Date of Filing : 19-06-2017
Date of Order :01-10-2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I
AT HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
SRI P. VIJENDER, B.Sc., L L B, PRESIDENT
SMT. D.NIRMALA, , MEMBER
MONDAY THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
Consumer Case No. 250 /2017
Between:
Smt.Pillalammarri Geetha, W/o. Sri P.Venkanna,
Aged about 31 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Flat No.101, 1st Floor,
Sri Sai Residency, H.No.2-1-559, Street No.10,
Nallakunta, Hyderabad,
Rep.by her GPA Holder i.e. her husband
Sri Pillaalamarri Venkanna,
(Cell No.7799228314 Complainant
9949494357- Advocate) …….Complainant
A N D
- Sri B .Konda Ram Reddy, S/o. B.Ramachandra Reddy,
R/o.# 2707, Hamptontrail, Wood Stock,
GA – 30189, USA, rep.by his GPA Holder Mrs.B.Uma,
D/o. Sri B. Ramachandra Reddy,
R/o. H.No.17-1-383/17, Flat No.403, Shilpi Prestige,
Vinay Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
- Srii P.Ramakrishna S/o. Late P.Muthyalu,
R/o. Flat No.401 & 402,
Sri Sai Residency, H.No.2-1-559, Street No.10,
Nallakunta, Hyderabad, ….Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Ms. T.Geetha
Counsel for the opposite party : Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy.
O R D E R
( Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. LL B , Hon’ble President on behalf of bench)
- This complaint is preferred u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to show the exact marked car parking area as agreed in the registered sale deed executed by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant on 22/3/2013 and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental agony and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of complaint.
- The complainant’s case is opposite party No.1 and his 2 brothers i.e. Mr.Ramachandra Reddy & Mr.Sateesh Reddy owners of a residential house bearing No. 2-1-559 situated at Nallakunta, Hyderabad . They have entered into a development agreement with opposite party No.2 for construction of flats. Subsequently there were other agreements among them and in pursuance of the said Development Agreement opposite party No.2 constructed apartment building consisting of stilt + 3 floors and flat NO.101 situated in the first floor was allotted to the share of opposite party No.1 and offered the same for sale and complainant accepted the said offer and paid the entire sale consideration and obtained registered sale deed on 22/2/2013 executed by opposite party No.1 as registered GPA and Mrs. Uma along with the undivided share of 40.yds and car parking area. Thereafter the complainant occupied the flat residing in it along with husband and children.
The opposite parties marked car parking area as shown in the complaint as promised by them. The parking area of the building totally different from the building plan. In January, 2015 a family friend of the complainant parked his vehicle in the complainant’s parking area, but the said vehicle got damaged due to ingress of other vehicle in the building. Similarly in the month of April, 2016 complainant’s family friend parked his vehicle in the parking area and it was also damaged due to same reason. There is no required space for ingress and egress and other vehicles once the vehicle is parked in the parking space shown to complainant. The vehicles parked in the complainant’s parking area are getting damaged
Several times complainant and her husband requested opposite party No.1 & 2 to allot exact marked car parking area for flat NO.101. But they avoided for one or other reasons are causing harassment to the complainant. Originally opposite party No.2 obtained permission for stilt + 2 floors but constructed stilt + 4 floors and unauthorizedly using maximum car parking area taking advantage of the fact that the complainant is not having a car.
The complainant made representation to Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 9B, GHMC, Abids, Hyderabad on 22/6/2016 and requested to remove the unauthorized construction of 4 flats constructed in 3rd and 4th floor of the building. He received reply informing that opposite party No.2 applied for regularization under BRS -2015 in respect of Flat Nos. 301, 302 and 304 on 30/12/2015. But there is no mention of 402. Thereafter she filed W.P. in W P No.26905/2016 against opposite party No.2 and others for a direction to the Municipal Corporation for demolition of unauthorized construction in the 3rd and 4th floors of the building and said writ petition is spending. After filing of the above said writ petition , opposite party No.2 had shown one small car parking area in front of the lift, very close to it and it touching the pillar which is existed in front of the lift. The parking space shown by the opposite party NO.2 is neither parallelogram shape nor in angle parking shape. Whenever a car is parked in the said area ingress &egress to other vehicles is totally closed. The complainant and visitors of her are facing difficulty in parking the vehicles in the space allotted to her. That apart the other vehicles parked on the back of the lift at the time of ingress and egress are touching the vehicle parked in the parking space of the complainant and in the result the vehicles are being damaged.
In order to harass the complainant , opposite party No.1 & 2 are not allotting exact marked car parking area which is entitled by the complainant and it amounts breach of trust, dishonesty. Opposite party No.2 in collusion with opposite party No.1 wrongly retrieving the complainant from proceeding in the direction in which she has a right to proceed in respect of the car parking area. Opposite party No.2 being a builder of the apartment building in respect of the flat using multiple car parking’s including that of the complainant . Till date there is no society has been formed for the building and accounts are not being maintained but maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month is being collected. Inmates of the flat Nos. 201, 302 are relatives of the opposite party No.1 and Flat Nos. 401 and 402 are belonged to opposite party No.2 and other inmates are his vendees.
In case the complainant intend to sell the flat nobody will come forward to purchase without car parking area. Hence she will suffer loss and hardship. Opposite party No.1 having collected sale consideration for the flat and parking space failed to show the car parking so for all these years and it amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice . Hence the complainant is got issued a legal notice to the opposite party No.1 and 2 on 22/4/2017 and received a deplorable reply from opposite party No.1 on 22/5/2017. But opposite party No.,1 is not coming forward to settle the issue by showing the exact marked car parking area. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
- Opposite party No.1 having served with the notice of the complaint from this Forum has not chosen to appear.
Opposite party No.2 filed detailed written version admitting about the purchase of flat by the complainant from opposite party No.1 with a car parking area , but denied rest of the complainant’s allegations. The substance of the contest in the written version of opposite party No.2 is he constructed 6 flats and a pent house and one unit bearing NO.101 admeasuring 950sqfts in ground floor was allotted to the share of opposite party No.1 along with a car parking area . Unit No.201 admeasuring 950sqts., and a car parking allotted to the share of Mr.Ramachandra Reddy and unit No.302 admeasuring 950sqft in the second floor was allotted to the share of Mr.Sateesh Reddy. He got 4 flats bearing Nos, 102,202, 301 and 401 each admeasuring 950sqfts with proportionate undivided share of land. Car parking Nos. 2,5, and 6 are allotted to opposite party No.1 and his 2 brothers . Whereas car parking Nos. 1,3,4,7 and 8 were allotted to opposite party No.2 and all the flat owners have been using the respective car parking areas after completion of the construction. He had applied for regularization in the scheme of Municipal authorities and same is pending. The car parking area ear marked and allotted to each flat was also submitted to the Municipal Authorities along with plan for regularization. The parking area No.2 allotted to the share of opposite party NO.1 for flat No.101 purchased by the complainant is being used by her by giving it to third parties and on daily rental basis for 2 and 4 wheelers to outsiders. Opposite party No.2 is in no way concerned to show the car parking area to the complainant., Opposite party No..1 is being the vendor of the complainant had show parking area No.2 it was allotted to him as per agreement. If complainant has got any grievance she should proceed against opposite party No.1 her vendor. The complainant’s version that if she intend to sell her flat nobody will come forward to purchase as there is no proper parking area is false . If really she is ready and willing to sell the flat there are persons who are ready to purchase at market value and in fact opposite party No.1 himself offered number of times to purchase it by paying money back to her with interest. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint
- In the enquiry stage the complainant’s husband Mr. Venkanna, as a GPA of her, filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the complaint. He also got exhibited 12 documents. Similarly opposite party NO.2 got filed his evidence affidavit which is in tune with the substance of the contest set out in the written version. He also got exhibited 2 documents. The complainant and the opposite party No.2 have filed written arguments and supplemented with oral submissions.
- On a consideration of material on record the following points have emerged for consideration :
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 to the complainant?
- Whether complainant is entitled for the directions sought for and compensation as claimed?
- To what relief?
1) Point No.1:- The admitted facts are opposite party No.1 and his two brothers i.e. Sri Ramachandra Reddy and Sri Sate sh Reddy as owners of the residential house bearing No. 2-1-559 entered into Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney with opposite party No.2 for construction of residential apartments and other supplementary Agreement and in pursuance of the same opposite party No.2 constructed residential apartment building consisting of stilt + 3 floors and a pent house on the 4th floor and he also applied for regularization of the construction made in addition to the sanctioned one and same is pending. The flat NO.101 situated in ground floor is the subject matter of the present complaint was fallen to the share of opposite party No.1 from whom the complainant purchased along with undivided space of 40 sq.yds and car parking slot . The complainant filed an objection petition under Ex.A3 before Deputy Commissioner, Circle III, 9B, requesting not to regularize the constructions made by opposite party No.2 in excess to sanctioned one. A reply thereto under Ex.A4 was sent by the concerned authorities to the complainant informing her that the application filed for regularization will be verified after as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court in PIL NO.361 of the 2015 and also in terms G.O. M.S.No.152 M.A. Dated 2/11/2015. The complainant also approached the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P. bearing No.26905 of 2016 seeking direction to the Department of Municipal Administration, Urban Development Authority and GHMC to remove the unauthorized constructions made by opposite party No.2 and Ex. A8 is the copy of said W P and Ex.,A9 is the interim application and same are pending for consideration..
As could to be seen from the material on the record the purchase of the subject flat by the complainant from opposite party No.1 is after completion of the entire construction and by that time what are the parking slots available are known to the complainant. The sale deed under Ex.A1 shows the purchase of the flat along with the parking slot by the complainant. If opposite party No.1 has not allotted parking slot as agreed under Ex. A1 sale deed certainly it can be said that there is deficiency of service by him to the complainant. But even according to the complainant herself the parking slot shown to her is just in front of the lift and after parking a car in the said slot one cannot get down from the rear seat and ingress & egress to other vehicle is very difficult and some times car parked there are getting damaged. As already said by the date of the purchase of the flat the complainant was aware of parking area allotted to her is not convenient . Complainant ought not to have purchased the flat itself having seen the parking slots available in the building are convenient.. Now either opposite party No.1 or opposite party NO.2 cannot increase car parking slot to the complainant. Since the entire work was completed and in fact for 4 years after the purchase of of the flat , complainant has been using it and she filed present complaint after more than 4 years of occupation of the flat.
As far as opposite party No.2 concerned complainant cannot alleged any deficiency of service because he is not Vendor. The complainant has already approached concerned authorities and also the Hon’ble High Court for removal of unauthorized constructions and same is sub-judies . Hence this Forum cannot say at this stage anything about the unauthorized construction and using of car parking area by opposite party No.2. If complainant purchased the flat during the time of construction and opposite party No.2 is a party to the transaction with her and subsequently failed to allot car parking certainly complainant can allege deficiency of service against the opposite party No.2 also . Hence she cannot allege any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 to her. Complainant is in use of car parking slot allotted for all these 4 years. If at all there is any inconvenience for the occupants of the other flats in using car parking areas she has work out by setting with them. But she can not allege any deficiency of service against opposite parties. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
7. Point No.2:- Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.
8. Point NO.3: In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced
by us on this the 1st day of October, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
-NIL-
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant
Ex.A1- Copy of Sale Deed dt.22/3/2013
Ex.A2- Plan showing the proposed residential building in MCH No.2-1-559
Ex.A3- Copy of representation submitted to the Deputy Commissioner GHMC
Ex.A4- Reply to the representation by Asst. City Planner, GHMC
Ex.A5- Development Agreement Dt.26/7/2009 alo9ng with plan.
Ex.A6- Copy of Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney
Ex.A7- Copy of registered Supplementary Deed dt.19/8/2014
Ex.A8- Copy of Writ Petition No.26905/20016.
Ex.A9- Legal notices
Ex.A10- Reply notices
Ex.A11- Photographs
Ex.A12- Specific Power of Attorney
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.
Ex.B1 - Application for building Regularization with plan, acknowledgment.
Ex.B2 - Mutual agreement.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
