spaces are part of the "common areas" in flat complexes and not "saleable independently as a flat or along with a flat", the court said in a judgment.
The verdict sets a precedent even as the apex court took note that builders/promoters/developers were "indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited".
The judgment delivered Tuesday by a bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik comes in the backdrop of interpreting the legislative intent behind enacting the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1969.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Mumbai promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction against a co-operative housing society to whom they had sold a few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East) in the city. They accused society members of "encroaching" into 25 stilt parking spaces in the building.
The court said promoters will not be put to any financial prejudice by treating parking spaces as common areas since "he (promoter) is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat".
"Can a promoter take a common passage/lobbies or say staircase or the RG area out of purview of 'common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the same in the 'common areas'?" asked the court and illustrated how the Maharashtra law mandates the promoter to describe the "common areas and facilities" in the advertisement as well as in the agreement later with the buyer.
"The promoter is required to indicate the price of the flat, including the proportionate price of the common areas and facilities. If the promoter does not disclose the common areas and facilities, he does so at his own peril," the bench observed.
The court clarified that "stilt" or covered parking spaces were "common areas", and would not cease to be so even if the promoter fails to describe them as common spaces.
Flat
purchasers need not shell out extra money from their savings to buy
parking spaces, both open and closed, from property developers at the
time of sale.
"Open-to-sky" areas or "stilted" (covered) portions of their flat complexes, usable as parking spaces, cannot be sold separately by flat builders/promoters/developers as "garage", the Supreme Court has ruled.
These spaces are part of the "common areas" in flat complexes and not "saleable independently as a flat or along with a flat", the court said in a judgment.
The verdict sets a precedent even as the apex court took note that builders/promoters/developers were "indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited".
The judgment delivered Tuesday by a bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik comes in the backdrop of interpreting the legislative intent behind enacting the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1969.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Mumbai promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction against a co-operative housing society to whom they had sold a few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East) in the city. They accused society members of "encroaching" into 25 stilt parking spaces in the building.
The court said promoters will not be put to any financial prejudice by treating parking spaces as common areas since "he (promoter) is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat".
"Can a promoter take a common passage/lobbies or say staircase or the RG area out of purview of 'common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the same in the 'common areas'?" asked the court and illustrated how the Maharashtra law mandates the promoter to describe the "common areas and facilities" in the advertisement as well as in the agreement later with the buyer.
- See more at:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/open-stilt-parking-spaces-are-common-areas-builders-can-t-charge-extra-sc/676177/#sthash.hllzY2YU.dpuFlat
purchasers need not shell out extra money from their savings to buy
parking spaces, both open and closed, from property developers at the
time of sale.
"Open-to-sky" areas or "stilted" (covered) portions of their flat complexes, usable as parking spaces, cannot be sold separately by flat builders/promoters/developers as "garage", the Supreme Court has ruled.
These spaces are part of the "common areas" in flat complexes and not "saleable independently as a flat or along with a flat", the court said in a judgment.
The verdict sets a precedent even as the apex court took note that builders/promoters/developers were "indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited".
The judgment delivered Tuesday by a bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik comes in the backdrop of interpreting the legislative intent behind enacting the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1969.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Mumbai promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction against a co-operative housing society to whom they had sold a few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East) in the city. They accused society members of "encroaching" into 25 stilt parking spaces in the building.
The court said promoters will not be put to any financial prejudice by treating parking spaces as common areas since "he (promoter) is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat".
"Can a promoter take a common passage/lobbies or say staircase or the RG area out of purview of 'common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the same in the 'common areas'?" asked the court and illustrated how the Maharashtra law mandates the promoter to describe the "common areas and facilities" in the advertisement as well as in the agreement later with the buyer.
"Open-to-sky" areas or "stilted" (covered) portions of their flat
complexes, usable as parking spaces, cannot be sold separately by flat
builders/promoters/developers as "garage", the Supreme Court has ruled.
These spaces are part of the "common areas" in flat complexes and not "saleable independently as a flat or along with a flat", the court said in a judgment.
The verdict sets a precedent even as the apex court took note that builders/promoters/developers were "indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited".
The judgment delivered Tuesday by a bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik comes in the backdrop of interpreting the legislative intent behind enacting the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1969.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Mumbai promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction against a co-operative housing society to whom they had sold a few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East) in the city. They accused society members of "encroaching" into 25 stilt parking spaces in the building.
The court said promoters will not be put to any financial prejudice by treating parking spaces as common areas since "he (promoter) is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat".
"Can a promoter take a common passage/lobbies or say staircase or the RG area out of purview of 'common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the same in the 'common areas'?" asked the court and illustrated how the Maharashtra law mandates the promoter to describe the "common areas and facilities" in the advertisement as well as in the agreement later with the buyer.
These spaces are part of the "common areas" in flat complexes and not "saleable independently as a flat or along with a flat", the court said in a judgment.
The verdict sets a precedent even as the apex court took note that builders/promoters/developers were "indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited".
The judgment delivered Tuesday by a bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik comes in the backdrop of interpreting the legislative intent behind enacting the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1969.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Mumbai promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction against a co-operative housing society to whom they had sold a few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East) in the city. They accused society members of "encroaching" into 25 stilt parking spaces in the building.
The court said promoters will not be put to any financial prejudice by treating parking spaces as common areas since "he (promoter) is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat".
"Can a promoter take a common passage/lobbies or say staircase or the RG area out of purview of 'common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the same in the 'common areas'?" asked the court and illustrated how the Maharashtra law mandates the promoter to describe the "common areas and facilities" in the advertisement as well as in the agreement later with the buyer.
- See more at:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/open-stilt-parking-spaces-are-common-areas-builders-can-t-charge-extra-sc/676177/#sthash.hllzY2YU.dpuff
0 I pay Rs 50,000 for Open parking To SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd in Somdatt Landmark Mohali
Builder(Somdatt Builder Pvt. Ltd.) never give any parking to us, We know as per law - one parking is free with each apartment anyhow I paid so much amount Rs 50,000 for the open car parking and they gave it on the Road-- and they called it as Right to use
Check the Images: Open car Parking Pics
Above are spaces provided to flat owners who gave builder Rs 50,000 for open car parking. I feel this is not fair to give spaces on road. And moreover they promised for GUEST Parking- I don't know where they will provide. I feel we were cheated by Builder. As per NBC 2005( National Building Code of India) the Road should be clear always-for any kind of emergency- like Ambulance, Fire Fighting Van. So that Any emergency vehicle can move freely and here even two cars can not cross each other.
Rest I don't know---
More Important Links are:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/open-stilt-parking-spaces-are-common-areas-builders-can-t-charge-extra-sc/676177/
Check the Images: Open car Parking Pics
Above are spaces provided to flat owners who gave builder Rs 50,000 for open car parking. I feel this is not fair to give spaces on road. And moreover they promised for GUEST Parking- I don't know where they will provide. I feel we were cheated by Builder. As per NBC 2005( National Building Code of India) the Road should be clear always-for any kind of emergency- like Ambulance, Fire Fighting Van. So that Any emergency vehicle can move freely and here even two cars can not cross each other.
Rest I don't know---
More Important Links are:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/open-stilt-parking-spaces-are-common-areas-builders-can-t-charge-extra-sc/676177/
0 Why am I fighting with this SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. company on the project Somdatt landmark Sector-116?
Because of:
a article published in tribune:
available at this page http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120526/real.htm
Fight for your right
Under what circumstances can you file a complaint against builder/developer with the consumer court?First of all a buyer should let the builder know about the grievance and send a notice to him in writing. It should be sent by registered post or Under Postal Certificate.
In case the builder refuses to accept the notice, retain the proof of the notice i.e. a copy of the notice. The evidence of sending the notice is legitimate in the Consumer Court under Section 28A (3) of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act of 2002 and will be affirmed as the notice has been suitably served.
Any person can file a complaint against the builder, developer, housing with the consumer court under the following circumstances:
n Did not provide for water storage tank.
n Did not give a receipt against the paid amount.
n Did not provide for enough ventilation and light.
n Did not deliver the house within the agreed time limit. If time limit not mentioned, it is assumed that the construction will be finished within maximum of two years from the date of start of work.
Fighting for above strikeout points.
The Quality Which They delivered to me:
0 How SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. calculated power backup bill in Somdatt Landmark Sector-116
The bill calculated by the company -- as
The bill should be instead of this:
when we complaint such things- what they replied: just read the below post
Description
|
Total No. Unit Consumed
|
Initial Reading
|
Current Reading
|
Rate (Per Unit(Rs.)
|
Amount(Rs.)
|
Power Back Up Charges (Flat No- 403
Ruby Tower No-06)
|
68
|
4
|
64
|
12.6
|
806
|
Add:
Service Tax @10%
|
81
|
||||
Add:
Cess 2%
|
2
|
||||
Add:
Sec. Cess 1%
|
1
|
||||
Total
|
890
|
The bill should be instead of this:
Unit consumed = current reading - initial reading
= 64 - 4
= 60 instead of 68 they written
Total bill = 60*12.60
= Rs. 756/- instead of Rs. 806/- and NO tax applicable on it.
when we complaint such things- what they replied: just read the below post
and check the original bill copy also in post:
http://sdbbuilder-vs-us.blogspot.in/2013/07/sdb-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-serve-me_13.html
http://sdbbuilder-vs-us.blogspot.in/2013/07/sdb-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-serve-me_13.html
 |
| Orignal power backup bill copy. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
