BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MANGALORE
Dated this the 11th day of August 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
C.C.170/2013
(Admitted on 22.06.2013)
- Mr. Neela Rao,
W/o Mr. B. Mohan Rao, Hindu Adult,
Of age about 51 years,
- Mr. Mohan Rao,
S/o Late Sri B. Narayana Rao,
Of age about 66 years, Hindu Adult,
R/at Gem Castle, Apartment No. 303,
Ashoknagar Road, Urva Store,
Mangalore.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant - In Person
VERSUS
- Mr. Lancy Mascarenhas,
Adult Roman Catholic,
S/o Late Mr.Francis Mascarenhas,
Of age 65 years,
Near Capuchin Friary,
Bejai Church Road, Bejai,
- Celestain Pinto of age 70 years,
President, Roman Catholic,
Flat No.203, Gem Castle,
Ashoknagar Road, Urva stores,
- Harinakshi, Hindu Adult,
Of age 40 years,
Flat No. 102, Gem Castle,
Ashoknagar Road, Urva store,
Mangalore-575006.
……. Opposite Parties
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties - Sri. Guru Prasad)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. The above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The Complainants have purchased an apartment in Gem Castie on 15.10.2007 by paying sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/ (Rupees Four lakh Ten thousand only) along with undivided right in the immovable properties. It is stated that the apartment purchased by the complainants situated in 3rd floor bearing door No. 303 measuring 665 sq. feet. The opposite parties are Managing Partner and also builder and promoters. It is stated that the opposite party No.1 failed to handover the possession of the flats to the owners of the flats along with completion certificates. It is also stated that Opposite Parties 2 and 3 have unauthorizely constituted an association in the said apartment. The above facts were known to the opposite party No 1. It is stated that the opposite party No.1 failed to secure the completion certificate from Mangalore City Corporation.
It is further stated that, in the deed of declaration dated 6.7.2006 the apartment provided Common terrace comprised of super built-up area of 3960 sft. The said apartment is also provided with a common lift facility as also the backup generator facility. The opposite parties failed to provides 24 hours lift facility and generator facility to the apartment. The apartment building provided with an imperfect truss work as also bathroom windows are not provided with shade as a result of which, the same is causing the entry of rain water inside the bathroom as well as the gallery during rainy season. It is also stated that the exhaust pipe provided to the backup generator is also not of requisite height which ought to have been extended up to a height of 4 feet above the wall surrounding in terrace in order to preclude the spread of the billowing smoke as pollutes the air and smoke released from the exhaust pipe provided to the backup generator as contains carbon monoxide which is a noxious, toxic and pernicious as well as hazardous to the health of the inhabitants of the said apartment building.
It is further stated that the common terrace as is comprised of super built up area of 3960 sq. feet. The Opposite parties not provided society room, rest room, for the watchman and the passage are not being used and passage lights of the terrace permanently disconnected thereby causing inconvenience to the inhabitants of the apartment. It is stated that complaint No 1 has failed to use of the open area of the terrace for walking and it has been closed under lock.
It is further stated that D.O.D. reflects therein the measurement particular and dimension of the rooms 003, 103, 203, 303, on the ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor respectively which is found reflected only in the D.O.D. In fact all the above referred fourth flats are housed in the first, second, third and fourth floors respectively. The measurements of the hall, dining room, balcony, kitchen, common toilet, master bedroom are as follows:
1. Hall/dinning Room 10 0 x 17 6
2. Balcony 9 8 x 4 6
3. Kitchen 8 4 x 8 0
4. Common Toilet 4 0 x 6 6
5. M. Bed Room-1 12 0 x 10 0
6. Toilet 4 x 6 x 7 0
7. Bed Room 2 12 0 x 9 0
8. Toilet 4 4 x 7 0
The total plinth area of the subject apartment is 578 Sq. Feet. The saleable/super built up area for the apartment building includes the total plinth area of the apartment plus the proportionate area of the common passages staircases, lifts and common facilities in all the floors and only 15 percent (fifteen) area is added to the plinth area in order to arrive at the saleable area.
The complainant stated that the total plinth area of subject apartment which the complainant resides is 575 sq. feet which includes the non-existing/not built bed room and toilet the above total plinth area being 578 Sq. feet plus 15 per. i.e. 86.7 Sq. feet as stated supra. The total super built up saleable are of the flat No.303 being 578 plus 96.7 = 664.7square feet as against 665 sq. Feet. There is a glaring difference of 108 Sq. Feet in the area i.e. 665 Sq. Feet. 557 Sq. feet 108 Sq. Feet. As per the registered Sale Deed the Opposite party No.1 ought to have sole subject apartment with 665 sq. Feet saleable area.
That the complainants have also noticed a glaring difference in height of the subject Apartment from the floor and top of the slab which only measures 9” feet as against 9’6” feet as stands reflected in the at Page no.12 of the Deed of Declaration and the height of the toilet is 7 feet. The flat is not provided with lift which is useful for keeping the additional belongings;
Feeling aggrieved by the above the Complainants filed the above complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Hon’ble Forum to the Opposite parties to provide the following:
- To Provide the completion certificate by the opposite party No.1
- To provide proper truss work to the apartment building.
- To make use of passage lights properly in all the corridors.
- To provide a society room.
- To provide a rest room to the watchman
- To allow all the inhabitants of the apartment building to make use of the open area in the terrace to dry up their cloths and for morning and evening walks to perform yoga and pranayama exercises.
- To provide 24 hours backup generator facility to the apartment building and also during the non-availability of electricity.
- To provide 24 hours lift facility.
- To provide shades to the windows of the bath room.
- To provide proper exhaust pipe to the generator.
- To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ towards the compensation.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed version admitted that the Complainants have purchased an apartment in Gem Castle on the 15th day of October 2007 conjointly by paying a sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/ (Rupees four Lakhs Ten Thousand only) with 3.96 percent undivided right in the immovable property as per deed of sale of apartment produced as Annexure No.1. It is also admitted that individual apartments purchased by the complainants is housed in the 3rd floor bearing No.303 and is of extent 665 sq. ft. of the said apartment and is comprised of a hall cum dining room, balcony, kitchen, common toilet, master bedroom and a toilet.
The opposite Party No.1 is the Managing Partner in M/s. Eljen Promoters and builders as also a promoter. As per the deed of declaration dated 06.07.2006 (Annexure No.2) the said apartment is provided with a common terrace as is comprised of the super built up area of 3960 Sq. ft. The said apartment building is also provided with a common lift facility and also the backup generator facility.
It is stated that the Complainants are guilty of suppression of facts and suggestion of falsehood. It is stated that, Prior to the purchase of the Apartment the Complainants had entered into an Agreement for sale with the Opposite Party No.1 representing the Land Owners and Builders on 27.08.2007 and subsequently on 15.10.2007 got executed a Sale Deed. The Complainants are bound by the terms of both the documents. It is stated that as regards the Completion certificate the application of the Opposite Party no.1 is under consideration before the City Corporation.
It is further stated that the entrance to the terrace was locked since the majority of the apartment owners had resolved that the same needs to be locked during night time to avoid misuse by individual owners. However a key is with the watchman and whoever wants to use the terrace should sign a register.
It is further stated that the individual Apartment Owner is not entitled to make any material alteration within the apartment, the Complainants were making alterations during odd time causing inconvenience and disturbance to other apartment owners. In this regard, the Association of Apartment Owners had lodged complaint with the police as requests with the Complainants did not yield positive results. It is further stated that indiscriminate use of the passage lights even during day times led to unnecessary escalation of maintenance costs and steps were taken to control the same. It is further stated that due to hike in diesel price it was resolved to use the generator only during 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. It is stated that the Complainants are trying to dictate terms in the managements of the Apartment to the detriment of other owners and to have undue advantage for themselves. Since the other owners did not yield the present frivolous complaint has been filed with an intention to harass the Opposite Parties and to make them agree to their unreasonable demands. The Opposite parties No.2 and 3 are espousing individual causes but only implementing the resolutions of the Association and are being targeted unnecessarily by the Complainants and dragged to Court. The opposite parties contended that there is no merit sought for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the Complainant– Mrs. Neela Rao (CW1) and Mr. Mohan Rao (CW2), examined/ filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents No.1 to No.3 as listed in the annexure. On behalf of the Opposite parties, One Mr. Dolphi Wilfred Miranda (RW1) G.P.A Holder of M/s Lancy Constructions filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents No.1 to 10 from the opposite parties as listed in the annexure.
4. On perusing the pleadings of both the parties that the points arise for our consideration are as follows:
- Whether the Complainants proved that the Opposite Parties has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was
placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i) & (ii): Affirmative.
Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.
Reasons
- Point No. (i) and (ii): In the instance case, the facts which are admitted is that the complainants purchased the apartment measuring 665 sq. Feet situated in 3rd floor bearing door No.303 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000 on 15 October 2007. The aforesaid apartment purchased along with 3.96 percent undivided right in the immovable property. Further there is no dispute that the apartment pertaining to the complaints comprised of a hall cum dining room, balcony, kitchen, common toilet, master bed room and a toilet. The opposite party No.1 is the Managing Partner. As per the deed of declaration the apartment is provided with a common terrace as is comprised of the super built up area of 3,960 sq. Feet provided with a common lift facilities and also the backup generator facility.
However, the complainants raised a following reliefs against the opposite parties as here under:
a) To Provide the completion certificate to them by the Opposite party No.1
b) To provide proper truss work to the apartment building.
c) To make use of passage lights properly in all the Corridors.
d) To provide a society room.
e) To provide a rest room to the watchman
f) To allow all the inhabitants of the apartment building to make use of the open area in the terrace to dry up their cloths and for morning and evening walks to perform yoga and pranayama exercises.
g) To provide 24 hours backup generator facility to the apartment building and also during the non-availability of electricity
h) To provide 24 hours lift facility.
i) To provide shades to the windows of the bath room.
j) To provide proper exhaust pipe to the generator and compensation.
It is definite case of the complainants that the complainants entered into a sale deed, in pursuance of the sale deed the complainants have made payment and the opposite parties handed over the apartment in favor of the complainants but till this date the opposite parties not provided completion certificate and also other facilities as agreed upon by them.
The opposite parties interlia denied the allegations made by the complainants and contented that the complainants are guilty of suppression of facts and suggestion of false hood. As regards the completion certificate the opposite parties contented that the application of the opposite party No.1 is under consideration before the City Corporation. The entrance to the terrace was locked since the majority of the apartment owners had resolved that the same needs to be locked during night time to avoid misuse by individual owners. However a key is with the watch man and whoever wants to use the terrace should sign a register. And further contented that the individual
apartment owner is not entitled to make any material alterations within the apartment and the complainants were making alterations during odd time causing inconvenience and disturbance to other apartment owners. And also contended that indiscriminate use of the passage lights even during day times led to unnecessary escalation of maintenance cost and steps were taken to control the same. And further contended that due to hike in diesel price it was resolved to use the generator only during 6 pm to 8 Am. The complaints are trying to dictate terms in the management of the apartment to have undue advantage.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainants admittedly purchased apartments from the opposite parties as stated supra and it is primary duty of the opposite Parties to provide a quality of construction along with common facilities and amenities and also clear title deeds as agreed by them.
However in order to substantiate the allegations alleged in the complaint, the counsel appearing for the complainant drawn our attention to the commissioner’s detailed report i.e., Court Document No.1. We have taken into consideration of the commissioner’s report in order to appreciate the reasoning’s.
It is significant to note that the report was drawn by one of the expert i.e. Mr. Chandra Kiran architect, Mangalore
who appointed as an expert by this authority on the application submitted by the complainants by giving an opportunity to file objection to the said report by the opposite parties. The above said report has been marked as Court document No.1 in the above complaint. The investigations done by the expert has been reproduced here under for better appreciation.
COMMISSIONERS REPORT DATED 4.9.2015 reads thus:
Point:1. To provide the completion Certificate.
The said apartment building has been handed over to the residents without the completion certificate from the Mangalore City Corporation.
During the inspection it was conveyed that the application for the building completion/occupancy certificates has been submitted to the authority. In addition, the application for the regularization of the building has been submitted during the second extension of the date as per the State Government orders which to this date has been pending for settlement.
The Commissioner had asked for any proof/ acknowledgment available for this application which has not been produced.
The Commissioner is aware of the scheme of regularization initiated by the state Government called the Akrama-Sakrama. The full details regarding the application acknowledgment as well as the documents pertaining to the same submitted by the builder may be verified by the honorable court, which will certainly contain the extent of variation in the constructed building as against the sanctioned drawings.
Point 2: Improper truss work to the apartment building.
The terrace floor of the said apartment has been provided with the covering sheets laid over the metal truss work. However the height of the said roof is very high at the center curving and bending towards the periphery. The expectation by the complainant was to have the extension of the said roofs to be beyond the terrace and thereby reduce the water splash during the monsoons.
Since the height of the roof at the Centre is high, the profile of the roof being staggered as per the terrace plan, the roof provided is serving its purpose partially. There are bird droppings which make the place not usable.
Point 3: Corridor and passage not provided with lights, Electrical point
It is observed that that electrical point and the light fitting as well are provided in the common area of the building at all the floor. However there has been restriction imposed by the resident association/ society in their usage. The same restrictions have been imposed for the usage of the DG. Hence it is not available for 24 hours of utility. The same timing restrictions are also imposed upon the usage of lifts which are all the decisions by that of the society.
Society room being not provided.
In the basement floor of the apartment there are two rooms on the south west corner one being a toilet/bath and the other a room. There is no mention of usage of the room. But seemed to be small for the usage of it as society room. This room has been labelled as society room in the DOD drawings while there has been no mention in the sanction drawing from MCC.
Point.No.6. Open area available on the terrace area being closed from outside.
The floor terrace area being covered with dropping of the birds. The terrace are has been kept under lock and key by the society office bearers. However during the inspection it was found that out of the 3 doors to enter the terrace one of the doors has been forcefully broken and hence the door was wide open. Due to the increased height of the truss there is ample scope for the birds/ pigeons to enter the area hence the bird’s droppings are present.
Point.No.8: Windows of the bathroom being not provided with shade.
The ventilation to the bathrooms on the south west corner of the building have not been provided with projection or any other shading devices. Also the size of the ventilator being lengthy the rain water during monsoons will naturally enter the toilet/ Bathroom. This is a flaw in the design, which needs to be taken up by the builder, as the toilet becomes useless during monsoons and also during the afternoon harsh sun.
Point.No.9: Proper exhaust pipe being not provided to the generator.
The D.G has been provided with external exhaust pipe which has been sent upto the terrace along the building wall. Through the measures have been done, the mandatory requirements would be to raise another 1.5mtrs to 2mtrs from the floor of terrace, which is better in terms of the healthy conditions of living, better utilization of terrace.
Point.No.11: To note the measurement of the hall, dining room, balcony, kitchen, common toilet, master bed room being as follows:
Regarding the measurement of the typical unit concerned, the apartment unit no.303, was measured and drafted. On completion of this task, it is found that a variation of SFT in negative has been found to the plinth area of the apartment. As per the drawings provided by the builder the plinth area is 577.53 Sq. feet which has been recorded as 578 sq. Feet in the DOD, measurement as 578 sq. feet in the DOD while after the measurement the area is found to be 574 sq. Feet.
The commissioner however wishes to bring to the kind attentions that the honorable court may kindly look into the fact the 003, 103, 203, 303, apartment has been provided with measurement of 2 bed rooms and 2 toilets which is a case of negligence in the documentation while in the sale deed it is mentioned as a single bed room.
Also to bring to the kind attention that the DOD drawing have some alterations to the license drawing which have not been intimated to the end users. There is a reference of P1, pent house measuring 845 sq. Feet on top of the terrace above the unit 303, shown in the area statement having an undivided interest in land of 5.04% and 5.04% of right over common area which has not been constructed in the site.
The same unit is also not represented in the original license drawing which needs to be understood clearly. The
provisions of the last floor of common area have 3 exit door to the terrace.
If the pent house has not to been built the ownership right as well as the undivided rights will vary from that declared by the grantor of DOD.
We pray that the honorable court may please take this division of rights case with the interest of the residents of the apartment and get the necessary clarifications from the grantors.
Regarding the car parks also there are only 12 designated car parks as against the 14 shown in the plans which have not been allotted to the single bed room users.
Point.12: To open cable and optical receiver on the ground floor.
It is observed that the conduit pipes for the electrical, telephone as well as the cable TV has been placed openly without proper protection. Hence there are chances of safety concerns to the residents in terms of health and physical injuries.
Point.No.13: The open duct, leakage in the open drainage washing pipe being in a very unhygienic condition. Open duct, leakage in the open drainage washing pipe. The layer of paint come off. There are leakages seen in the water service and drainage pipes near the ground floor entrance which is unhygienic and hence requires immediate attention.
Hence due to this wall has been damp, resulting in the peeling up of the coast of paint.
Point.No.19: Transformer being not enclosed with proper fence.
The transformer has been provided as a single pole transformer within the said premises. However the interlocking tiles for the yard has been extended upto the end and proper segregation has not been maintained.
Point.No.22: Crack on the western inner wall of the bed room. Inside the apartment of the complainant there is a deep crack on the common wall which needs to be rectified as it is seen in both the units, on either side of the wall.
Point.No.23: The open duct on the ground floor. Same as point 13.
Point.No.24: The corroded area on the generator cabin.
The metal enclosure/acoustic enclosure to the D.G has been corroding which is a threat in terms of an injury and safety to inhabitants.
On bare reading of the above commissioner’s report we have noted that the above said commissioner during the time of his investigation referred the deed of declaration as well as approved license submitted by the parties.
It is pertinent note that, the above said commissioner report is a best piece of evidence and self explanatory. We need not discusses much upon the above said points in detail because those points are elaborately discussed along with photography by the commissioner expert in this case. However, it is proved beyond that the Opposite Parties failed to provide completion certificate till this date shows their deficiency of service and the complainants are forced to knock the door of this authority.
It is the common experience that when a builder advertised in brochure by giving vide publication i.e., apartment has all amenities and facilities and clear marketable title, normally general public chooses buy the apartments with the hope that all will be taken care by the Opposite parties. Later Opposite parties comes with an agreement giving one or the other reasons and turning down to provide the facilities and amenities and also clear marketable title as agreed by them.
The another point it need to be considered that the Hon’ble National Commission held that in a case of Gaziayabad development authority V/s Gurudas Pandy decided on 21.8.2000, revision petition No.152/2000 decided by issue as to whether a consumer dispute could be raised in respect of deficiency of service on the part of developing authority even after taking possession of the flat. The National Commission held that, it is only when possession is taken and a consumer starts moving, then he would know difficulties particularly those which are latent in the construction of the house. And it is a dangerous proposition through contend that right of consumer gets wiped out on his taking possession of the flat/apartment/house. Similarly in the above case, the complainants after taking possession of the apartments found the defect/deficiencies committed by the Opposite Parties.
Further seen on record that, the Opposite Parties; failed to issue completion certificate to the complainants till this date, where by the complainants have lost the opportunity of selling of apartments to 3rd parties as the said apartments have no marketable title till this date inspite of taking entire sale consideration by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. It is a settled position that, it is bounded duty of the opposite Parties to furnish marketable title once the entire sale consideration is received by the opposite parties herein complainants get the sale deed registered and simultaneously deliver the possession of the apartments with completion certificate. But in the instant case the Opposite parties not provided completion certificate till this date. Opposite parties contended that they have moved for Akarama-Sakrama, the said application is pending enquiry for consideration. The above admission of the opposite Parties clearly shows that they had no approved license in their hand before constructing the apartment as a whole. There is a deviation and hence the city corporation declined to issue completion certificate. Without the completion certificate the complainants are not having marketable title till this date. Because it is the primary duty/obligation on the part of the opposite party builders to construct the building as per the approved plan coupled with building license issued by the City Corporation. If at all they would like to deviate any portion that the opposite parties supposed to amend the plan in advance that means before commencing the construction not later.
Further it is seen on record that the opposite parties locked the terrace. No doubt the opposite parties needs to be locked only during night time to avoid misuse. But the key should be with the security and who ever want to use the terrace could receive from security by signing the register maintained for the safety measure. But in the instant case the terrace has been kept under lock and keeping the key with the society office bearers and causing disturbance to the inmates of the apartment cannot be entertained and the key should be with the security.
Further the opposite parties contended that the complaints were making alterations during odd time causing inconvenience and disturbances to other apartment owners and thereby lodged complaint. But there is no documents to show that the complaints were made material alterations within the apartments. The complainants are at liberty to alter their own apartment internally during day time without causing damage or alteration to the common areas. The opposite parties do not have any right to oppose the same. The passage corridor and passage should be provided with lights but it cannot be restricted by the society/association for the usage of the same because it is common facilities provided to all the inmates of the apartment by seeing the density. The society/association cannot restrict the usage of common areas provided with common facilities and amenities for the benefit of all the inmates of the apartment.
Further we also observed that the court commissioner conducted the measurement of the apartment pertaining to the complainant and it is found that there is a variation of SFT. As per the drawings provided by the builder the plinth area is 577.53 sq. feet which has been recorded as 578 in the DOD. While after the measurement the area is found to be 574 sq. ft. That means there is a difference and the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complaints in this regard and also there are lot of defects pointed by the commissioner in his report that has to be rectified by the opposite parties.
By considering the commissioner’s report, we are of the opinion that, there are lot of defects found inside the apartment of the complainant and the there is a threat in terms an injury and safety to inhabitants. The defects were proved through the court commissioner therefore the
opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects which are noted by the commissioner in the above said report and also issue completion certificate within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defects found in the apartments pertaining to the complaints as under:
- To provide the completion certificate to the complainants by the Opposite party No.1 within 3 months. On failure to provide within 3 months the Opposite parties No.1 liable to pay Rs.200 damages per day from the date of failure till the date of issuance of the certificate.
b) To provide proper truss work to the apartment building by opposite party No.1.
c) To provide a society room by opposite party No.1.
d) To provide a rest room to the watchman by opposite
Party No.1
e) To provide shades to the windows of the bath room by
Opposite party No.1
f) To provide proper exhaust pipe to the generator and also pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards damage for variation in sq.ft of the apartment sold to the complainants by opposite party No.1.
Further Opposite parties No.2 & 3 jointly and severally shall provide the followings:
a) To provide 24 hours lift facility and to allow all the inhabitants of the apartment building make use of the open area in the terrace and whenever inhabitants of the apartments requires key shall be available with the security /watchman.
b) To provide 24 hours backup generator facility during the non-availability of electricity. And also pay Rs. 2,000 as a damages to the complainants for the inconvenience caused.
All the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay Rs.5,000 as cost of the litigation expenses which includes commissioner’s fee. The same shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.1 shall provide the following:
- To provide the completion certificate to the complainants within 3 months from receipt of this order. On failure the opposite party No.1 liable to pay Rs.200 per day from the date of failure till the date of issuance of the certificate.
b) To provide a society room.
c) To provide a rest room to the watchman
d) To provide shades to the windows of the bathroom.
e) To provide proper exhaust pipe to the generator.
f) To provide Further pay Rs.1,50,000 towards damages.
And Opposite parties No.2 & 3 jointly and severally shall provide the following:
- To provide 24 hours lift facility and to allow all the inhabitants of the apartment building make use of the open area in the terrace and whenever inhabitants of the apartments requires key shall be available with the security /watchman.
- To provide 24 hours backup generator facility during the non-availability of electricity. And also pay Rs. 2,000 as a damages to the complainants for the inconvenience caused.
Apart from the above Opposite parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally shall pay Rs.5,000 as cost of the litigation expenses. The above order shall be complie within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
( (Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of August 2016.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 : Mr. Neela Rao, Complainant.
CW2 : Mr. Mohan Rao, Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainants:
No.1 Sale Deed dated 15th October 200
No.2 Deed of Declaration dated 6.07.2006
No.3 Receipts issued by Opposite Party No.2 to the
Complainants.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the OppositeParty:
RW1 Mr. Dolphi Wilfred Miranda, G.P.A Holder of
M/s. Lancy Constructions.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
No.1. 27.08.2013: Agreement executed in favour of Complainants
No.2. 29.06.2011: Letter addressed to Complainant by Opposite Party No 1
No.3. 02.06.2011: Statement of Complainant No1
No.4.01.07.2011: Statement of Opposite Party No.2 and Receipt
No.5.16.11.2011: Extract of Minutes of Meeting of Owner Association
No.6.24.02.2013: Complaint lodged by Complainant No 1
No.7.24.02.2013: Receipt issued by Police
No.8.28.02.2013: Statement of Opposite Party No 2
No.9.28.02.2013: Endorsement issued by Police
No.10.13.07.2013: Notice issued by Owners Association
Court Document No.1
Commissioners Report dated 4.09.2015 issued by
Ar. Chandrakiran, Bangalore, ARCH.
Dated: 11.08.2016 PRESIDENT
