This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. V. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. K. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties No.1&2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the Secretary of Kamatam Presidency, Residential Welfare Society registered on 10-06-2008 vide registration No.154/2008 by virtue of that the complainant representing on his behalf of and on behalf of other members.  The complainant submitted that the opposite parties agreed for development and construction of Flats, accordingly they constructed Kamatam Presidency A-Block under the name and style of Creative Constructions and the opposite parties had executed registered sale deeds in favour of the Members of the Society and they handover the flats in the year 2008 to the Members.  The complainant further submitted that after entering into their individual flats, surprisingly the Members observed that some of the works still pending and the works done by the opposite parties are not as per the specifications and design as agreed by them, immediately the members of the Society approached the opposite parties and requested them to complete the incomplete works, on that the opposite parties promised that they will complete within 2 months but they failed to do the same,  the executive members of the Society again approached the opposite parties and ventilated their grievances but in vain, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties.  The complainant also submitted that due to incomplete works, the works which are not completed as per specifications and design caused inconvenience, troubles, hardship and thereby causing mental agony to the Members of the Society for that the complainant approached the Forum for deficiency in service.

3.       To support their case the complainant filed the following documents which are marked as Exs.A.1 to A.4. 

4.       On receipt of notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter, the opposite parties admitted that they agreed for development and construction of Presidency Flats, accordingly have constructed the Kamatam Presidency under the name and style of Creative Constructions in the year 2006 had executed agreement of sale to sell the Flats to the Members of Kamatam Presidency and as per the payment schedule as mentioned in the agreement of sale and all the Members of the Presidency paid and entire sale consideration and opposite parties had executed registered sale deed in favour of Members of the Presidency and in the year 2008 they handed over the Flats to the individual Members.  The opposite parties denied the allegations made by the complainant that “the complainant society members after entering into their individual Flats, surprisingly  they observed that some of the works are still pending and the works are done by the opposite parties are not as per the specifications and design as agreed by them and immediately the Members of the Society approached the opposite parties and requested them to complete the incomplete works immediately on that the opposite parties promised to complete the entire works within 2 months and the opposite parties failed to complete the same, the executive Members of Society again approached the opposite parties and ventilated their grievances” is false and baseless.  The opposite parties further submitted that they have completed the works of construction agreements that have been agreed by them in the agreement of sale and they are not responsible at this stage for incompletion of works as alleged by the complainant in the complaint, the Members have only paid the consideration for the works which have already been completed by the opposite parties and also submitted that the Members have to enter into additional agreement of sale and have to pay the additional amount which is necessary for constructions those alleged incomplete work, as those alleged works are not mentioned in the agreement of sale entered by the opposite parties and they are not responsible for those incomplete works as such the complaint is not maintainable, in view of the above circumstances the complainant cannot allege that there is deficiency of service, this complaint does not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       On behalf of the opposite party no documents filed.

6.       Upon perusing the material available on record following points arose for consideration,

i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

    parties?

ii) To what relief?

Point:-

i)        The admitted facts of this case are that the complainant is the Secretary of the Kamatam Presidency Residential Welfare Society, which is registered on 10-06-2008.  The opposite parties constructed the Kamatam Presidency A-Block under the name and style of Creative constructions, they have executed agreement of sale in the year 2006 to the Members of the Society, all the Members of the Society paid the entire sale consideration and the opposite parties had executed registered sale deed in their favour.  According to the complainant the opposite parties handed over the Flats to the Members, after entering into their Flats they observed that some of the works are still pending and the works done by the opposite parties are not as per specifications and design as agreed by them for that they approached the opposite parties, on their approach the opposite parties promised that they will complete the works within short time, but as the opposite parties failed to complete the same for that the complaint approached the Forum for redressal.

          From the documents and material available on record we observed that at the time of entering into the Flats by the Members there are incomplete works are pending by the opposite parties and the opposite parties promised that they will complete the same within short time.  To support their case the complainant filed legal notice (Ex.A4) dt. 17-06-2008 in which, they categorically mentioned the works are which are pending and to be completed by the opposite parties.  And also we observed that in their counter the opposite parties submitted that “At this particular stage the opposite parties are not responsible for incompletion of work, the Members of the Society have to enter into additional agreement of sale and have to pay additional amount which is necessary for construction of those alleged incompletion of work.  And also we observed from the complaint that some of the works which are pending i.e. 1) Raining water is stagnating in the corridors, which is causing inconvenience due to the uneven laying of slope 2) The opposite parties failed to provide 2 wheeler parking and 3) The opposite parties failed to provide power voltage as per specifications.  From the above we observed that the opposite parties failed to give proper explanation for the uncompleted works and also demanding additional amount and have to undergo additional agreement, which amounts deficiency of service on their part.  

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Faquir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., & Anor. III (2008) CPJ 48 (SC) observed the terms ‘consumer’, ‘deficiency’ and ‘service’ defined in clauses (d), (g) and (o) of Section 21 of the Act.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case incorporated Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC), referring to the nature and object of the act and Friends colony Development committee Vs. State of Orissa, VII (2004) (8) SCC 733 observed while dealing with town planning laws. “Builders violate with impurity the sanctioned building plans and indulge deviation much to the prejudice of the planned development of the city ad at the peril of the occupants of the premises constructed or of the inhabitants of the city at large.  Serious threat is posed to ecology and environment and, at the same time, the infrastructure facilities suffer unbearable burden and are often thrown out of gear.  Unwary purchase in search of roof over their heads and purchasing flats/ apartments from builders, find themselves having fallen prey and become victims to the design of unscrupulous builders.  The builder conveniently walks away having pocketed the money leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in the event of unauthorized constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition”.  In the present case we observed that the builder he has to do whatever that is required to be done to bring the building in consonance and if the builder fails to do so he will be liable to compensate the complainant for all loss / damage.  And also we observed that as the builder failed to complete the works and also demanding additional amount is nothing but deficiency of service as such this point is answered in favour of the complainant. 

          For grant of compensation, taking into consideration of parties, the Members of the society facing inconvenience, basing on legal construction on deviation and also because of pending of such works like rain water stagnation in corridors, certain amount of leakage and dampness in flats and failed to providing parking facilities are pending at the time of filing complaint and the complaint is filed in the year 2009 as such the complainant society is entitled for compensation.  In Narendra kumar S. Jain Vs. Ashok D. Adhyapak IV (2015) CPJ 325 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- in respect of each flat with regard to the grievances of  the complainant for leakage / dampness.  In the present case the Members of the society filed the present complaint taking the above into consideration we award Rs.2,00,000/- for the uncompleted works, pain and sufferance and towards compensation on all accounts.

7.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant society within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum. 

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the       day of December, 2015.

 Member                  FAC President             

  District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

                Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam