Date of Filing:       20.12.2017

                                                                                                                Date of Disposal:  04.03.2020

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT: THIRU.   J. JUSTIN DAVID., M.A., M.L.,                           .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.K.PRAMEELA, M.Com.,                                            …….MEMBER-I

CC No.36/2018

THIS WEDNESDAY THE   4^th DAY OF MARCH 2020

1.K.Madheswaran,S/o.Kuppusamy,

    Flat No.G1, Ground Floor,

    Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas,

    Plot No.109, 1^st Cross Street, St.Antony Nagar,

   Car Shed Road, Annanur, Chennai -600 109.

2.M.Thirupurasundari,  W/o.K.Madheswaran,

   Flat No.G1, Ground Floor,

   Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas,

   Plot No.109, 1^st Cross Street, St.Antony Nagar,

   Car Shed Road, Annanur, Chennai -109.                                      ….. Complainants. 

                                                                           //Vs//

1.C.Thendral Mani, S/o.Chinnaswamy,

    Rep. by his General Power Agent P.C.Suresh Babu,

    S/o.M.Chinnaraj,

    No.94/B, St. Antony Nagar, Car shed Road,

    Near Railway Quarters, Annanur, Chennai -600 109.

2.P.C.Suresh Babu, S/o.M.Chinnaraj,

   No.94/B, St. Antony Nagar, Car shed Road,

   Near Railway Quarters, Annanur, Chennai -600 109.

3.Srinivasan, S/o.Subramanian,

    Flat No.G2, Ground Floor, Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas,

    Plot No.109, 1^st Cross Street, St.Antony Nagar,

    Car Shed Road, Annanur, Chennai -600 109.

4.Murugan, S/o.Voourkavalan,

    Flat No.F1,  First floor,

    Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas,

    Plot No.109, 1^st Cross Street,  St.Antony Nagar,

   Car Shed Road, Annanur, Chennai -600 109.

5.Poongunran, S/o.Murugesan,

    Flat No.F2, First Floor,

    Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas,

    Plot No.109, 1^st Cross Street,  St.Antony Nagar,

    Car Shed Road, Annanur,  Chennai -600 109.

6.Dilli vijayan, S/o.Kathavarayan,

    Flat No.S1, Second Floor,

    Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas,

    Plot No.109, 1^st Cross Street, St.Antony Nagar,

    Car Shed Road, Annanur, Chennai -600 109.                             …Opposite parties.

This Complaint is coming upon for final hearing before us on 26.02.2020 in the presence of M/s. G.Mohanarangan, Counsel for the complainant and M/s. K.Alayappan and Mr.C.Illamaran, Counsel for the 1^st to 6^th opposite parties and after perusal of the both side documents and hearing the arguments on both sides, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been preferred by the complainants Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-towards part sale consideration paid by the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- towards right knee ligament treatment for the complainants’ sun and to pay a sum of Rs.56,000/- towards treatment taken for Malaria Fever by the 1^st complainant and his son and to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards sustained medical injuries of the 2^nd complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for suffering physical and mental agony and to pay cost of proceedings to the complainants.

2.The brief averment in the complaint is as follows:-

The complainants have entered into an agreement with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties for sale cum consideration dated 22.05.2013 pertaining to Flat No.G1, Ground Floor measuring to an extent of 630 square feet built up area including common area together with common facilities and rights and undivided share of land measuring to an extent of 280 square feet, area in and forming part of the property bearing Plot No.109, St. Antony Nagar, approved by CMDA, Chennai vide Approval No.P.P.D/L.O.No.87/2000, vide letter No.L1/39086/2000, dated 31.10.2000 and Avadi Municipality vide Approval in P.P.No.451/12/F2, dated 28.06.2012, comprised in Survey No.885/1, Thirumullaivoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, measuring to an extent of 1800 square feet, for a total consideration of Rs.19,40,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- by cash towards part sale consideration, a further sum of Rs.3,50,000/- paid on 26.05.2013 by cheque towards further part sale consideration and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-  by cheque paid on 12.06.2013 towards further part sale consideration and a sum of Rs.90,000/- by cash in part by part and the remaining balance sale consideration has been availed housing loan by the 1^st complainant in DENA Bank, Broadway Branch, Chennai and 2^nd complainant was made as co-obligant. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have executed a deed of sale dated 03.07.2013 registered as document No.7619/2013 at SRO, Ambattur pertaining to undivided share of land.  The possession of flat was handed over on 14.08.2013.  After purchase of flat bearing No.G2 by the 3^rd opposite party by name Srinivasan in the middle of the year 2014 there was a flow of sewerage water from the septic tank which is very much adjacent to the ground floor No.G1 of the complainants.  The sewerage water which was arising out of septic tank, reversed to the inner area of the complainants’ flat to the kitchen area through sink pipeline as well as in common passage of the flat and apart from the cracks, seepage and damp patches in the walls and windows happened.  This fact was brought to notice of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties during October 2014 and they made temporary arrangement to rectify the defects.  while that being the case, the flow of sewerage condition became worst again and the complainants brought to notice of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties by the end of 2015 the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties put up concrete well rings (RCC rings) nearby the entrance gate. In spite of that sewerage water used to flow from the septic tank and that too reversed to the kitchen area through the sink pipe line/outlet and flow towards the hall/living area and also in the common passage of the flat. In spite of repeated demands and approaches made by the complainants, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not rectified the defects.  The Avadi Greater Municipality issued a notice dated 10.11.2016 and dated 04.04.2017 calling upon the flat owners to submit their explanations as well as removal of concrete well rings and further directed to construct septic tank and sewerage water tank separately failing which action would be taken against the flat owners Under Section 44, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 134(1) of Tamil Nadu Public health Act-1939.  The commissioner, Avadi Greater Municipality further advised the complainants and other flat owners that they would arrange septic tank and sewerage water tank separately within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The apartment was inspected by the Avadi Greater Municipality officials and Sanitary Inspector on 10.03.2017 and thereby found that the septic tank is not having the capacity of five flats and further it is noted that there is no separate sewerage water tank. Hence usage of water from five flat owners to store is not sufficient to that of having the capacity of septic tank. The said latent defects was concealed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and they committed deliberate mistake and sold the flat to the complainants as well as to the 3^rd to 6^th opposite parties which amounts to defective in service, deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Though the above said facts and incidents were brought to notice of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties they have not taken any steps to rectify the defects. The complainants are residing in the ground floor and they are very much affected by the sewerage water and they spent sleepless nights many times.  The said building is not found as per the specification and approval, sewerage water which has been frequently reversed to the inner part of the G1 flat through kitchen area and pooja room and bath room due to over flow of the septic tank, seepage on contaminated water flow from the ceiling, walls and windows and presence of “Damp Patches” on the walls of bedroom and living room, the cracks found in the inner area of Flat No.G1 (walls and windows) and also in the common area and to drain or let out used water from bathroom and toilet takes ½ or 1 hour time, the stagnation of sewerage water at the entrance of flat No.G1, the septic tank is not having the capacity for five flat owners, the flow of sewerage water in the common passage as well as in the abutting street through plot, the provision not made for sewerage water tank, seepage of contaminated water in common mater box and no proper rain water harvesting system.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties caused untold mental suffering and agony and value of mental torture is incapable in value and the health of the complainants and his family members has been affected badly. The 1^st complainant and the son of the complainants by name M.Jayendra Prasaanth was affected twice by Malaria Fever and they have taken treatment and spent a sum of Rs.56,000/-.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not shown any kind of interest, to rectify their mistake.  Hence the complainants issued a notice through their counsel on 04.05.2017 and for which the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have given their reply dated 10.05.2017 and wherein found and admitted that they would help the complainants for the sale of their flat. The 2^nd complainant underwent major operation for the removal of uterus earlier.  But instead of taking rest, she used to mop every time and collect sewerage water in bucket to dispose it frequently.  As a result of repeated activity of carrying heavy loads of sewerage water in bucket she developed hernia and underwent operation of “Incisional Hernia” at the surgical clinic and nursing home and spent a sum of Rs.75,000/- which caused untold mental and physical suffering and she also used to take antibiotic medicines and she is affected by skin allergy and nail rot as a result of sewerage water disposal and the utility of the flat has been totally decorated.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not fulfilled their promise. Hence the complainants file this complaint for their reliefs.  

3. The contention of written version of the  1^st  opposite party adopted by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:-

The complainants took possession of an alleged flat in a very good habitable condition with full satisfaction. For the past 4 years from 2013 to 2016 there was no over flow of sewage water from the sewage tank of complainant plot.  The drainage was removed by the Lorries in time till 2016 but from 2017 the complainants insisted not to remove or dispose the sewage water, if so the share amount will not be given for maintenance.  This is the motive of complainant to purposely create the surroundings and building as unfit to grab huge money from the opposite party by black mailing them. The 1^st opposite party had got proper approval from CMDA vide PPD/Lo No.87/2000 letter No.L1/39086/2000 dated 31.10.2000 and the building plan approval from the commissioner, Avadi municipality in PP No.451/12/F2 dated 28.06.2012 for construction of alleged flats.  House tax was paid till 2012 and Rs.1,58,652/- was paid on 26.06.2012 for providing drainage disposal facility and drinking water facility. The engineers and various bank officers too verified the approval and house construction before approval of housing loan. Especially the complainant purchased the flat after verification from Dena Bank approval. The complainant was kept in police station for several times for atrocity, creating nuisance, threaten with double barrel gun against public and their own house flat owner.  The complainant is in non cooperation with other 4 flat owners being scheduled caste community and they were also unnecessarily dragged in this case by the complainant. The complainant purchased flat by seeing advertisement and rough plan is false information, because they had come and visit of same flat several times before purchase from April 2013, paid advance in May 2013, then by installment settled Rs.19,40,000/- on June 2013, sale deed done on July 2013, occupied flat on August 2013.  The 1^st opposite party on belief and faith without settlement of complete amount from complainant made sale cum construction agreement on 22.05.2013.  The installment amount was paid on 26.05.2013.  The sale deed was done on 03.07.2013 vide registration No.7619/2013.  The complete building was ready from January 2013 for occupation and except G-1 flat all other 4 flats were occupied by 3 to 6 opposite party.  Therefore there was no need of showing rough plans to the complainants. The complainant Para No.2 accepted that they had occupied the house form August 2013 onwards for which house tax is not paid till date for the past 5 year and threatens house tax to be paid by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant improper handling of solid food waste dumping in sink had caused blockage in their sewage pipe line several times was confirmed by removing the wastage by 1^st opposite party from complainant’s house at free of cost. The complainants (G-1) own sewage water was flowing in their own house where as similar to next ground floor (G-2) did not suffer with such problems confirms improper maintenance in their house of complainants in that apartment.  The complainants purposely blocks sewage pipe line for demanding amount and blames, threatens on 1^st opposite party. It is very well clearly stated in sale cum construction agreement dated 22.05.2013 (Para 5, Para 16) by the 1^st opposite party to the complainants that “complainants owners and persons, the proportionate share of the monthly common and or periodic charges and contributions connected with the common amenities like water taxes, electrical charges for pump sets, general lighting, watchman and cleaners salary the cost of repairing and maintaining all such common amentias like water course, sewer drains, pump set compound wall, common lighting, road and passage and the decision by the majority of the owners will be final and binding on all the complainant owners of this project.  But so far only the complainant is non cooperative in the apartment and not willing to dispose the sewage water by lorry.  The 2^nd complainant submits false information that after occupying this G-1 flat she had suffered in health problems but during purchase of the flat informed that she was already suffering uterus problem and taking treatment in Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai,  and the complainants’ son being a kick boxer has knee problem and studying criminology.  The surgical clinic & nursing home stated that 2^nd complainant is a male instead of female and has old scar excised hernia which confirms she had undergone already treatment and once again took treatment on 26.01.2015.  The complainants’ son being kick boxer had participated in several tournaments and got cups and shields.  During tournament, practice his knee got twist injured and also during his Enfield bike Registered No. TN.06 C 9194 ride at full speed met an accident.  This was the actual cause of surgery in MIOT hospital. The complainant states false information at Para 7 that house hold electrical electronic equipments get damaged by sewage water.  No electrical wire passes in ground level for the G-1 flat.  The electrical switch boards are situated 4 feet above from ground level and there is no chance of sewage water or rain water rising for 4 feet above from ground level. Avadi municipality sewage tank lorry disposed water but within 2 days once again sewage water was flowing out was shocked to them.  The Avadi municipality came to know that due to grudge the taps are purposely open for 7 hours in that G-1 flat, such away to confirm the sewage tanks are filled and create nuisance for 1^st opposite party to get huge amount as block mail. The complainant pan was not worked out to form additional sewage tank under car parking area so he insisted to create a sewage tank additional at car parking gate. Existing three lorry capacity sewage is not cleared in time and insisting for creating further tanks under car parking area of other flat owner 6^th opposite party to involve in quarrel.  The 1^st opposite party planned for solution to put 6 inch PVC pipe 60 meters to cement canal to dispose water from plot was stopped by the complainant. Till date whatever the 1^st opposite party has done to them was free of cost for item material and also labour charges was also paid by the 1^st opposite party, one lorry load of mud was laid on road to cover the pits on road side at free of cost, complainant feed wastage to dogs and cattle to block road and scare public from using the road, the dogs and cat died in this compound are cleared by 1^st opposite party till date. After complainants occupation in G-1 flat, they insisted to make grill iron gate for main door, build compound wall back side to window to height of 7 feet and breadth 6 feet at free of cost, due to improper maintenance whenever their house sewage pipe line blockage occurs was been cleared at free of cost. The complainant did not allow putting 6 inch PVC pipe line to connect with cement canal to dispose sewage water. The disposal of sewage water will be the solution for all basic problems but the complainants does not co-operate for solution. The over flow of sewage water is because of not disposing the sewage water by Lorries in time. The drainage facility is not available for entire Antony Nagar.  Instead of approaching 13^th ward councilor and Avadi municipality, the complainant unnecessarily threatens the opposite party is the reason for sewage water over flowing on road is not acceptable and therefore this Forum may kindly please to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4. The contention of written version of the  6^th opposite party and adopted by the 3^rd to 5^th opposite party is as follows:-

The root and origin of this complaint is purely based on the discrimination of cast community.  Expect the complainants all other flat owners belong to scheduled class community.  The complainants intentionally create very often artificial problems quarrelling with all other flat owner to scare and vacate them from their flats.  The 1^st and 2^nd complainants get quarrel with each other daily stating of vaasthu evil effect in house and cleverly divert their personal problems, so that all other flat residents has to vacate themselves or otherwise to create congestion/suffocation and scare build for amount.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties as builder had paid Rs.1,58,652/- to the Avadi municipality on 26.06.2012 for providing drainage and drinking water facility etc.,  The complainants purchased the G-1 flat in the year 2013 and came to know in the year 2014 that entire buildings are occupied by SC community people.  The 1^st complainant is an Ex-service man serviced in Army retired presently working as a security in Bank.  He is entitled to hold a double barreled gun.  But he is misusing his ex-service man powers. The truth behind for the over flow of sewage water from the year 2017 is well known to everyone in residing in same block.  The 1^st opposite party constructed sewage and drinking water sump tank as per CMDA approval and also bill paid for Rs.1,58 lakhs on 26.06.2016 for the facility of tank. But the 1^st and 2^nd complainants approached the builder to change the drinking water sump tank to sewage tank which was beneath car parking area to create nuisance. Corporation has not provided drinking water facility till date hence such tank was suggested by 1^st and 2^nd complainant to convert as sewage tank.  The 3 to 6 opposite party denied for such plan as already one existing sewage tank of 3 lorry capacity is enough and requested to 1^st and 2^nd complainant to pay the money share amount in time for sewage tank lorry 3 trips charge for cleaning. The 1^st and 2^nd complainant cleverly planned in such a way that 24x7 the taps are kept open till the over head tank beside sewage tanks in underground gets filled. Even if private sewage lorry clears the sewage tank it’s made confirmed that within 3 days once again the sewage tank gets filled. The 1^st and 2^nd complainants denies to pay the sewage clearance share amount of 3 Lorries trip and states that they are the only poor and others 3 to 6 are rich hence can bare the amount. The 1^st and 2^nd complainant informed 3^rd to 6^th opposite parties not to clear the sewage tank even if it over flows, G-1 owners took responsibility that his house is at ground floor so even if anybody comes they have to come first to his house and next to other residing in above floors.  The Avadi Municipality came to know the over flow of water and issued notice on 10.03.2017 and 04.04.2017.  The municipality sewage lorry came for clearance of sewage tank and put bleaching powder, but within next day once again the waster was over flowing made shocked the municipality people. Once again Lorry came for sewage clearance and like this, municipality Lorry came for 4 times within a month and later on came to conclusion that purposely the 1^st and 2^nd complainant keeps tap 24x7 open. The Antony Nagar does not have basic facility of canal for the past 20 years even rainwater cannot flow out of Antony Nagar and gets stagnating in Antony Nagar.  The 6^th opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint stated by the 1^st and 2^nd complainant. The complainants are not interested to stay and live with us in same building hence they cleverly plan and divert their issues as area issue to suffer by all to walk on sewage water.  Three lorry capacity of 3x8000 liter=24000 liters capacity of sewage tank is already held in out block, but every month it is disposed but the complainant states that every month Rs.2000 is paid for lorry for disposal of water is utter false information.

