Jharkhand

Bokaro

cc/15/132

Dwipendra Nath Choubey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Binod Kumar Managing Director of Anand Vihar Construction - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Anand Vardha

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complainant Dwipendra Nath choubey filed this case for a claim of Rs. 2,03,500/- with compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and direction to provide facilities of parking, generator, safety tanks, tube wells, water harvesting etc and direction to rectify all defects like seepages, leakages of sewerage pipe etc.

2          The case of the complainant is that having seen advertisement of O.P. M/s Anand Vihar Construction, he approached and discussed the plan of flat at the rate of Rs. 16,95,000/- and booked a flat on 19.11.2010. An agreement for sale was signed on 05.12.2010 and flats in plot No. 101, Bhola Apartment, Block –A, phase-I, Chira chas at Bokaro was allotted. The plot was registered on 11.03.2011 in the name of the complainant. The flat was to be handed over within 24 months from this date of booking. But the possession of the flat was given on 05.08.2013.

            It is further the case that complainant within week informed the O.P. about stopping of water pump to which O.P. informed to get the pump repaired and O.P. will pay the expenditure. Complainant had given details of expenditure of Rs. 37,500/- to O.P. who did not care to reimburse.

            The flat construction was poor as at the first monsoon seepage had started from walls and as per suggestion of O.P. the seepage of walls was repaired costing Rs. 50,000/- which O.P. has not paid the amount.

            Apart from this, due to improper POP, the roof of the toilet get leakage rendering unusable.

            Rs. 55,000/- was charged for car parking by O.P. for providing ¼ decimals space and thus, O.P. has cheated. Only 12 Car parking has been provided out of 24 flats in the block towers.

Even as per MADA approved plan O.P. has to provide safety tanks for each tower but O.P. has connected the sewerage line of two towers Narayan Tower Block B and Krishna Tower Block C to the sewerage pipe line of tower of Block A of the complainant resulting sewerage pipe line got blocked from May 2015 causing flooding of toilet and bedroom of the complainant. Not only this, there are several leakages in sewerage pipe line which caused leakage in car parking area drop by drop.

There is no fire fighting arrangements inspite of request as per MADA plan.

            As per agreement, separate generator has to be provided for power back up of 300 watt but O.P. has provided one generator for three blocks A,B and C. This causing serious inconvenience to the flat owners including the complainant.   

            Like the same as approved MADA plan O.P. has to provide separate tube well to each tower but only one tube well is provided till date.

            O.P. has also not provided water harvesting in the complex in contravention of building rules and approved plan.

In spite of joint notice by flat owners to the O.P. to rectify the defects, O.P. is not taking any action.

 Complainant sent a legal notice to O.P. but O.P. has not replied. Thus the O.P. is negligent and deficient in providing service to the Complainant. Hence this case in filed.

3          Complainant has filed following documents in support.

            Anx-1- Copy of the Agreement for Sale.

            Anx-2- Copy of the joint application to Director O.P. dt. 3-

                         12-2013

            Anx-2/1 Copy of the joint application dt. 11-01-2014 to the         

                       Director O.P.

            Anx-3- Copy of legal notice by complainant dt. 28-08-2015

            Anx-4- Copy of Service Tax receipt dt. 31-08-2013

            Anx-5- Copy of Demand notice by O.P.

            Anx-6- Copy of Allotment Letter dt. 20-11-2010

            Anx-7 and 7/1- Copies of money receipts dt. 28-11-2010

                      and 19-11-2010.

4          O.P. Director M/s Anand Vihar Construction pvt. Ltd. appeared and filed W.S.

It is admitted that complainant booked flat and the allotment letter and agreement for sale was signed and after demand notice flat was handed over to the complaint.

            It is denied that pump was repaired rather complainant purchased a new pump of Rs. 3,7500/- whereas it was duty of O.P. to repair. Thus, complainant does not want to give the balance amount of Rs. 2,32,500/- and this statement is wrong.

It is also denied that complainant expended Rs. 5000/- for repairing seepage which was rectified by O.P. It is also denied that no proper P.O.P. was done.

            It is also denied that ¼ deemed (109 Sq. ft) space for Custer car parking in wrong and 12’x 8’ wide (108 Sq.ft) space is provided.

It is also denied there is any violation of MADA rules in case of blockage of sewerage pipe line.

            It is submitted that in the first phase everything was common for Block A+B+C and Septk tanks was prepared more than the required capacity.

It is also denied that there is no fire Extinguisher in the each floor and there is water reservoir in basement.

            Regarding generator set, it is said that there are 100 unit in Block A+B+C and for consumption 82.5 KV DG set is provided which is sufficient for all the three blocks.

            It is denied that in MADA plan separate bore well for each block is approved. 4 nos well is provided for all the blocks for water consumption.

            Regarding water harvesting allegation, it is wrong and Block A is connected with system.

 It is also submitted that all the blocks A+B+C were handed over on 02.08.2015 with all amenities and now society is created and the liability goes to the society for any maintenance.

            It is wrong to say no reply of the notice of the complainant was given O.P. has sent notice to the complainant and L.I.C. office and demanded to pay the arrear amount.

            O.P. had demanded arrear of Rs. 2,32,000/- from the complainant in April 2013 but the complainant tried to avoid for the payment and silently shifted in the flat without informing the O.P. and filed this case with false allegation to grab the arrear amount.

            It is also alleged that the complainant has not come with clean hand and concealed some facts. The deed is a conditional sale deed and since the complainant has taken loan from L.I.C., so notice was sent for demand of arrear amount of Rs. 2,32,000/- through legal notice on 06-08-2015  and thereafter this case is filed on 04-11-2015 with false allegation. Hence, this case is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.

5          O.P. has filed the following documents in support of its claim:-

Anx-A- Copy of the Conditional Sale Deed

Anx-B- Copy of application of the Allotment letter dt. 19-11.10

Anx-C & C/1 Copies of booking from of flat and allotment letter.

Anx-D- Copy of legal notice to the complainant dt. 06-08-2015

 

F I N D I N G S

6          We perused the record and we hold that complainant is a consumer and the dispute is a consumer dispute.

7          On perusal of the documents filed and the oral evidence we found that O.P.  has admitted about the agreement for sale of land building of flats and allotment of flats No. 101 is block ‘A’ of the site.

            The allegation of the complainant is that the possession of flats was given on 05-08-2013 after eight months delay and as soon as he entered the flat the water pump developed defect causing inconvenience and as per assurance of O.P. he get the pump repaired at case of Rs. 37,500/- But receipt of this charge is not field in support.

            Complainant has also not filed receipt of cost of repair of seepage of walls in proof of expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- therefore this amount is also not proved.

8          Complainant has also failed to prove the loss of Rs. 1,16,000/- as interest loss and penal rent paid to BSL.  No documentary evidence is filed in support. So, this claim is also not proved.

9          As regards other general claim is concurred, it is not an individual problem of the complainant except car parking space. It is not clear that whether the car parking is given or not for which O.P. is liable if it is not provided as per the agreement.

10        Thus in the result we hold that the claim of Rs. 2,03,500/-(Rs. Tow lac three thousand five hundred) only is not proved by the complainant and he is therefore, not entitled.

11        We, thus hold that this case is not maintainable and accordingly it is hereby dismissed.

            O/C to deposit the record on Record Room.