BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.,B.L., PRESIDENT
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 28th day of April, 2010
CC.No. 56 of 2008
Between:
K. Anthoni Reddy, S/o Joji Reddy,
Age 35 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee,
R/o Flat No. 103, S.T.U. Bhavan Apartment,
Veerabadhra Nagar, Opp: Land Records Office,
Sangareddy, Medak District.
….. Complainant
And
1. M/s Sai Balaji Contructions Regd.No.66/2006,
H.No.5-1-3/32, Shanthingar, Sangareddy Town
Medak District, rep.by its Managing partner
2. Kistaiah S/o Ramaiah, 51 yrs,
Occ:Agrl., R/o H.No.5-1-3/3/2,
Shanthinagar, Sangareddy.
3. Smt.S.Anuradha W/o Yadagiri, 28 yrs,
Occ: Teacher, R/o Flat No.101, Saikrishna
Residency, Near IOCL, New Bustand,
Sangareddy.
4. Smt.S.Anuradha W/o G.Ravinder,
31 yrs, R/o Saikrishna residency,
Near IOCL, New Bus Stand, Sangareddy.
- P.Somnarayana S/o Narsaiah,
Aged about 38 yrs, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.9-81, Pothireddypally village,
Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.
6. M.Srinivas S/o Pandurangam,
Aged about 30 yrs, Occ:Business,
R/o H.No.3-7-83/102/8, Dattatreya Nagar,
Sadashivapet Town, Medak District.
7. G. Laxmaiah S/o Narsaiah,
Aged about 58 yrs, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.3-2-1-103, Netaji nagar,
Gayatrinagar, Sangareddy town, Medak District.
8. Smt.K.Jyothi W/o K.Srinivas,
Aged about 30 yrs, Occ: housewife,
R/o H.No.6-2-28, Someshwarawada,
Near Ambedkar Statue, Sangareddy town,
Medak District.
9. Smt.D.Aruna W/o Kaladhar Reddy,
Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: housewife,
R/o H.No.4-9-83, Prashnathnagar colony,
Sangareddy tow, Medak District.
....Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 16.04.2010 in the presence Sri. M.Achutha Reddy advocate for complainant and Sri. G.Venkata Ramulu Advocate for opposite parties, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan Lady Member)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to provide all amenities i.e. separate electric transformer b) erection of lift © Manjeera Drinking water (d) water pipe line to upstairs (3) Completion of cellar work (f) common lights (g) Room for watchman with toilets (h) individual electric meters for each flat (i) flooring in common areas, corridors and ways (j) Celler drainage (k) No provision for cellar outlet water (l) flooring on terrace (water stagnant on terrace) (m) coloring partly done (n) no safety provisions and other amenities;
b. to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest to complainant.
c. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards repayment of electricity bills and water charges to complainant.
d. any other relief as the Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1) The complainant is the purchaser of semi finished flat namely S.T.U.Bhavan the promoters of the Opposite parties. The complainant purchased the flat No.103 admeasuring 1040 sq.feet which includes all the common area left and car park. He paid the opposite party Rs.6,91,000/- through an agreement of sale and sale deed dt.19.12.2007. The complainant has paid the total sale consideration and obtained sale deed. At the time of agreement of sale the flat was in semi finished condition. The opposite parties promised to complete all the work pending within six months from the date of agreement of sale deed. But they failed to keep their promise and have not provided basic amenities.
2) The opposite parties had agreed to provide a number of basic amenities which are necessary to stay in the flat. Believing them the complainant and the others occupied the flats in the hope that they would be completed in a short time. The complainant is paying electricity bill on commercial rate because individual meter is not provided to his flat. He along with others has paid a sum of Rs.12,765/- towards the bill. Moreover wires have snapped because of over load of electricity.
3) There is no provision of drinking water and permanent pipe line to upstairs, the complainant and other inmates are purchasing water daily. They are spending Rs.50/- per day and carrying water upstairs. The main gate was provided after issuing a notice on 2.8.2008. Coloring is only part done.
4) Despite several requests from the complainant and other inmates the opposite parties have failed to provide the basic amenities. The complainant issued a notice on 02.8.2008 to the opposite parties. Even after receipt of notice they have not come forward to provide the amenities.
5) The opposite parties are the promoters, who have executed registered sale deeds but failed to provide basic amenities for the flats till to day. Despite several request and demands they have not complied. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant and others who have purchased the flats are suffering a lot and have been put to great hardship. The complainants is initiating criminal proceedings against the opposite parties.
6) The complainant is not happy with the quality of construction has there are leakages in the walls. The complainant is a consumer within the definition of the Act and the services assured by the opposite parties falls within the provisions of Act, 1986.
Counter filed by opposite party M/s Sai Balaji Constructions and others. It is submitted that all the contents of the complainant are not admitted by the opposite party and may be deemed as denied. The complaint is the neither maintainable under the law nor other facts mentioned by the complainant. As such it is liable to be dismissed with costs. The respondents have already provided the amenities which have been mentioned in the complaint namely a) Transformer (b) erection of lift (c) drinking water (d) water pipe line to upstair (e) Completion of cellar work (f) common lights (g) Room for watch men with toilet (h) Individual electric meters for each flat (i) Flooring in common areas, corridors and ways, (j) Cellar drainage (k) No provision for cellar outlet water (l) Flooring on terrace/water stagnate on terras (m) coloring partly done (n) No safety provisions and other minor amenities. It is false to say that the opposite party induced the complainant to occupy the flat and stay in it. The opposite party have not handed over the flat to the complainant and the complainant has not paid the balance sale consideration even to day and the complainant has not file any payment receipt made to the opposite parties before this Hon’ble court. It is false to say that the opposite parties have not provided drinking water and electricity transformer are individual meters to every flat. It is incorrect to say that there is water problem, electricity problem due to over load. It is further false to say that the complainant and other inmates of the flat inform and requested the opposite parties to provide the all the amenities as agreed by them. But the opposite parties failed do so.
The opposite parties have already provided drinking water, electricity and other amenities which are essential for people living in the flats. Since the last six months the complainant is residing in the flat and utilizing the all the facilities provided by the opposite party. The question of not providing the basic amenities does not arise. There is no deficiency in service, nor gross negligence on the part of opposite party and it does not amount to infringement of fundamental rights.
The complainant purchased flat No.103 for a sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- and for Manjeera water, transformer and car parking Rs.1,00,000/- total is Rs.14,00,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.13,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- is due. The complainant has not filed any receipts payment made to the opposite party No.1 to 9 for purchase of flat. On humanitarian grounds the opposite party paid for transformer and manjeera water. Receipts are enclosed. Opposite party Nos.1 to 9 have not handed over the flats to the complainant till date. In the same premises other customers who have purchased the flats are living happily and haven’t made any complaints against the opposite party. The complainant issued false legal notice to opposite party on 02.8.2008 though his counsel. The opposite parties have gave reply to the legal notice but the complainants advocate managed to return the said notice. The returned notice is also filed. The total work in the flat of the complainant is not pending and all the amenities which are mentioned in the complaint are provided. The complaint issued legal notice to avoid balance sale consideration. The petition filed by the complainant is to harass the opposite party. This is not maintainable under law or on facts and hence may be dismissed.
The prayer of the complainant is false and incorrect. The opposite party have already provided the amenities to the complainant. therefore the prayer to his Hon’ble forum is to dismiss the complaint with costs.
Complainant filed his affidavit and written arguments along with documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A.19 the opposite parties have also file their affidavits along with documents which are marked as Exs.B.1 to B.3 on behalf of the opposite parties No.2 to 9 a memo is filed adopting the counter of the opposite party No.1.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and whether he is entitled to claim any relief from the opposite parties ?
1) The complainant K. Anthoni Reddy, S/o Joji Reddy, Age 35 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o Flat No. 103, S.T.U. Bhavan Apartment, Veerabadhra Nagar, Opp: Land Records Office, Sangareddy, Medak District purchased a semi finished flat in the apartment block promoted by the opposite parties. He paid Rs.6,91,000/- for flat No.103, admeasuring 1040 sq.feet including common areas. He paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- as per agreement Ex.A.1 and the balance was to be paid on completion. But the opposite parties have not completed all the works regarding amenities. But the opposite parties have stated that they did not renege on their agreement the common amenities pertaining to water, lift and personal electricity meter have to be paid for. Ex.A.3 clearly states that lift, transformer, Manjeera water, registration charges are to be borne by the complainant.
2) From the above facts it appears that there are some allegations that the opposite parties have not complied with. Ex.A.1 states that the purchasers of the flats have agreed to pay such amounts as may be required by the government departments for water, electricity, lift and other amenities (services and facilities). These are separate and not a part of the total cost of construction as specified in the agreement.
3) The amount mention their in was required to be paid on the basis of the agreement loss – Ex.A.3 (in specifications). From the above evidence it is obvious that they have failed to comply and have not paid for water, electricity, lift erection etc., the complainant has pleaded in the complaint specific common amenities relying on the agreement. There is no clause for providing the common facilities in any agreement between both the parties; hence no relief can be granted to the complainant regarding the amenities.
4) It has to be the paying consideration by the complainant. Paying consideration is clearly laid down – that a beneficiary shall also fall within the definition of a consumer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that consideration means which is of value in the eyes of law either for the complainant or the opposite parties. It may be either for the benefit or detrimental to the opposite parties. No documents have been filed regarding the relief. On this basis the complainant is not a consumer and also W.P. No. 18735 of 2008, Shivshakti Builders v/s A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission did not granted the relief prayed by the complainant - as per O-26 R 9 of CPC There no reason to hold that they are covered by the provision of 2 (1) (d) and 2(1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
5) In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 28th day of April, 2010.
*** Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER
Sd/-
LADY MEMBER
Copy to
Copy delivered to the Complainant/
1) The Complainant Opp.Parties On ____________
2) The Opp.Parties
3) spare copy
