BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ATHYDERABAD

F.A.No.94/2008 against HYDERABAD

Between:

B.Laxmikantha Rao,

s/o.late B.Narsimha Rao,

aged about 50 years, Indian,

Occ:Private Employee,

R/o.Flat No.303, Krishna Kunjan

Apartments, Hanuman Nagar,

Chaitanyapuri,Hyderabad.                                                                                                                                                And

S.Srinivas, S/o.Padmaiah

Managing Partner

M/s Sri Sai Datta Constructions,

R/o.17-1-391/1/1/124, Sankeshwar Bazar, Saidabad,

Hyderabad.                                                                                                                                                                          Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.Gourisankara Rao.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Nagesh Reddy.

F.A.No.180/2008 against HYDERABAD

Between:

S..Srinivas, s/o.Padmaiah,

Occupation:Business, Managing Partner

M/s Sri Sai Datta Constructions,

R/o. H.No.17-1-391/1/124, Sankeshwar Bazar, Saidabad,

Hyderabad.                                                                                                                                                                                    

Mr.B.Laxmikantha Rao,

s/o.late B.Narsimha Rao,

aged about 49 years, Indian,

Occ:Private Employee,

R/o.Flat No.303, Krishna Kunjan

Apartments, Hanuman Nagar,

Chaitanyapuri,Hyderabad.                                                                                                                                                 

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member).

***

Aggrieved by the order in CC 292/2006 on the file of District Forum-I,Hyderabad, the complainant preferred FA 94/2008 and the opposite party preferred FA 180/2008.

i)                 rectify the structure of pipeline from overhead tank to third floor i.e. complainant’s flat no.303.

ii)               to take immediate steps for enhancement of municipal water from ¾ inch (domestic range) to 1 inch (commercial range)

iii)            to rebore upto 300 ft.

iv)             to fix domes on duct area on the rooftop

v)               to fix safety grill restricting entry from adjacent building

vi)             unlock original main gate and provide easy egress and ingress

vii)          to refund Rs.50,000/- collected from complainant’s wife as deposit

viii)        to pay Rs.25,000/- compensation towards mental agony

ix)             costs.

        Opposite party denies that there was any problem with water supply and submits that the water supply with the pipe line of 20 mm is sufficient for the cooking and drinking needs of 15 residents.       

20. The purchaser undertakes to pay proportionate charges to the A.P.State Electricity Board towards deposit and the installation of the transformer for the building complex and also undertakes to pay the meter deposit amount, service line connection charges etc.,

21. The purchaser undertakes to pay the required charges for providing any drinking water connections.

The aforementioned clauses clearly mention that the complainant should undertake to pay the proportionate charges towards electricity and drinking water connection.         

                                                                                     JM