5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainants, proof affidavit filed as their evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 1^st opposite party proof affidavit filed as his evidence and Ex.B1 to Ex.B38 were marked and the 2^nd opposite party adopted the same.  The 3^rd to 6^th opposite parties’ proof affidavit filed but not filed any documents and both parties adduced oral argument.

6. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this forum is:-

(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties?

(2) Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation for physical and mental agony?

 (3) Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

(4) To what other relief the complainant is entitled to?

7. Point Nos.1 & 2:-

The 1^st complainant is K.Madheswaran and the 2^nd complainant is Mrs. M.Thirupurasundari who is the wife of the 1^st complainant.  The 1^st opposite party is the builder of the flat No.G-1, Ground Floor, Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas, St. Antony Nagar Annanur, Chennai -109.  The 2^nd opposite party is Mr.Suresh Babu who is the owner of the land in which the said flat has been constructed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and the 3^rd to 6^th opposite parties are the owners of the other flats.

8. The 1^st and 2^nd complainant have entered in to an sale cum construction agreement with the 1^st opposite party on 22.05.2013 to purchase flat No.G-1, ground floor measuring an extent of 630 square feet with an undivided share of land measuring an extent of 280 square feet in plot No.109, St. Antony Nagar Annanur, Chennai -109.  The total cost of the flat with undivided share was fixed as Rs.19,40,000/-.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party executed a sale deed in favour of the complainants on 03.07.2013 regarding undivided share of land.  The complainants entered in to a sale cum construction agreement with the 1^st opposite party on 22.05.2013 to construct a flat and the 1^st opposite party agreed to complete the construction within three months from the date of agreement. Ex.A1 is the copy of sale cum construction agreement dated 22.05.2013 and Ex.A3 is the copy of sale deed dated 03.07.2013.  The complainants admitted that they have taken possession of the flat on 14.08.2013.  Hence the complainants are the owner of the flat in G-1, Ground Floor, Sri Ramajeyam Chinnasamy Nivas, St. Antony Nagar Annanur, Chennai -109.

9. The complainants alleged that in the middle of the year 2014 there was a flow of sewerage water from the septic tank and the sewerage water entered into the complainants’ flat.  The complainants further alleged that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party during 2014 they made temporary arrangement to rectify the defects and they put up concrete well rings nearby the entrance gate in spite of the sewerage water used to flow from the septic tank and entered in to the complainants’ flat and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not rectified the defects.

10. On the other hand the 1^st opposite party contended that the 1^st opposite party handed over the possession of the flat to the complainants during August 2013. Further the owners of the flat have given a written undertaking to maintain the flat and used common area of the flat on 07.09.2013.  Ex.B1 is the copy of undertaking letter written by all the owners of the flat to the 1^st opposite party dated 07.09.2013.  In which the complainant along with other owners of the flat agreed to maintain the flat and common area without causing any nuisance to the other owners. 

11. The 1^st opposite party is the builder who completed the construction and handed over the flat to all the owners of the flat in August 2013.  Hence it is the duty of the co-owners to form an association and to maintain the common area and amenities.  Further the complainant and other co-owners had conducted a meeting on 06.01.2016, in the said meeting the 1^st complainant also participated and all the members agreed to start the drainage cleaning, temporary drainage cover, cement canal for drainage, water tank cleaning, water tank cover, etc., Therefore the duty of the co-owners of all the flat to maintain the common area and common amenities.

12. The complainants alleged that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not constructed the septic tank as per specification of the Avadi municipality and therefore the sewerage water over flow from the septic tank. On the other hand the 1^st opposite party contended that he constructed the septic tank as per specification and approved plan issued by the Avadi Municipality and the complainants’ improper handling of solid food waste dumping in the sink and the same caused blockage in their own sewage.  Further contended there is no drainage facility in that area and therefore the owners of the flat have to make arrangements to clear the septic tank through Lorries.

13. On perusal of the evidence and other documents filed on the side of the complainants and the opposite parties this forum finds that the 1^st opposite party rectified some defects in the septic tank and also cleared the sewage pipe line at free of cost after handing over the possession to the complainants.  Further Avadi municipality issued notice to the owners of the flat in the year 2016, 2017 and 2018.  Ex.A17 is the copy of notice issued by the Avadi municipality dated 16.11.2017, Ex.A18 is the copy of notice issued by the Avadi municipality dated 11.12.2018 to the owners of the flat.  In the said notice it is written as follows:-  

“Mtb ngUefuhl;rp thu;L vz;.13, md;id = uhkn[ak;, rpd;drhkp epth],; me;Njhzp efu; nkapd; NuhL, gpshl; vz;.109y;, FbapUe;J tUk; jhq;fs,; jq;fs; tPl;L fopg;giw, Fspayiw, rikay; $lk; Mfpatw;wpy; gad;gLj;jg;gl;L ntspNaWk; fopit jq;fs; tPl;bd; Kd; efuhl;rp rhiyapy; rpnkz;l; njhl;b mikj;J Nkw;gb njhl;b epiwe;J kyj;Jld; $ba fopTePu; Nuhl;by; tope;NjhLfpwJ.  mjdhy; Ju;ehw;wk; tPRtJld; ghjrhupfs; elg;gjw;F ,ilA+whf cs;sJ.  NkYk; fhyuh, ilgha;L cs;spl;l njhw;W Neha; guTk; tha;g;Gfs; cs;sJ.  ,J NkNy Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s jkpo;ehL nghJ Rfhjhu rl;lg;gb Fw;wkhFk;.”

14. In the said notice it is stated that the septic tank, concrete well ring were formed and built in the street belongs to the Avadi municipality.  The 1^st opposite party only constructed the septic tank in the street.  Further it is the duty of the 1^st opposite party to prove that he had constructed the septic tank as per specification of the Avadi Municipality.  The 1^st opposite party has constructed the septic tank in the public place and the opposite party also admitted that he made arrangement to clear the septic tank by spending his own money. The above attitude to the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore the complainants suffered mental agony and the complainants were unable to use the flat peacefully.  Under these circumstances there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complainants are entitled for compensation and cost.

15. Point No.3:-

The complainant prays for an order to direct the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-towards part sale consideration paid by the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- towards right knee ligament treatment for the complainants sun and to pay a sum of Rs.56,000/- towards treatment taken for Malaria Fever by the 1^st complainant and his son and to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards medical injuries of the 2^nd complainant.  The complainants alleged that the complainant’s son and complainants were suffered malaria fever and other decease due to the over flow of drainage water.  The complainants also filed the medical treatment certificate and other medical bills, but this forum is unable to accept the same because the Doctor who issued the certificates was not examined as a witness to prove the same. Further the counsel for the complainants filed a memo stating that the complainants have given up their reliefs 1 and 2. Further there is no evidence or proof on the side of the complainants that the above said decease occurred to the complainants and their son due to the over flow of sewerage water. On the other hand the 3^rd to 6^th opposite parties contended in their written version that they were used septic tank and removed sewerage water by Lorries but the complainants are not cooperative with other co-owners. The other co-owners of the flat disputing the allegations made by the complainants in the complaint.  Under these circumstances the complainants are not entitled for other reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Thus the point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. Point No.4:-

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite Party is hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainants  due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and also to pay a sum Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this proceeding to the complainants.  With respect to other reliefs and also this complaint against the 2^nd to 6^th opposite parties are dismissed.

The above amount shall be payable by the 1^st opposite party within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum of this 4^th day of March 2020.

     -Sd-                                                                                                                            -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the  1^st opposite party:-

-Sd-                                                                                                                      -Sd-

     MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT