BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.585/2013 against C.C.No.71/2008 District Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Mr.Saranala Sreedhar Rao S/o.Mr.S.Babu
Rao, R/o.H.No.16-2-738/F/V/1A,
Opp:Tower Apartments, Asmangadh
Malakpet, Hyderabad. ..Appellant/
Opposite party.
- Sri Kunati Narayana Reddy S/o.late K.Venkat
Reddy, aged about 67 years,
- Smt.K.Janaki Devi W/o.K.Narayana Reddy
Aged about 63 years, Occ:Housewife.
Both are R/o.H.No.17-127/144,
East Kalyanpuri, Uppal,
Hyderabad-500 039. Respondents/
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s G.V.B.Santosh Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s K.Vishweshwar Rao.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada, President.)
***
The opposite party is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the orders in C.C.No.71/2008 dated 12-11-2012 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad.
The appeal was filed before this Commission and the same was admitted and subsequently on a number of occasions the matter was adjourned. On 27-1-2014 a representation was made on behalf of the counsel for appellant that he is not doing well and sought adjournment and the same was resisted by the counsel for the respondent, however, this Commission taking a lenient view accommodated the counsel for the appellant and passed a docket order in the following manner:
“A representation is made on behalf of the appellant counsel stating that he is not doing well and for which the respondent opposed the same stating that the appellant on some pretext or other is getting the matter delayed. In the light of the said statement, this Commission looked into the docket orders and found that the matter was coming up from 15-7-2013 and on several occasions the matter was adjourned at the instance of the counsel for the appellant. From this it is clear that the appellant is trying to delay the hearing of the appeal. However, as the counsel is not doing well this Commission is of the view that another chance may be given. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned by ten days. It is made very clear that no further adjournment will be granted. Adjourned to 10-2-2014’.
On 10-2-2014, FA.IA.No.2115/2013 was allowed and the respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.7,17,500/- and the matter was adjourned to 07-4-2014, 25-4-2014 and 03-6-2014 at request of both counsel. On 03-6-2014 as none appeared, it was adjourned to 24-6-2014 and on 24-6-2014 as appellant counsel was called absent and there was no representation, at the request of respondent counsel, the matter was called on 27-6-2014 under the caption of orders. On 27-06-2014, the appellant was called absent and the counsel for respondent was present and the matter was again posted to 01-7-2014 under the same caption of orders. Today also the appellant counsel was called absent and no representation was made and the counsel for the respondent is present through out. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal could be decided without hearing the counsel for the appellant.
The brief facts that led to the filing of the complaint are that the complainants induced by the representations made by the opposite party that the opposite party obtained General Power of Attorney from M/s. The India Cements Ltd., Secunderabad for developing the property situated in House No.6-1-82 & 6-1-83 admeasuring 659 sq. yds. equivalent 551. sq. mtrs. situated at Saifabad, Hyderabad and constructing a multi storied building by obtaining the necessary permissions from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad purchased incomplete flat No.303 in third floor admeasuring 1500 sft. including common areas along with 30 sq. yds. of undivided share of land in S.S.R.Chambers for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed bearing No.1244/2005 dated 20-4-2005 and the opposite party also executed agreement of construction dated 20-4-2005 for completion.
The complainants contend that though the opposite party promised to provide all the basic amenities failed to provide the same and has also not provided electricity transformer for giving electricity connections to inmates of the complex, pipes, drinking water, drainage facility and fire fighting equipment and also did not construct the complex as per the sanctioned plan and deviated the approved plan. Thereby the M.C.H. demolished the deviated constructions in the month of January, 2007 as a result of which, a portion of the complainant flat to an extent of 700 sft. was demolished and toilet and bathroom were affected due to which he had to spend Rs.25,000/- towards repairs of the same. The lift provided was also removed as the duct meant for the lift was also demolished. The complainants contend that as the opposite party did not attend to various works, the Welfare Association took up the works and incurred an expenditure of Rs.5,91,000/- towards water, drainage connection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards pipes motor, sump labour etc. and Rs.6,91,000/- towards water and drainage facilities. The complainant contributed Rs.27,600/- towards his share for the above, incurred Rs.6,553/- for constructing balcony walls, Rs.5,150/- towards their share for construction of steps with pillars , Rs.700/- for repairs to stair case and walls and Rs.32,450/- for provision of lift, Rs.41,000/- for provision of transformer and three phase electricity meter and Rs.29,167/- for providing iron pillars with brick work from 1st floor to 4th floor after demolition and also lost their share of site worth Rs.29,167/-. The complainants lost the complete flat due to demolition and therefore the opposite party has to reimburse the loss of Rs.10,50,000/- and also lost undivided share of land of 7 sq. yds. worth Rs.40,000/- and thus in all the opposite party has to reimburse a sum of Rs.13,30,000/- and also lost rent of Rs.10,000 per month for a period of 12 months and the opposite party has to reimburse Rs1,20,000/- and inspite of repeated requests and legal notice, the opposite party failed to pay the sum demanded. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay/reimburse Rs.13,30,000/- towards the loss of area in the demolished structure by MCH, to pay a sum of Rs.1,67,620/- towards the share of amount paid by the complainants to the Association for provision of facilities, such as lift, drainage, water and repair to the demolished structure, to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards the loss of rent and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.20,000/-.
