BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.533/2012 against C.C.No.189/2009 District Forum, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Between
D.Aditya Varma
S/o.Sri D.V.Surya Rao
Aged about 28 years, Flat No.202,
Plot No.102, K.P.Residence,
Pragathinagar, Opp:JNTUC,
Hyderabad. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. Sri B.Bhaskar Rao,
S/o.Sri Swami Das, aged 45 years,
Managing Partner, M/s.B.B.R.Constructions,
Plot No.595, Pragatinagar, Opp:JNTU
Kukatpally, R.R.District.
2. Smt.Jaya Bhaskar Rao,
W/o.Sri B.Bhaskara Rao,
Aged 41 years, Partner,
M/s BBR Construction,
Plot No.595, Pragatinagar,
Opp JNTU Kukatpally,
R.R.District.
3. M/s B.B.R.Constructions
Rep. by Sri B.Bhaskar Rao
S/o.Sri Swami Das, Plot No.595,
Pragatinagar, Opp:JNTU,
Kukatpally, R.R.District.
4. K.Sudhish S/o.K.Prabhu Das
Aged 24 years,
Flat No.G-2 Plot No.102
KP Residency, Pragathinagar
Opp JNTU, Hyderabad.
5. K.Hephzibah D/o.K.Prabhu Das
Aged 20 years,
Flat No.G-2, Plot No.102,
KP Residency, Pragathinagar,
Opp JNTU, Hyderabad.
6. K.V.Keziah D/o.K.Prabhu Das
Aged 18 years, Flat No.G-2
Plot no.102, KP Residency
Pragathinagar,
Opp JNTU, Hyderabad. Respondents/
Opp.parties.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. S.Harshavardhan lal
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s J.Srinivas Rao-R1 to R3
R4 to R6 served.
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/c. President
SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c. President)
***
The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
The appellant filed the complaint seeking for direction to the respondents to rectify water leakage, seepage, cracks, damages, paint loss on the walls and roof and to close the bedroom ventilator, to rectify the defective wood work, plastering of the walls of the flat and to rectify the electric fittings and the lift room electric shocks and for the undivided share of land as 34 sq. yds. in the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant, to direct the respondent to provide sunshades wherever windows are provided, to rectify the electric shocks to the walls and pipe lines, provide three phase meter to the complainant’s flat, to provide sufficient motor to drain out the rain water from the flat and proper taps in the bath rooms, to mark proper car parking place to the complainant
The appellant further claimed for providing of proper parking facility for two wheeler by demolishing unauthorized rooms constructed in the cellar, to provide 2nd Manjeera connection and to drill bore to sufficient level, to provide provision for out flow of stagnant water in the cellar and provide sufficient arrangements like pipes, etc. for overhead tank storage, to take measures to prevent the overflow from watchman’s toilet, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards repairs of the flat that was spent by the complainant on account of poor construction of respondent, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards damage to material like cloths, sofa beds and other furniture of the appellant.
The appellant submitted that he entered into an agreement with the respondents for purchase of flat No.202 for Rs.24.50 lakhs and got registered the flat on 07-8-2008 in his favour. The appellant submitted that he paid the full amount of Rs.24.50 lakhs, the respondents mentioned in the sale deed that they received only Rs.6,90 lakhs and Rs.90,000/- towards agreement of construction of semi constructed flat. The appellant submitted that he took possession of the flat No.202 immediately after execution of registered sale deed by respondents 1 to 3 as they promised to complete all the unfinished work within 2 months from 07-8-2008. The appellant submitted that the elevator is completely exposed to rain water and is shaking while it is moving, no provision has been done to stop the elevator when it is not in use, the paintings on the walls have not been done properly.
The respondents agreed to provide car parking to the complainant as per terms of the sale deed dated 07-8-2008 and provided parking space to only 8 flats. The respondents constructed two rooms in the cellar unauthorizedly in common areas belonging to all flat owners which affected parking area of the flat owners including the complainant. The sunshades to some of the windows of the flat are not yet arranged. The appellant submitted because of non availability of ground water, he is getting water tankers to the complex at regular intervals by paying extra amount in addition to the monthly maintenance charges.
The appellant submitted that though the motor used for water supply is not of required quality and 2nd Manjeera water connection was not applied for. The appellant submitted that the respondents did not make necessary arrangement to ensure that rain water does not enter and stagnate in the cellar or make necessary arrangement to drain the water except providing a small motor of less capacity which got burnt once in last two months. The appellant submitted that if there is much rain, the balconies of the east facing flats are cleaned, the water enters into drinking water sump, the toilet of the watchman’s room over flows leading to water stagnation in cellar.
The appellant submitted that separate electric meters were not placed till some months after occupation of the flats and inmates had to pay money towards common electric meter usage charges. Single phase meters were kept instead of 3 phase meter, flats are not numbered and a grill has been erected in front of the flat occupied by builder’s daughter which is gross violation of law as the common space is meant for all inmates and occupied by respondents 1 to 3 builder’s family. The appellant submitted that they discussed the problems with the land owner, Sri Prabhu Das in March, 2009 and an agreement dated 30-3-2009 was entered into to complete the pending work in 2 months by respondents 1 to 3 and no work has been carried out and thereafter the land owner, Sri K.Prabhu das expired and the respondents neglected to attend their duty.
The appellant submitted that there are several defects in his flat such as walls are built of substandard material, Lappam finishing was not done, Painting work and finishing works were not done properly, in one of the flats water in the bathroom is seeping into adjoining bedroom through the wall causing damage to the clothes and furniture. Water leakage in the hall is due to water seepage from balcony of east facing house on the upper floor of the appellant’s flat (diagonally faced flat) due to which the inmates experience shock while touching the wall. The respondents 1 to 3 got applied some chemical as a temporary solution and the problem still persists. No sun shades are provided to some windows to prevent protection from rain water. Wood work done in the house i.e. doors windows is of very low quality. Teak wood is not used as per the specifications. The windows and the beadings are of cheap quality and some of the beadings were out of place and the doors do not fit well and as such there are gaps between the doors and the corresponding walls as and when closed. Main door is not straight and hence there is a problem in closing it.
The appellant submitted that cracks appeared in the walls adjoining the wooden frames in all rooms, screw/bolt fittings for the doors windows are bad and most windows have the bolt and the corresponding hole out of place. The door stoppers, door handles (for push and pull) etc. are not arranged by the respondents 1 to 3 and the appellant purchased them. Wash basin was not provided, pipe outlet for wash basin was not provided, flush tank was not provided in Indian style bath room and flooring is not even at many areas of the house. The flooring outside the kitchen balcony is very uneven and the water stagnates at the lower portion instead of going into the drainage. Marble polishing was not done properly and no arrangement has been made to prevent the rain water from entering the room through the ventilator in the bedroom resulting in damage to the cloths and furniture in the flat.
The appellant submitted that flush tank in one bathroom was poorly fit due to which water often overflows. Electrical fittings are not proper and the switch boxes used for switches are delicate and they are not properly fitted. The undivided share of land 250 sq. yds. needs to be equally distributed and registered in proportionate to the flat areas and in case of complainant, it was shown as 30 sq. yds. instead of 33 sq. yds. and therefore the respondents need to rectify the extent in the sale deed. The appellant submitted that some holes were made in the ceiling due to wrong planning which were not closed and they need to be closed. Parallel taps in the kitchen are not at level with each other and no taps are fixed for outlets provided in the bath rooms. The stairs built are very narrow and the inmates faced problems in shifting domestic items and proper arrangements are not made for supply of water to overhead tanks. The respondents are using parking space to park their vehicles though they do not stay in the Apartments.
The respondent No.1 filed counter resisting the complaint and admitted that the appellant purchased Flat No.202 from the respondents 1 to 3 for the sale consideration of Rs.6.90 lakhs which is mentioned in the sale deed dated 07-8-2008. The respondent No.1 denied that the appellant issued any notice and that they had constructed any rooms in the cellar unauthorizedly. Respondent No.1 submitted that once possession is handed over to the appellant, it is the responsibility of the appellant to secure sufficient water for his daily usage and the flat owners have not taken utmost care and the motor cable was burnt. Respondent No.1 submitted that the cement, bricks and materials used for construction work of walls is of good quality, the wood work done in the flat is fine quality and unless the Advocate Commissioner notes the defects in construction of the flat, the appellant cannot allege the defective works and it is the duty of the appellant to prove his allegations.
The respondent No.1 submitted that the registered sale deed dated 7-8-2008 shows that the appellant was provided 30 sq. yds. of land and submitted that the appellant is pointing out lot of problems in the residential complex whereas the other flat owners are residing peacefully and hence the averments of the complainant are false. The respondent No.1 denied that the appellant requested the respondents 4 to 6 on 26-8-2009 for rectification of the defective works. The respondent No.1 submitted that the appellant is litigant and started legal action against them and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The respondents 2 and 3 adopted the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.1.
The respondents 4 to 6 proceeded exparte.
The appellant filed his affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 to A14 and respondents have not filed either affidavits or any documents.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal stating that the submissions made by the appellant were not considered and the respondents failed to provide the basic amenities as agreed under Ex.A11. The respondents failed to file their affidavits and therefore no sanctity and authenticity could be assigned to the averments made in the written version. The appellant contended that Ex.A13 valuation report dated 18-12-2010 is not considered and prayed to allow the appeal.
The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from mis-appreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the appellant entered into agreement of sale with the respondent company to purchase the flat bearing no.202 from the respondents no.1 to 3 and he paid the amount as also the respondents no1. To 3 executed sale deed on 7.8.2008 in favour of the appellant. The appellant entered into agreement for construction for the purpose of construction of the flat on the same date i.e. 7.8.2008 and paid the amount agreed therefor. The appellant after a period of one year turned up to say that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and the consideration mentioned in the agreement for construction is lesser than the actual amount paid by him. The contention is not tenable for the reason that the appellant kept quiet for considerable period of time and also that he cannot state anything against the contents of the document registered under the registration Act as also that the appellant has not raised objection at the time of payment of the amount or execution of the sale deed.
The flat bearing No.202 was purchased by the complainant and the built up area of the flat is 1000 sft. The appellant contends that the respondents no.1 to 3 constructed the flat with substandard material. The appellant has not raised objection in this regard at the time of taking possession of the flat or thereafter though he has been residing in the flat and he has not adduced evidence of any expert to show that the material used for construction of flat is of not prescribed standard. Even as per the report Ex.A13, the only grievance of the appellant can be considered is in regard to the item no.1 of the report i.e., proper sun shades over ventilators and window of the flat can only be considered as the lapse on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3. The other items mentioned in the complaint and valuation report pertains to the common areas which are under the control of the apartment owners welfare association and the appellant without obtaining leave of other members of association and that of association cannot maintain the complaint under the provisions of C.P.Act. On the aspect, this Commission does not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the District Forum.
It is not the case of the appellant that he is the President or Secretary of the owner’s welfare of the residential complex and he can ventilate the problem such as seepage of water in one of the flat into the bathroom and bedroom of the other flats of the building. It is pertinent to note that no other flat owner has ventilated any grievance in their respective flats. In absence of the complaint being filed by the flat owners’ welfare association, the grievance ventilated by the appellant cannot be entertained except the one in regard to providing of proper sunshades to the windows and ventilator of flat bearing no.202 pertaining to the appellant. The respondents 1 to 3 alone are liable for the claim of the appellant and as such the appellant cannot proceed against respondents 4 to 6.
In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the respondents/opposite parties to provide proper sunshades to the windows and ventilators of the flat bearing No.202 of the appellant/complainant and rest of the reliefs rejected. The costs of the proceedings quantified at Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
MEMBER. MEMBER.
JM Dt. 11-12-2013.
