BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.1684/2006 against CD.No.279/2006 District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
1.Smt.S.Sarala, W/o.Dr.S.S.Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 49 years, Indian, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.Flat No.3, Ground Floor, Renukasadan Apartment,
D.No.2-2-1159/1/A, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad – 500 044.
2.Ravi Kulkarni, S/o.Muralidhara Rao,
Aged about 30 years, Indian, Occ: Service,
Flat No.4, 1st Floor, Renuka Sadan Apartments,
D.No.2-2-1159/1/A, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad – 500 044.
3.Smt.Baby Sarojini, W/o.late P.Srinivasa Rao,
Aged about 53 years, Indian, Occ: Housewife,
Flat No.5, 1st Floor, Renuka Sadan Apartments,
D.No.2-2-1159/1/A, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad – 500 044.
4.Dattatreya G.Kulkarni, S/o.late Gundopanta Kulkarni,
Aged about 43 years, Indian, Occ: Service,
R/o.Flat No.6, 2nd Floor, Renuka Sadan Apartments,
D.No.2-2-1159/1/A, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad – 500 044.
Rep. by his wife and agent Smt.Bhavana Dattatreya,
W/o.Dattatreya G.Kulkarni,
5.Sri A.K.Avinash, S/o.A.K.Tirumala Rao,
Aged about 27 years, Indian, Occ: Service,
R/o.Flat No.7, 2nd Floor, Renuka Sadan Apartments,
D.No.2-2-1159/1/A, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad – 500 044, rep. by his father and agent
Sri A.K.Tirumala Rao.
…Appellants/Complainants.
And
1.M/s.Rigid Construction Company,
H.No.2-2-1146, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad – 500 044, rep. by its Prop.Sri Kiran G.Shirodkar.
2.Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board, Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 500 004,
Rep. by its General Manager.
…Respondents/Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.P.Naga Pradeep (for R.1).
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*******
1. Appellants are the unsuccessful complainants.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that they purchased residential flats in Renuka Sadan Residential Complex. R.1 is the builder, who entered into construction contract with the landlords for construction of the complex agreeing to provide water supply and sewerage connection. Accordingly, flats were constructed. The landlords had executed sale deeds in their favour. While so, on 23.11.2005, R.2, the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (HMWS & SB) disconnected the water supply to the apartment without any notice. Later they learnt that R.1, the builder issued notice to the landlords to apply for fresh water supply and sewerage connection, as the old water connection was unauthorisedly being used. Thus they could know that R.1 did not obtain regular water supply and sewerage connection for constructing the residential complex. On their representation, water connection was restored on payment of Rs.450/-. However, R.1 never informed that they had to pay amounts for fresh water connection. On 01.02.2006, R.2 issued an estimation for Rs.1,72,700/- for sanction of water connection. On that they represented to revise the amount and also to extend time. They made representation to R.1 that 20 mm diameter pipe was not provided to the complex and requested it to attend the problems for which it did not agree to do any work. R.1 was duty bound to provide drinking water supply and sewerage connection and cannot disown its liability by expecting some more amounts. They have been inconvenienced due to disconnection of drinking water supply and non-provision of sewerage connection. Therefore, they prayed for direction to the builder to provide connection both for drinking water as well as sewerage, and reimburse the penalty amount of Rs.450/- per month from December, 2004. They also requested R.1 to furnish original link documents, municipal plan and electricity sanction orders besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- to each complainant.
3. R.1 resisted the case. While admitting that it was a developer constructed the flats and executed the agreements in favour of the complainants, however, denied non-providing of water and sewerage connection. The very agreement provides that the owners of flats shall bear the expenditure towards water, sewerage and electricity connection. It did not include payment for new water connection in the sale consideration. In fact, at the request of the complainants it had executed another set of agreements for extra works and it did not receive any additional amount for getting new water connection. They have executed letters of satisfaction at the time of taking possession. They themselves requested it to process the applications for water supply through letter dt.10.11.2005. It was coordinating and processing the new water connection affair with the Department. R.2 had made inspection much prior to this letter and asked the residential unit owners to convert the water connection and a disconnection notice was issued. On that the complainants had agreed to bear the necessary expenditure proportionately. They themselves represented the Department to reduce the estimate and also extend time. It has given suitable reply to the notice issued by the complainants. There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. R.2 did not choose to contest the matter.
5. The complainants filed an affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.10 marked. R.1 filed its affidavit evidence.
6. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that R.1 could be directed to provide fresh water supply or sewerage connection. However, it directed the opposite party (R.1 herein) to take steps to obtain the occupancy certificates and deliver the same to the respective flat owners as and when received. With the said observation, the complaint was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainants preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. Having demolished the old building, it ought to have taken separate drinking water connection and drainage connection by paying necessary amount. It was a statutory obligation for which no separate clause is required to be incorporated in the agreement of sale. The original landlords are co-flat owners along with them, and therefore, the original landlords cannot retain the title deeds. The title deeds have to be handed over to the Welfare Association. They prayed that the complaint be allowed.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the complainants are the owners of various flats in Renuka Sadan Residential complex for which R.1 was the developer. The complainants are five in number. There are seven residential units. The original owners of the complainants are having the remaining residential units. It is also not in dispute that the developer, R.1 herein, executed separate agreements in favour of the complainants after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Corporation on 15.11.2003. This agreement was in between land owners and the developer. Later the complainants have entered into separate agreements with R.1 for construction of residential units. They were handed over to the complainants and in their turn executed possession letters having satisfied with the work. We may state herein that the very complainants requested the R.1 to process applications for water and electricity connections through letter dt 10.11.2005. On 23.11.2005, R.2 issued show cause notice on the complainants for which they filed applications for new water connection. R.2 had estimated an expenditure of Rs.1,72,700/-. On that the complainants themselves represented to R.2 to reduce the estimate besides extension of some more time for payment of the amount. R.W.2 one of the land owners had paid her share of water connection. R.1 asserts that complainants executed letters of full satisfaction at the time of taking possession of respective residential flats. In the said letters there was a specific reference that residents were handed over with the water connection (old water connection).
9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the complainants were aware about the existence of old water connection and that they were liable to contribute for the new connection. Had there been a stipulation that R.1 had to contribute, they could not have addressed letter dt.18.03.2006 to R.2 requesting for reduction of water connection charges on humanitarian grounds as they were retired persons, widows, etc. Having agreed for payment of the same, they cannot turn round and complain that R.1 did not pay and therefore, could not get new water connection. Evidently R.1 did not collect any amount for getting new water connection.
10. The learned counsel for the complainants/appellants herein contended that R.1 had collected Rs.25,000/- for issuing water connection, as per agreement dt.17.09.2004. However, they did not allege that this amount paid was towards new water connection. There is no proof that they have paid Rs.25,000/- for obtaining water connection. It was contended that two agreements were executed and the second agreement covers the amount taken towards laying the water and other connections. We may mention herein that there was no reason why there were two separate agreements when a registered sale deed was taken on the very same day without including this amount covering under the agreement. R.1 asserts that these agreements were executed in order to enable the complainants to get some loans. Undoubtedly the complainants cannot allow to take advantage of their own failings.
11. No doubt, when water connection was disconnected on 23.11.2005, by virtue of an interim order, the same was restored and the water is being supplied. An amount of Rs.450/-, that was levied according to the respondent, was not on account of not taking new water connection, but for replacing with a new meter. It purchased on 17.3.2004 and installed on 30.12.2004. It was a solitary instance of collection of Rs.450/-. It was collected on every month. Therefore, the claim for Rs.450/- every month will not arise. Unless the complainants pay their proportionate amounts for the new water connection, R.1 is not obliged to provide the same. The contention of R.1 is fortified by the affidavit of R.W.2, one of the flat owners, who had paid her share of water connection.
12. Admittedly, the owners are also owning some flats. They are having original documents of title with them. The complainants requested for a direction against R.1 to procure those title deeds, municipal plan, electrical sanction orders, occupancy certificates, etc. R.1, the builder, alleges in view of the fact that the very owners are having these documents and residing in the flats, the question of collecting these documents from them and handing them over to the complainants would not hold good. The original owners are equally owners even now. If the complainants intend to have documents, they can as well obtain copies of documents from the registration departments. However, they cannot insist the original documents be given to them. In the light of the fact that the very owners are in occupation of some of the flats, R.1 cannot be directed to obtain possession of these documents and hand over the same to the complainants We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the District Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, without costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt:23.01.2009.
