Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/66/2018

Sri Krishnapa S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

Smt Hamsa G

14 Feb 2019

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 09.01.2018

                                                      Disposed on: 14.02.2019

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027      

 

CC.No.66/2018

DATED THIS THE 14^th FEBRUARY OF 2019

PRESENT

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTH KUMAR, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Mr.Krishnappa, Aged about 63 years, R/at Flat No.E-0508, K.H.B. Platinum High-Rise Apartment, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-560 060.   By.Adv.Hamsa.G		Karnataka Housing Board, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Rep by Commissioner.   By.Adv.R.A.Kulkarni

 

Under section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

1.       The Complainant has prayed for direction against the OP/KHB to pay the total compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest, alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not complying the assurances in providing the basic amenities to his flat and building premises.

          2.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that, he being the purchaser of the apartment No.E-0508 of 4^th Floor in E-Block for Rs.57,99,554/- paid on 1.1.2015, took possession and moved to the said apartment. Then he learnt that it does not have any basic amenities such as drinking water, power supply, street light, lift, security, power backup and lighting in the common area as against the assurances made at the time of purchase by the OP/statutory authority. The OP did not bother to provide even kaveri water facility which made the occupants to suffer from all types of hardship. The OP which sold the apartments assuring all the facilities as shown in the brochure also showed the gross negligence in providing the assured benefits even after seeing the inconvenience, and mental agony is being caused to the family members and other occupants. Hence, this complaint is filed.

3.       The OP has contended that by constructing 808 flats at Kengeri KHB Platinum Apartments invited the proposed purchasers and accordingly, the flats were allotted in about 250. The complainant before taking possession verified the entire flat to get satisfaction before the sale deed. The civil works were not pending as alleged. The legal notice though dt.23.5.2017, issued on 27.5.2017. There is a delay of more than 2 years for issue of such legal notice and further delay of more than 6 months in filing this complaint. Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint is premature and not conformity with Section 72 of the KHB Act. There is no explanation as to how he calculated the damages. No expert opinion is produced in support of incomplete civil works and project. All the amenities were carried out. There is no deficiency in service in their service. The layout was handed over to the associations namely Owner’s Association and Residents Association who are having conflicts on several points. The said associations are not made as parties and thereby the complaint becomes bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Without verifying the provision, notice has been issued without following the proviso of Section 12 (3) of CP Act. Thereby, the complaint becomes liable to be dismissed with costs.

          4.       The Complainant has not been examined and also not filed written arguments atleast on legal points. The OP officer has filed affidavit evidence, relying on Ex-B1 to B17 documents and also filed the written arguments relying on two referred judgments of Hon’ble State Commission, Hon’ble Supreme Court. Perused the records.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the complaint is not maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service by the OP/KHB in not providing the assured basic amenities to the flats and premises ?
3. Whether, the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
4. To what order the parties are entitled ?

 

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative

2) Negative

3) Negative

4) As per final order – for the following

5299419885.  

7.       Consumer Dispute No.1: The OP has contended and deposed that after completion of the construction work and providing of facilities, the entire project was handed over to the concerned associations namely Owner’s Association and Residents Association and the said associations are proper and necessary parties to be impleaded in this case. The OP contended that the complaint becomes bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also because of non-conformity with section 72 of KHB Act. It is for the Complainant to explain how he gets individual right to file the complaint when the associations are there to look after such responsibilities.  Existence of such associations are not disputed by the Complainant and thereby in the absence of the rebuttable evidence about the legal requirements as contended by the OP, the complaint becomes not maintainable. The complaint has no locus standi to seek the relief against the OP in his individual capacity.  The OP has also contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as more than 2 years from the date of sale deed of 2015, this complaint is filed. Thereby, the Consumer Dispute No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

8.       Consumer Dispute No.2 & 3: Admittedly, the OP/KHB constructed 808 apartments named “K.H.B.Platinum Apartments” at Kengeri and invited the public interest for purchase of the said flats. The Complainant purchased the flat No.E-0508 through sale deed and got the possession also during the year 2015 itself. The OP had to provide basic amenities including the swimming pool, STP, security, lighting etc., as assured for the enjoyment of the occupants.

9.       The Complainant has alleged that the OP has not provided the basic amenities such as drinking water, power supply, street light, lift, security, power backup and lighting in the common area and thereby, being aggrieved for want of such facilities filed the complaints seeking compensation. In support of the same, the Complainant has not placed any materials, nor filed the affidavit evidence.

10.     On the other hand, the OP filed the affidavit evidence and 8 photos Ex-B2 to B9 with report Ex-B1. The photos clearly establishes the existence of the swimming pool, STP, security, lighting in the common area. The report Ex-B1 shows that no civil works is pending and all the basic amenities were provided. In addition to it, dedicated play area for children was also made available along with gym hall, club house. They showed the functioning of the swimming pool and STP contending that OP has made payment of beyond 3 crores to BWSSB for availing Cauvery water facility.

11.     The averments made in the version and in the affidavit evidence of the OP supported by Ex-B1 to B9 were not rebutted by the Complainant. The reply notices Ex-B10 to B17 addressed to the complainant and the complainants of other cases without accepting any of the allegations also do not help the complainant. Thereby, there is no reason to disbelieve the defence taken by the OP regarding the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the OP. In the result, the complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute No.2 & 3 and accordingly, they are answered in the negative.

12. Consumer Dispute No.4: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 to 3, the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.66/2018 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 14^th February of 2019).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)  PRESIDENT

 

          Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party

Ex-B1	Report
Ex-B2-B9	8 photos
Ex-B10-B17	Reply notice to complaint

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(VASANTH KUMAR.H.Y)  PRESIDENT