DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 19^th  day of January 2013

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing: 20/06/2012

(C.C.No.109/2012)

Radhakrishnan.M.N.

S/o.Late M.V.Neelakanda Iyer,

Dy.Manager,

United India Insurance Company,

Residing at

7/346(1), Harisankar Road,

Near Siva Temple, Tharekad

Puthur Amsam Desom,

Palakkad – 678 001                                                  -       Complainants

(By Adv.V.K.Venugopalan)

V/s

1.Smt.Indu,

   D/o.Natarajan,

   Gireendram Veettil,

   Ayyapuram,

   Puthur Amsam Desom,

   Palakkad  - 678 003.

2.Smt.Bharathi Rajan,

   W/o.P.S.Rajan,

   7/346 (2) (3)

   Harisankar Road,

   Tharekkad,

   Puthur Amsam Desom,

   Palakkad – 678 001                                                -        Opposite parties

(By Party in person)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party are residing in west and east direction of their own house in the same building. The property situated in “A” schedule belongs to the complainant and the property in “B” schedule belongs to 2^nd opposite party. In the building, the 2^nd opposite party’s building portion was overlaps towards the building of the complainant in certain potion. The bathroom and latrine of the 2^nd opposite party situated on top of the bathroom of the complainant. On 12/4/2010 the complainant has purchased the property at first from the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has entrusted the building on November. At that time the complainant has informed to the 2^nd opposite party regarding the conditions of the deed and given a copy of the property deed. But the 2^nd opposite party informed that the 1^st opposite party had given to her  the property along with complete possession and enjoyment of the property.

Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party had done some alterations in the    bathroom and latrine. Due to the alteration there was some cracks found in the ceiling of the bathroom of the complainant and  5/1/2012 onwards leakage of filthy water from the 2^nd opposite party’s bathroom. The complainant informed the leakage of filthy water to the 2^nd opposite party. But the 2^nd opposite party has nothing to do. Then the complainant preferred a complaint before the Town North Police Station.

The 2^nd opposite party filed a false complaint to the police stating that the complainant has damaged the sintex tank situated on the top of the 1^st floor. So the complainant had sent a lawyer notice dated 13/03/2012 to the 2^nd opposite party to stop the leakage on the bathroom. Then the 2^nd opposite party had sent a reply notice stating false allegations. Thereafter  the complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party on 27/4/2012. But the 1^st opposite party has not received the notice and the notice returned with  “not claimed”. The 1^st opposite party has concealed the subject matter and sold the left out property to 2^nd opposite party conveying the entire extent exclusively to them. The 1^st opposite party has not revealed the true facts to the 2^nd opposite party. Now the complainant has not used the bathroom and latrine. The 1^st opposite party has not stated the connected factors of the building to the 2^nd opposite party. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation with 12% interest,  pay  Rs.50,000/- as compensation for damages and mental agony.

The 2^nd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The 2^nd opposite party has purchased the building from the 1^st opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Hence the 2^nd opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs.10,000/-.  

After receiving the notice the 1^st opposite party was absent. Hence 1^st opposite party set exparte.

Complainant filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A10 marked on the side of the complainant. Commission Report was marked as Ext.C1 and C2. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties.

Matter heard from the  complainant.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether the complaint is maintainable or not ?

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

3.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.1 

The 2^nd opposite party sated that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party has not revealed the overlapping portion to the 2^nd opposite party. Also 1^st opposite party has not stated the conditions of the alterations of common portion of the building to the Ext.A3 sale deed. The complainant has purchased the property from the 1^st opposite party and in Ext.A1 the overlapping portion is clearly stated. Moreover the complainant has not claimed any relief from  2^nd opposite party. Section 2(1)(o) service means “service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.  So the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the 1^st issue answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2  & 3

We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.A5 the property tax receipt dated 29/10/11, A4 tax receipt dated 25/5/12 and Ext.A1 the copy of deed shows that the complainant is the present owner of the A schedule property. Ext.A5 is the ownership of the complainant issued by the Muncipal Office. 

As per Ext.A1 page No.5 paragraph 2 shows that  

വസ്തുവഹകള്‍ മേല്‍ വിവരിച്ച പ്രകാരം ഇന്ദുവിന്  അവകാശപ്പെട്ടതും  അവരുടെ കൈവശത്തിലിരിക്കുന്നതുമായ ദീര്‍ഘചതുരാകൃതിയില്‍  ഇരുനിലകളിലായി  ഉണ്ടാക്കിയ കെട്ടിടങ്ങള്‍  സഹിതമായതിനാല്‍ ഇന്ദു  കൈവശം അവശേഷിക്കുന്ന കിഴക്കുഭാഗം സ്ഥലത്തെ കെട്ടിട ഭാഗം  വീടിന്‍റെ  മുകള്‍ ഭാഗം താഴെ പട്ടിക രണ്ടാം  താക്ക് വഹകളിലേയ്ക്ക്  (പടിഞ്ഞാറോട്ട്)  തള്ളിനില്‌ക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. ആയതു നിലനിര്‍ത്തേണ്ടതിലേയ്ക്ക് ടി തള്ളിനില്‍ക്കുന്ന കിഴക്ക് പടിഞ്ഞാര്‌  1.8 മീറ്റര്‍ വീതിയിലും  തെക്ക് വടക്ക് 10.4    മീറ്റര്‍ നീളത്തിലുള്ള  ഭുസ്ഥലത്തില്‍ കൂട്ടായ അവകാശം  ഇരുക്കൂട്ടര്‌ക്കും ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കേണ്ടതിലേയ്ക്ക് ടി ഭാഗം   രണ്ടാം  താക്ക് വഹകളായി  പ്രത്യേകം കാണിച്ചുട്ടുള്ളതാണ്‌. താഴെ പട്ടിക വഹകളില്‍   ഒന്നാം   താക്ക് വഹകളിലെ ഭൂമിയും ആയതിലെ  ആര്‍.സി. ഇരുനില കെട്ടിടത്തിലും പരിപൂര്‌ണ്ണ അവകാശവും രണ്ടാം  താക്ക് ഭൂമി വഹകളില്‍  ഇടകലര്‍ന്ന പകുതി അവകാശവും അതിലെ താഴത്തെ നില കെട്ടിട ഭാഗത്തില്‍ പരിപൂര്‌ണ്ണ അവകാശവും മുകളിലത്തെ നിലയിലെ കെട്ടിടഭാഗങ്ങള്‍  നിലനിര്‍ത്തേണ്ട ബാദ്ധ്യതകളോടും അവകാശങ്ങളൊടും  കൂടിയും ടി ഭാഗത്ത്  ഒന്നാം നില മേല്‍ക്കുരയ്ക്ക് മുകളില്‍  അധികാരാവകാശ  സഹിതവും ക്രയവിക്രയ   സ്വതന്ത്ര്യത്തോടെ നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് എന്‍റെ  ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ സാമ്പത്തിക ബാദ്ധ്യത  തീര്‍ക്കേണ്ടതിലേയ്ക്ക്   തീരുതരുവാന്‍  നിശ്ചയിച്ച് തീര്‍ച്ച്പ്പെടുത്തിയ

In short the 1^st opposite party sold the property to the complainant and stated the possession of the portion of overlapping to both parties. As per Ext.A3 there was no separate conditions stated in the deed to the 2^nd opposite party. On verification of documents marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A3 the 1^st opposite party has suppressed some facts and transferred the ownership to 2^nd opposite party.

In Ext.C1 and C2 the commissioner noted “the walls and the down pipes from the first floor bath room are also leaking and person cannot take bath or use toilet because of first floor toilet water falling on the person  from various places using bathroom at the ground floor. Also commissioner mentioned that 2^nd opposite party’s property at first floor is overlapped on complainant’s bathroom and kitchen.  Commissioner produced photographs shows the photos of leakage. In C1 and C2 the commissioner stated that the house of 2^nd opposite party was locked and he could not inspected the bathroom of 2^nd opposite party. On perusal of sale deeds marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A3 that the overlapping at the 1^st floor is a disputed part of the property where no alterations should have been carried out without the consent of complainant and 1^st opposite party. As per Ext.A1 the complainant has purchased property at  first from the 1^st opposite party. Thereafter the 1^st opposite party sold the rest of the property to the 2^nd opposite party.

It is the bounden duty of the 1^st opposite party to reveal the overlapping portion of the building to the complainant and 2^nd opposite party. Also 1^st opposite party has not stated the condition of the alterations should have been carried out without the consent of complainant in the Ext.A3 sale deed.

The complainant has not produced evidence to prove the cost of rectification of the building. The complainant has not claimed any relief from the 2^nd opposite party. So 2^nd opposite party exonerated from the liabilities. Commissioner noted that leaking in the bathroom and water logging on the sun shade at the back, which makes the kitchen wall also leak.

As per Ext.A10 the complainant sent lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party and the notice returned with “not claimed”. Before the Forum also the 1^st opposite party was absent and set exparte. This will also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

The 1^st opposite party has concealed the subject matter and sold the left out property to 2^nd opposite party conveying the entire extent exclusively to them. So the complainant has not lived in his house due to the leakage of filthy water from the bathroom.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the 1^st opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation for mental  agony and damages and pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 19^th  day of January 2013.

    Sd/-

Seena H

President

      Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

      Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Attested copy of Document No.1181/2010 dtd.12/4/10

Ext.A2 –  Attested copy of Document No.188/07 dtd.14/9/07

Ext.A3 –  Attested copy of Document No.3019/11 dtd.21/9/11

Ext.A4 – Land Tax in the name of complainant dated 25/5/12

Ext.A5 –  Bulding Tax receipt in the name of complainant dated 29/10/11

Ext.A6 – Ownership certificate in the name of complainant dated 28/6/10

Ext.A7 series – Copy of Advocate notice dated 13/3/12 sent to 2nd opposite

                      party alongwith postal receipt and acknowledgement card.

Ext.A8 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 20/4/12

Ext.A9 - Copy of Advocate notice dated 27/4/12 sent to  opposite party

Ext.A10 – Returned cover  mentioning unclaimed dtd.14/5/12 

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Commission Report

Ext.C1 – R.M.Nambiar

Ext.C2 – R.M.Nambiar

Cost 

Rs.5000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.