Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

62/2013

V.Thulasikanth, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Himayam Engineers & Buildeers, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Raghavachari

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                                           Complaint presented on  :  13.03.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on  : 12.07.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY  THE  12^th   DAY OF JULY 2016

 

C.C.NO.62/2013

 

 

Mr.V.Thulasikanth,

S/o. Mr.V.M.Rama Murthy,

Hindu, about 27 years,

Residing at Flat No:B5, No.18/1,

MNI Apartments,

Hassan Basha Street,

Pallavaram Chennai 43.

                                                                                    ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.Himayam Engineers and Builders, No.150 (Old No.60) Rama Naicken Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.   2.P.Ramana Reddy, Proprietor, Himayam Engineers and Builders, No.150 (Old No.60) Rama Naicken Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  18.03.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. V.Raghavachari

Counsel for   Opposite parties                 :M/s.V.Ramana Reddy, MS 105/1991

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant agreed to purchase a Flat No.B5 at 18/1, MNI Apartments, Hassan Basha Street, Pallavaram, Chennai – 43 from the Opposite Parties. In respect of the same an agreement for sale of undivided share land 483 sq.ft and for construction of flat 895 sq.ft was entered between them on 03.07.2011.  The total cost of consideration arrived at Rs.31,50,000/- inclusive of UDS, cost of construction and common area etc. The Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque on the same day.  The Opposite Parties agreed to complete the construction within a period of 15 months. The sale deed in respect of UDS was executed on 30.12.2011 in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.43,50,000/-  even though he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.31,50,000/-.  The Complainant occupied the flat in the month of April 2012 with his family members. After occupation he found that the flat was not constructed in accordance with technical specifications and during rainy season in 2012 there was leaking of rain water from the roof in all the rooms of the flat.  There is dampness in the walls and leakage from the ceiling and the fungus growth and the wardrobes emitting the foul smell. On the date of occupation the shower valves and fittings in the bath rooms iron grill on the balcony and metro water was not provided at the time of handing over the flat.  The said leaking was stopped when the terrace totally dried up. Hence, there are total deficiencies in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The engineer’s report points out the shortfalls and fallacy in respect of the nature of construction. Therefore, the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to remove the deficiencies in his flat and also for compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IS IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties admits that they entered an agreement with the Complainant on 03.07.2011 to construct a flat measuring 895 sq.ft for a consideration of Rs.31,50,000/- inclusive of UDS land cost. The Complainant wanted to occupy the flat earlier and that was obliged by the Opposite Parties and the Complainant occupied the flat in the month of April 2012. The other purchasers are paying monthly maintenance excepting the Complainant for common facilities. The Opposite Parties have paid the electricity charges on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant is due a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards the additional cost of  interior wood work  which was organized by the Opposite Parties. The flats are in good condition.  Excepting this Complainant no one has any grievances against the Opposite Parties in respect of quality of the construction.  During the rainy season there is a dampness in the ceiling in two places on electrical points only and not in any other place, it is due to a slight gaps in between the weathering course tiles due to workmanship on the terrace by then a light seepage causes the same was rectified immediately by filling with water proof chemical and cement motor after coming to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties. It is wrong to state that there is dampness in the walls and leakage from the ceiling and the fungus growth and the stretch made living conditions miserable. Further, the wardrobes started emanating the foul smell and it became totally inhabitable for the family to decide are an afterthought and imaginary one and invented the Complainant for the purpose of this case to get sympathy and mercy on the consumer and nothing else. The Opposite Parties arranged to provide security grills as wanted by the Complainant but the Complainant’s father has not allowed the workers to work for the same. The Opposite Parties cannot hold responsibility for the supply of metro water because it was not controlled by him and the same will be available depends upon the policy and availability of the water. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          l1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant agreed to purchase a Flat No.B5 at 18/1, MNI Apartments, Hassan Basha Street, Pallavaram, Chennai – 43 from the Opposite Parties and in respect of the same Ex.A11 agreement for sale of undivided share land 483 sq.ft and  for construction of flat 895 sq.ft was entered between them on 03.07.2011 and the total cost of  consideration was arrived at Rs.31,50,000/- inclusive of UDS, cost of construction and common area etc and                                the Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque on the same day and later the Complainant paid the entire amount and Ex.A12 Sale deed executed in favour of the Complainant and also occupied the flat in April 2012.

