STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 369 of 2014
AGAINST
CC No. 10 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, NALGONDA
Between :
- M/s. Sri Krishna Residency Builders, represented by
Smt. Polimetla Poornima, W/o Venkat Rao, age : 31 years
Occ: Business and Builder of M/s. Sri Krishna Residency,
Gudibanda road, Kodad town, R/o H.No. 3-277/2,
Srinagar colony Kodad Town, presently residing at
Chiluvuri post, Duggirala Mandal of Prakasam district – 522 330.
- Sarikonda Narsa Raju, s/o Basava Raju, age : 37 years,
Occ ; Builder and Developer of Sri Krishna Residency Apartment
At Gudibanda road, Kodad town, R/o 1-149, Byta Manjuluru
Village and Mandal of
Prakasham District - 523 261. ..Appellants/opposite parties 1 &2
And
- Smt. Vunnam Rangalatha, W/o Venkata Narsaiah, aged 29 years,
OCC; House wife, R/o Flat No. 101, Srikrishna Residency,
Gudibanda road, Kodad town,
Nalgonda District .. Respondent/complainant
- The Commissioner, Municipality of Kodad,
Nalgonda District -26 ..Respondent/Opp. party no.3
Counsel for the Appellants : Ms/. G. Venugopal Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri V. Gourisankara Ra for R-1
FA 404 OF 2014
AGAINST
CC No. 10 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, NALGONDA
Between :
- Karnati Veera Reddy, S/o Shambi Reddy, aged about 31 years,
Occ : Pvt. Employee, R/o H.N. 4-79/G/1, Sri Krishna Residency,
Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
- Konkipaka Seeta Kumari, W/o Radhakrishna Murthy,, aged about 51 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o H.N. 4-79/G/2, Sri Krishna Residency,
Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
- Karlapati Krishna Mohan, S/o Appaiah, , aged about 40 years,
Occ : Business, R/o H.N. 4-79/G/3, Sri Krishna Residency,
Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
- Mohd. Abdula Raheem, S/o Abdulla, aged about 28 years,
Occ : Pvt. Teacher, R/o Flat No. 401 ( Penthouse)
H.No. 4-79, Sri Krishna Residency,
Kodad Town and Mandal,
Nalgonda District .. Appellants/Proposed parties
and
- Smt. Vunnam Rangalatha, W/o Venkata Narsaiah, aged 29 years,
OCC; House wife, R/o Flat No. 101, Srikrishna Residency,
Gudibanda road, Kodad town,
Nalgonda District .. 1st Respondent/complainant
- M/s. Sri Krishna Residency Builders, represented by
Smt. Polimetla Poornima, W/o Venkat Rao, age : 32 years
Occ: Business and Builder of M/s. Sri Krishna Residency,
Gudibanda road, Kodad town, R/o H.No. 3-277/2,
Srinagar colony Kodad Town, presently residing at
Chiluvuri post, Duggirala Mandal of Prakasam district – 522 330.
- Sarikonda Narsa Raju, s/o Basava Raju, age : 38 years,
Occ ; Builder and Developer of Sri Krishna Residency Apartment
At Gudibanda road, Kodad town, R/o 1-149, Byta Manjuluru
Village and Mandal of
Prakasham District - 523 261. … 2nd and 3rd Respondents/opposite parties 1 &2
- The Commissioner, Municipality of Kodad,
Nalgonda District -26 ..4th Respondent/Opp. party no.3
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. KRR Associates
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri V. Gourisankara Ra for R-1
M/s. G. Venugopal Rao ..R2 &R3
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Fourth Day of June
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) The above two appeals, i.e. FA 369 of 2014 and FA 404 of 2014 filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the proposed parties praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 28/05/2014 made in CC. 10 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Nalgonda. Since these two appeals are filed from the same impugned order, 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 she purchased Flat No. 101 in the Sri Krishna Residency at Kodad on Gudibanda Road vide Ex.A-4 sale deed from the opposite parties 1 and 2. But, the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not furnish a coy of approved plan. The Gram Panchyath gave permission only for construction of flats in G + 2, totally 18 flats, each floor consisting of six flats. Contrary to the same, the opposite parties 1 and 2 constructed three flats in the stilt area and one flat on terrace which were intended for common areas and facilities. With the construction of flats in stilt area, the parking area is compressed. 20 yards of parking place was not allotted to her as per sale deed. They also did not provide drinking water, tap connection and also drainage facilities. They have illegally collected a sum of Rs.15,000/- for electric transformer and Rs.5,230/- towards VAT. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to dismantle the illegal constructions and to provide common areas and facilities like adequate free parking place in stilt area, to hand over all connected documents along with several other reliefs, to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with interest @ 24% pa, to pay compensation and costs.
04. The opposite parties remained exparte in FA 369 of 2014.
5). During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-13.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed to demolish three flats constructed in the stilt area and one constructed on the terrace and provide drinking water tap, drainage facility and give all the link documents to the complainant and also specify the parking place to each flat owners and the opposite party no. 3 shall implement this order.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred FA 369 of 2014 and FA 404 of 2014 was preferred by the proposed parties before this Commission.
8). Appellants and R1 have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the grounds of appeal, rebuttal thereof, along with written arguments filed by the appellants in FA 369 of 2014.
09) 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?
10). Point No. 1 :
The District Forum observed that sanctioned plan shows that the appellants were proposed to construct six flats in each floor of G + 2 floors of the proposed Building. Since the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2, the District Forum on the basis of the affidavit of the first respondent/complainant came to the conclusion that the opposite parties 1 and 2 constructed three flats in the stilt area and one flat on the top and sold the same and that the stilt area and terrace do come within the meaning of ‘common areas and facilities’ and as such, they are liable to be demolished.
11). The counsel for the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 in FA 369 of 2014 argued that the Gram Panchayat approved permission on 18.03.2010 for construction of three flats in the stilt floor, six flats in each floor and without any deviations or alterations, the appellants have constructed the flats in the year 2011 and the District Forum without conducting any proper enquiry passed the impugned order. Ex.A-3 supports the contention of the appellants with regard to sanctioned plan.
12). In FA 404 of 2014, the appellants/Proposed parties argued that they are the owners of the G1, G2, G3 and 401 on the terrace purchased under registered sale deed from the respondents 2 and 3/opposite parties 1 & 2 by paying valuable consideration, they were not made as parties before the District Forum and on the orders of the District Forum, the Commissioner, Kodad Municipality got issued notice to demolish their flats on 25.06.2014 and the remedy lies before the Civil Court.
13). The District Forum directed to demolish the three flats in the stilt area and one flat on the terrace. As per the approved plan, permission was obtained to construct three flats in the stilt area, but, with regard to flat on the terrace is questionable. Further, it is to be looked into whether the entire Ground floor and stilt area were intended for common area or not, as per the registered document of the first respondent/complainant. In addition to that, the appellants/ proposed parties in FA 404 of 2014 purchased G1, G2, G3 and 401 and it is to be examined whether the said flats were in common areas and whether the said flats were sold against the contents of the sale deed of the first respondent/ complainant. After examination, if it was found that the said G1, G2, G3 and 401 were constructed and sold against the terms and conditions of the sale deed of the first respondent/complainant, if so, whether demolition is permissible and what is the remedy. These are complicated questions of fact and law which require elaborate enquiry and recording of voluminous evidence. Consumer Fora adjudicated the matters in summary nature. In view of the above, Consumer Fora is not the appropriate Forum to adjudicate the matter.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the that the first respondent/complainant can seek redressal from the competent Civil Court.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, both the appeals, ie., FA 369 of 2014 and FA 404 of 2014 are allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2014 made in CC 10 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Nalgonda with a direction to approach competent Civil Court for redressal, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 04.06.2018.
