STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 112 of 2014
AGAINST
CC . 251 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. Vijay Sri Constructions
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr. G. Viswanatha Raju,
S/o late Venkatapathi Raju,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ : Business, R/o Plot no. 604/B,
Road no. 32, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad .. Appellant/Op no.1
And
01. Vijay Sai Residency Owners Welfare Association
Rep. by its General Secretary Mr. L. S. Naidu,
S/o Sri Ramulu, aged about 53 years,
Occ : Journalist, R/o H.No. 1-1-4, Flat No. 305,
Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad
- Godavarthi Venkata Ramanamma,
W/o Sri Godavarthi Venkata Raju,
Aged about 70 years, Occ : House wife,
R/o H.No. 348, Journalist colony,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
( Respondent No.2 is not
a necessary party) .. Respondents /complainant/OP No.2.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Bh. Ravi Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. Karra Srinivas for R-1
R-2 not necessary party.
FA 361 of 2014
AGAINST
CC . 251 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD
Between :
Vijay Sai Residency Owners Welfare Association
Rep. by its General Secretary Mr. L. S. Naidu,
S/o Sri Ramulu, aged about 53 years,
Occ : Journalist, R/o H.No. 1-1-4, Flat No. 305,
Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad
And
01. M/s. Vijay Sri Constructions
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr. G. Viswanatha Raju,
S/o late Venkatapathi Raju,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ : Business, R/o Plot no. 604/B,
Road no. 32, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad .. Appellant/Op no.1
- Godavarthi Venkata Ramanamma,
W/o Sri Godavarthi Venkata Raju,
Aged about 70 years, Occ : House wife,
R/o H.No. 348, Journalist colony,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad
( Respondent No.2 is not
a necessary party) .. Respondents/complainant/OP No.2.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Karra Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. Bh. Ravi Kumar for R-1
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Twenty First Day of March
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) These are cross appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the first opposite party in FA 112 of 2014 praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2014 passed in CC 251 of 2012 and the complainant filed FA 362 of 2014 for enhancement of compensation and allow the complaint on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -II, Hyderabad respectively. Since these are cross appeals and the advocates are one and the same, we are inclined to dispose of the same by common order.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the members of the complainant’s society entered into an agreement of sale with the opposite parties and purchased the flats by obtaining loans from various banks and paid total sale consideration to the opposite parties 1 and 2, i.e, the builder and owner of the site. But the opposite parties have not provided facilities as mentioned in the specifications. The opposite parties also failed to provide car parking to some of the members who purchased car parking because of un-authorized construction of shops in the stilt floor and given on rent to outsiders. The builder used the inferior quality of material for construction of the building contrary to the specifications mentioned in the agreement. Each of the members has spent lot of money for repairs and still spending on the repairs of the flats and for purchase of water since the first opposite party has not provided bore well and municipal water. They got issued notice but there was no response from the opposite parties. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to provide, Bore-well water, Generator, Car parking and scooter parking, remove all the encroachments in the building, to stop the seepage of walls of the flats, to stop leakages in the balconies, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony, to pay compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- if the first opposite party failed to attend the above works and to pay Rs.3,90,000/- for digging the bore well and cost of motors and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
4). The opposite party no.1 opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that they have provided car parking whoever purchased the car parking, they used good quality of material for construction of the building. Due to defect in the soil, two bore wells were collapsed. They provided 1 ½ “ water connection and for the past many years there is no water problem. For improper use, the lift may be damaged. They have alienated or transferred the flats prior to 2006 itself to the purchasers and nothing remaining to be done. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5). The complainant filed a Memo dated 10.10.2012 not pressing the case gainst the second opposite party and hence the claim against the second opposite party was dismissed.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the complainant filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-7. Written arguments on both sides were filed. Heard both sides.
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the first opposite party to get opinion from the Geologist where the water will come by digging bore wells and dig two bore wells and provide water supply to all the flat owners, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- towards costs to the complainant.
8) Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
9). None appears since a long time. Common written arguments were filed by the complainants’ association.
10) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
11). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the Complainants’ Flat Owners’ Association purchased the flats from the opposite parties. The contention of the Complainants’ association is that the opposite parties have not provided the facilities as mentioned in the specifications.
12) The District Forum observed that since the first opposite party builder admitted that the two bore wells which were dug by him were collapsed due to defect in the soil and hence failed to provide sufficient water as per the specifications mentioned by him which amounts to deficiency in service and directed to dig two bore wells to provide water supply to all the flat owners as promised.
13) Counsel for the Appellant/1st opposite party argued that the appellant Builder sold the flats prior to 2006 and the complaint was filed on 18.04.2012 after six years which was barred by limitation since the limitation starts from the date of the possession/transfer of the flats and not from the date of formation of the association of the complainants on 19.08.2010. Further the complainant has not filed any document to show that the alleged flats were purchased from them to prove that there was deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, Counsel for the complainants’ association argued that the District Forum faield to see that the first opposite party has not provided the amenities and not constructed apartments as per the specifications mentioned in Ex A4 and therefore the complaint ought to have been allowed and due to failure to provide sufficient water, compensation has to be enhanced.
14) Ex, A4 is the Development agreement cum General Power of Attorney in between the first opposite party builder and the second opposite party land owner. For the reasons best known, the appellant/complainant’s association has not filed their purchase agreements or sale deeds in support of their contentions in between them and the first opposite party builder stating that the appellant/1st opposite party builder did not comply with the specifications. It is for them to prove each and every aspect with cogent evidence supported by technical expert opinion to what extent there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/1st opposite party builder. We cannot brush aside the contention of the Appellant/1st opposite party builder that he already provided Generator and all the amenities as promised and there are no pending works left over by them and after a gap six years the appellant/complainants’ association came with the complaint with malafide intention. They rebutted that the pent house along with the said building was constructed long back and it was used for the complainants’ association office for their convenience and after so many years and now they cannot plead that it is illegal construction. The appellant/ complainants’ association failed to prove that there are latches/deficiencies on the part of the appellant/1st opposite party builder except the bore wells that were dug by them were collapsed and not provided water by them and hence cause of action continues and therefore complaint is not barred by limitation.
15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. There are no merits in both the appeals and hence they are liable to be dismissed.
16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 05.02.2014 in CC 251 of 2012 passed by the District Forum- II, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 21.03.2018.