          5. According to the Complainant the deficiencies are that during rain in 2012 there was leaking of rain water from the roof in all the rooms of the flat, there is dampness in the wall, fungus growth, wardrobes emitting a foul smell and  shower valves and fittings in the bath rooms were not provided  and metro water was not arranged.

          6. The Opposite Parties replied that though 15 months time schedule to hand over the flat the Complainant occupied the flat well in advance i.e April 2012 and he has completed and handed over the flat in all respect and dampness could be corrected easily and same is not at all a defect and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint .

          7. At the request of the Complainant an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in CMP. No.238/2013 to inspect and file report in respect of deficiencies and accordingly he has inspected with the Assistance of Civil Engineer and after their inspection they filed their report separately. The Advocate Commissioner Report marked as Ex.C1 and the Civil Engineer Report with enclosures are marked as Ex.C2 series. The Engineer noted the followings in his report as follows:

1. In the kitchen ceiling nearby fan box, small dampness found, which spread up to the loft around 4’-0’ length.
2. In the Master Bed Room ceiling around fan box dampness found.
3. Master Bed Room outside projected W/R painting work peel off and dampness found.
4. In the Dining Area ceiling fan box previous dampness spread.
5. 5.In the Hall west wall near tube light small dampness found
6. In the common bed room W/R rear side beam and wall plastering work had done with unfinished painting work.
7. In the common bed room south wall colomn joint a small dampness found.
8. In the common bed room north wall at light point a small dampness found.
9. In the common bath room shower the centre control valve not fixed yet.
10. In the master bed room with attached toilet, north wall small hair crack found and above wall tile area dampness found.

Further the engineer stated in his report at the time of visual inspection he has found all the dampness stains only visible and not any fresh dampness found. He has also suggested for curing the defects in his opinion as follows:

In the entire B-5 flat all the defects are dampness stain marks alone. It will be disappear with one coat of same grade paint. If the above paintings work on the stains it is very easy to solve the problem.

As per the report of the engineer the deficiencies are (1)  small dampness were found in several places and (2)  bath room shower control valve not fixed and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service as indicated  in the engineers report and accordingly this point is answered.

8. POINT NO:2

As per the report of the engineer the deficiencies are (1) small dampness were found in several places and (2) bath room shower control valve not fixed. To cure the said deficiencies one coat of  inner painting is sufficient and the same would cost a sum of Rs.26,460/- for such work and the cost of the central valve is at Rs.5,000/- and thus a sum of total Rs.31,460/- will cure the defect in the Complainant flat. The Complainant did not file any objection to the Advocate Commissioner and Engineers Report. Therefore, there are no other deficiencies excepting the defects mentioned by the engineer. The Complainant sought in his Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to remove the above deficiencies. To remove the above deficiencies the engineer calculated the amount of expenses of Rs.31,460/- in his report. Since the same was not challenged by the Complainant, instead of directing the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.31,460/- payable by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant to remove the defects. The dampness found is not fresh one. Therefore, considering the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.31,460/- (Rupees thirty one thousand four hundred and sixty only) to remove the deficiencies to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. 

          The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th   day of July 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 17.07.1947                   Sale Deed                      

Ex.A2 dated 22.01.2004                   Settlement Deed

Ex.A3 dated 06.11.2002                   Legal Heir Certificate                                 

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     FMB Survey Map

Ex.A5 dated 16.05.2005                   Kist Receipt                            

Ex.A6 dated 29.10.2009                   Property Tax Receipt                       

Ex.A7 dated 26.05.2010                   Power of Attorney                           

Ex.A8 dated 17.09.2012                   Encumbrance Certificate

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     Chitta Extract

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             Adangal

Ex.A11 dated 03.07.2011                 Agreement for sale

Ex.A12 dated 30.12.2011                 Sale Deed

Ex.A13 dated NIL                             Plan Map

Ex.A14 dated 25.01.2013                 Legal Notice sent to the Opposite Party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

                                                …….NIL …….

LIST OF COURT DOCUMENTS:

Ex.C1 dated NIL                     Commissioner Report

Ex.C2 dated  NIL                    Commissioner Warrant

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT