This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI V. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO, Advocate for the complainants and SRI M.JAGANNADHA RAO, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

AS PER SRI T.SRIRAMA MURTHY, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking the reliefs to direct the Opposite Party to provide amenities like Lift, Water Supply, Parking etc., and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the complainants towards damages and to pay costs on the following averments:-

The OP purchased a vacant site and has constructed apartment under the name and style of Sampath Apartments and sold the flats in the said apartment to the Complainants through registered sale deeds. At the time of sale of flats to the complainant and others, the OP made a promise that the flats would be constructed with certain specifications and would provide amenities like lift, water supply, parking etc., and the complainants having believed her words purchased flats and occupied the same. The OP did not make construction of the apartment in accordance with the specifications given by her and did not provide the above said amenities as agreed. After the complainants occupied the respective flats, they noticed  that the construction of flats was defective and there was a leakage of rain water due to defective plumbing work. They made oral requests to the OP to rectify the defects and to provide the amenities as agreed, but the OP did not pay any heed to their requests and postponed to provide facilities on one pretext or the other. The complainants got issued a notice dated 31-1-2012 to the OP, calling upon her to rectify the defects in the construction and to provide the amenities as agreed but of no avail. Since, the OP is in dereliction of her duties and as there is deficiency in service on her part, the complainants suffered mental agony and were constrained to file the compliant, seeking the above said reliefs. Hence, the Complaint.

The OP filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that she constructed the Apartment as per the plan approved by the Commissioner of Bobbili Municipality and she did not make any deviation or violated the plan submitted by her and she has provided all amenities to the flat owners as agreed. It is averred that the complainants and other owners having satisfied with the construction made by the OP, they being purchased the flats and occupied the same. It is averred that some of the flat owners did not pay the entire sale consideration to the OP and in spite of demands made by her, they did not pay the said amount. It is averred that the OP has purchased the lift material but due to disputes in between workers and owners of the flats, the lift was not erected but she gave an undertaking to provide the lift. Soon after the settlement of the disputes in between them. It is averred that she is not in dereliction of duty and deficiency of service and as such the complaint merits no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

In furtherance of complainants’ case, the affidavit evidence of complainant is filed and Exhibits A1 to A5 are marked on their behalf. Per contra, the OP too filed affidavit evidence of RW1 and did not choose to mark any documents on her behalf.

Perused the material placed on record and heard the arguments on behalf of the respective parties.

Now the point for consideration is, whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for?

Basing on the material placed on record, the Learned Advocate for the Complainants has contended that the OP did not make construction of apartment as per the specifications given in the sale deed and the construction is found to be defective and though the OP has agreed to provide the amenities like lift, water supply and parking she did not do so and as there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP, the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

As against the above said contention, the Learned Counsel for the OP, has contended that the OP had made construction of the building as per the specifications of the building plan approved by the Municipal Corporation, Bobbili and she has provided all amenities  and purchased the lift material for its installation and as there was dispute in between the workers and the flat owners, the lift was not erected and as and when the disputes are settled in between them, she would install the lift and as there is no deficiency in service on her part, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

As I have already stated supra, the complainants filed the affidavit evidence of PW1 which is in replica of the contents of the complaint. They got marked the xerox copy of registered Sale Deed, Photographs, Office Copy Of Legal Notice Postal Acknowledgement and Receipts and got the same marked as Exhibits A1 to A5 respectively. As seen from the said documents and admissions made by the respective parties in their pleadings, it is manifest that the complainants purchased individual flats in the apartment got constructed by the OP and after occupying the same by them, they got issued  notices to the OP, calling upon her to provide amenities, such as, installation of lift, water supply and parking place. As seen from the Photographs, it is made clear that the place for common parking is given and some of the owners of the flat have kept their motor bikes in the said common parking. It is not the case of Complainants that they have purchased separate site for keeping their vehicles as they like. In the pleadings and evidence, they did not disclose as to how much area was agreed to be set apart for the parking of the vehicles and whether they have paid any separate amounts for use of a specific area for parking the vehicles. Similarly, the complainants did not place any cogent evidence to prove that they were totally not given water supply to their respective flats. If really, the complainants are true in their contentions that water supply was not given to their individual flats, they would not have occupied the same till the water supply is given. As the complainants are residing in the flats since long, it can safely be inferred that they were given water supply to their respective flats. As far as the erection of lift is concerned, the OP herself has contended that she had purchased the material for erection of lift in the apartment and as there were disputes  between the workers and owners of the flats, the same could not be erected.  Though she has taken such a plea, she did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove that there were disputes in between the workers and flat owners. Even if it is believed that there were disputes between the workers and flat owners, the OP is at liberty to engage some other workers to get the lift installed, but she did not do so. Hence, in the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that as the OP did not erect the lift in the said apartment as agreed, there is any amount of deficiency of service on her part.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to install the lift within 1 month from the date of this order and to pay sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards damages and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only)towards costs of the complaint.

Time for compliance, one month from the date of this Order.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 14^th day of November, 2014.

MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

C.C.No.11/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                   For opposite parties:-

PW 1                               RW 1

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-

For Opposite Party:-       -nil-

MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT