BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DIPSUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD

F.A.No.1138/2006  against C.D.No.1085/2004, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad 

Between:

Smt. Maya Gupta ,

W/o.Sri Ashok Kumar  Gupta,

 Aged about 40 years, Occ:Business, 

R/o.Flat No.301, Surya Heights,

H.No.11-5-153 Red Hills, Nampally,

Hyderabad.                                                        ….Appellant/

                                                                           Complainant

    And

M/s. KBR Sai Akshay Builders,

Office at Flat No.305 Sai Citadel Apartments,

H.No.3-5-579 to 581 Himayathnagar, Hyderabad,

Represented by its Managing Partners:

1.Sri P.Laxman Goud,S/o.late Sri P.Rajesham Goud,

  Aged about 47 years, R/o.Flat no.U1,

  Subhagya Apartments, Street No.3, near Domalguda,

  Police Check Post, Gagan Mahal, Hyderabad.

2. Sri K.Buchaiah, S/o.late Sri K.Yallaiah,

    Aged about 45 years, R/o.H.No.1-1-385/12/17/A,

    B.C.Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.                               Respondents/

                                                                             Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant            :    M/s. Mohd. Shafiuddin 

Counsel for the Respondents       :                 -

  CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                          AND

                        SRI K.SATYANAND HON,BLE MEMBER

                WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

                                TWO THOUSAND NINE. 

        Oral Order (Per  Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                           ***

            Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.1085/04  on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the case are that the opposite party is a builder and the complainant attracted by the brochure which show the specifications and  full particulars of the venture    along with the cost of the flat and with the identified car parking facility  in the stilt area, approached the opposite party for purchase of flat no.301 in their venture. The complainant submits that he paid  entire amount towards the sale consideration  of the flat and  the sale deed was registered on 17.7.2003  and the possession of the flat was given on 1.4.2004. The complainant submits that  there were balance works which were incomplete and he submits that he informed  the opposite party that he would pay the balance amount due after the pending works were completed.  The pending works which indeed to be undertaken by the opposite parties were as follows:

1.    The parking space provided for Flat no.301 only is not according to the Brochure  which   was given  to them at the time of booking it clearly indicates parking for 301 were as the O.P. provided for two parking at the same space which is highly objectionable/illegal. 

2.    The Enamel paints done to all windows from outside is of sub-standard and it spoiled the interiors of the windows from inside which was done by the complainant at his cost and has spoiled the interiors thereby causing the complainant heavy loss.

3.    The granite stone provided in the washing area is chipped from corner and it is not properly fitted.

4.   The window panes in the master bedroom (Bathroom) is of sub-standard and is broken from corners, which has to be replaced fully.

5.   The shade provided on the terrace on all sides are loose and vibrating thereby causing great noise highly disturbing the complainant and all the residents.

6.   The luppum provided in the M/B bathroom is also sub-standard and already chipping out and needs immediate repairs.

7.   The windows panes provided on the elevation of building is not as per brochure/agreement/thereby  causing damage to the elevation of building.  Ordinary glass provided instead of reflector glass and no opening is provided on all floors on the elevation sides for cross ventilation of air, thereby causing suffocation on all floors .

8.   The plumber works done is also not done properly causing leakage of water in common bathroom causing inconvenience.

9.   The Generator connection is not provided accordingly in the complainant’s flat.

10.                The grills fitted in all windows are of not equal size and of various sizes and the fitting is not done proper/loose damaging the show of interiors.

The complainant also got issued a legal notice  dt.21.6.2004 and opposite party after receipt of the notice attended to items 4 and 8 mentioned above and promised to give the  identified car parking space as specified in the brochure, but failed to complete the pending works.  Hence this complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to complete the pending works,  provided identified car parking space  as per the brochure, to pay  compensation of Rs. 15,000/-    and  to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.             .  

Opposite party filed their counter submitting that sale deed  was  executed on 17.7.2003  and possession was given on 1.4.2004 

and contend  that the complainant shall pay balance of Rs.55,000/-, But deny that the car parking place provided to the complainant is not as per the terms in the brochure and if any obstructions are there in the parking slot   it is not the responsibility of the builder and denies that there are other incomplete pending works and contends that they  have handed over the flat to the complainant only after duly completing all the amenities and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.  .

        The complainant and opposite party filed affidavits by way of evidence and Exs. A1 to A13  and X1 to X22  were marked on behalf of the Complainant and Advocate Commissioner respectively. The District Forum  allowed the complaint in part   directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to do some colouring work i.e. complete the second enamel paints of the windows of the Master Bedroom and Children’s bedroom and set up the grills without gaps wherever there is gap between the wooden frame of the windows and the iron grills and the plumber work to be done properly.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.3000/-  to the complainant towards costs   of the complaint which includes Advocate Commissioner’s fee. 

        Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal. 

        The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted in his grounds of appeal that respondents failed to provide complete identified parking place in stilt area for plot no.301 and that the respondents have illegally divided the parking place to create parking  area for flat no.103 resulting  infringement of title rights and interests of the appellant.  He further submits that there is obstruction which is detailed in the Advocate Commissioner’s report causing inconvenience and hardship  to the appellant.   The Advocate Commissioner concluded in his report that  demarcation  for the  parking space for flat no.103 may interfere and create hurdle  in parking of the vehicle in the slot no.301  directly from the drive way.

        The facts not  in dispute are that the complainant purchased flat no.301 from the opposite party on 17.7.2003 and possession was given on 1.4.2004.  It is main contention of the complainant that there were lot of pending works to be completed and that identified car parking space as mentioned in the brochure was not provided.   Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the   District Forum who in his report Ex.X.22 in I.A.No.431/2004  observed as follows:

        “ I observe the  marking of the parking area of the residential complex in  the stilt and the same was demarcated with arrow mark and the demarcation was also noted on the beam of the residential complex by painting the same with enamel paint  that “drive way”.  From the said drive way, the complainant has to park her car and can enter to her parking slot 301 directly.  But in the middle, I observed that there is a slot which obstructing the drive way is demarcated for 103 flat. Since the said slot is demarcated, the same is obstructing the drive way and which obstruct to enter into the slot no.301 and to come out from the slot through the drive way.  If the complainant has to come out from the slot, the same is to be driven from the set back spaces left in the residential complex  and not directly from the drive way.  At the time of my inspection,  I observed that the car bearing Registration No.AP9AF 6446  is parked in the middle  of the drive way.  I also observed the temporary wooden sheet is placed in the slot No.501.  I further observed that the demarcation is continued to 103, the same may interfere and create hurdle to park the vehicle in slot No.301 directly from the drive way.  I have taken the measurements of the slot of 301.The measurement from pillar to pillar of the said slot is 13’ x 13 ½ ‘.                

We have perused the material on record .  The District Forum while addressing itself to  some of the incomplete pending works did not address to the identified car parking area as mentioned in the brochure. The afore mentioned recording of the Advocate Commissioner with respect to the car parking  space  of flat no.301,    observed that there is  a  slot obstructing the drive way demarcated for flat no.103  and since the said slot is demarcated  the same is obstructing  the drive way   to enter into the parking slot  of flat no..301. We also observe from the record that the District Forum has not addressed itself to this recording of the Advocate Commissioner with respect to car parking .  The opposite parties  have promised in the brochure that he would provide identified car parking space, the same cannot be allotted in such a way  that  it would obstruct the owner from utilizing the car parking space smoothly without any inconvenience.  Hence  the contention of the opposite party that the obstruction, if any, is not their  responsibility is unsustainable .  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we allow this appeal in part directing the opposite parties  to provide identified car parking place without any obstruction to the complainant

        In the result this appeal is allowed  in part directing the opposite parties  to provide identified car parking place without any obstruction to the complainant  herein within a period of four weeks together with costs of Rs.1000/-       

                                                    MEMBER

 MEMBER

Pm*                                                           Dt. 9.9.2009