The opposite party filed written version contending that the complainants purchased the flat after examining the permissions, sanctions issued by the concerned authorities and also entered into an agreement for construction of the rest of the flat for Rs.2,40,000/- to complete the remaining 40% work. The opposite party contended that as per the agreement, it completed the rest of 40% work and inspite of several requests, the complainant failed to pay the amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. The opposite party alleged that the parties to the sale deed are bound by its terms and the complainant allegations with regard to deviation of sanction plan are after thought and the principle of ‘caveat emptar’ will operate and as such the said allegations are after thought. The opposite party further submitted that it provided all the facilities like electric transformer, drainage, drinking water and three lifts etc. and also paid all taxes like municipal tax, water connection charges upto the date of execution of sale deed, and also filed copy of letter from HMWS and Sewerage board dt.03-11-2003 for improvement charges and the opposite party paid the same and also filed the copy of agreement with ‘Easso lifts’. The opposite party contended that the so called amounts paid by SSR chambers Welfare Association might have been paid for extra facilities only and as on the date of execution of sale deed, the skeleton structure has been completed and only the internal finishing part has to be completed and hence the question of deviating the sanctioned plan does not arise and submitted that there is deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum after considering the entire evidence on record including Exs.A1 to A31 and B1 to B4 allowed the complaint and directed the
opposite party to pay the present market value for the area which was demolished by the GHMC to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
As stated supra, the said order is under challenge before us.
From a perusal of the grounds of appeal, the grievance of the appellant is that the respondent/complainant failed to make the necessary parties and inspite of non joinder of necessary parties, allowing the complaint is arbitrary and contrary to law. The appellant is only a GPA holder and without there being any proper reasoning directing the appellant to pay compensation is illegal. The District Forum failed to observe the sale deed, Ex.A2, in the context of sanctioned plan with regard to flat No.303 but the undertaking indemnity is restricted to vacant land only and cannot be extended against the construction permit.
The learned counsel for the respondent is present and reiterated that after the matter was remanded to the District Forum, it marked Exs.A19 to A31 and Ex.A20 dated 09-10-2006 discloses that the M.C.H. had issued notice to the appellant that it violated the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.422 dated 31-7-1998 and made unauthorized constructions and sought reply within 7 days and there was no response from the appellant, issued another reminder through Ex.A21, dated 16-11-2006 and as there was no response from the opposite party it issued letter dated 29-11-2008 to Dy. Commissioner of Police to provide police assistance for demolition. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that as per the sale deed, the built up area is 1500 sft. but as per Ex.A30 only 838 sft. remained and 662 sq. ft. was demolished by GHMC. The respondent counsel further contended that the appellant has not filed any evidence and the contention of the appellant that the respondents after fully satisfying with the construction purchased the flat and are well aware of the plot permissions is not justified.
Except contending that necessary parties are not made as parties and the appellant is only a GPA holder, the appellant as GPA holder ought to have informed India Cements Ltd., and contested the case. It is general practice that the builders deviate the plan and construct the complexes as per their whims and fancies and thereafter get the buildings regularized and in the present case, the respondents have to suffer because of the negligence of the appellant and the appellant alleging that the respondents inspected the flat and permissions and purchased the flat and he is bound by the terms is illegal. Admittedly in view of deviations in construction, GHMC demolished the complex and the respondent lost approximately 700 sq. ft. and the respondent estimated Rs.10,50,000/- and Rs.2,80,000/- towards loss in the year 2008 and the District Forum after considering the clause in Ex.A2 that the appellant agreed to indemnify the vendor any loss due to any defect or deficiency in the title directed the appellant to imburse the present market value which in our considered view is justified. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.01-7-2014.
