BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.176 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.105 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM-III HYDERABAD

Between

1.     K.Venkat Reddy S/o K.Mohan Reddy

        Aged 65 years Occ: Agriculture,
        R/o 29/B, P.S.Nagar, Vijayanagar Colony

        Hyderabad.

2.     M/s Star Homes,

        Flat No.403, Asoka Ornata Apartments

        St.No.2, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its

        Managing partner, S.Narender Reddy

        S/o S.Manikya Reddy, aged 46 years,

        R/o Flat No.403, Star Homes, Domalguda

        Hyderabad.

                                                        Appellants/opposite parties no.3&4

        A N D

1.     Star Sai Residency Flat Owners Welfare

        Association, D.No.16-1-24/49 & 50

        Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad, rep. by its

        Secretary, Sri N.Bala Yenkulu S/o Balaiah

        Aged about 46 years, occ:Govt. Service

        R/o Flat No.203, Star Sai Residency Saidabad

        Colony, Hyderabad-59

2.     and others

Counsel for the appellant              Sri P.Shiv Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

                        TUESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.     The opposite parties no.3 and 4 have filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum on the grounds that the firefighting equipment cannot be installed to the complex having regard to the height and construction  and that the relief for leakage of water from the walls as also that amount of `50,000/- ought not to have been awarded in favour of the complainant.

2.     The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the EA was filed seeking to implement the order passed by the District Forum.  In pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Commission, the appellants complied with all the other directions of the District Forum except no.1 the firefighting equipment, 2. installation of generator and 3. car parking allotment. 

3.     The complainant has filed the EA No.81 of 2009 and as the complainant association has filed the FS memo on 8.11.2010, the District Forum has closed the execution application.

4.     Having been the execution application closed, the only question the present appeal survives for, is as regards the installation of generator, firefighting equipment and car parking allotment. 

5.     As regards the installation of generator, the appellants contended that there was no agreement or any document to the effect.  It is submitted that the complainant association has not paid any amount for the facility.  In regard to the firefighting equipment it is contended that the facility is not applicable to the building as it is less than 18 meters.  It is submitted that the letters from fire department have not been received by the appellant.  The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon GO No.901 MA dated 31.12.2007 which was issued for regularization and penalization of unauthorizedly constructed buildings and buildings constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan rules 2007. 

6.     It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that compliance of firefighting requirement is impossible since it involves demotion of substantial part of the building resulting loss and suffering by many of the flat owners.  He has relied upon the National Building Code of India which contemplates compulsory requirement of firefighting equipment only when the height exceeds 15 meters in case of commercial building and 18 meters in case of residential building.

7.     The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside?

8.     It is not disputed that most of the directions of the District Forum except the installation of firefighting equipment, generator and car parking allotment all other directions have been complied with, by the appellants.

9.     The installation of generator has been disputed by the appellants on the premise that there has been no condition or terms incorporated in the construction agreement or the sale deed.  A perusal of the construction agreement and the sale deeds would manifest that no such condition as regards to the installation of generator had been incorporated therein.  In the circumstances, the District Forum ought not to have awarded the relief for installation of the generator to the complex in question.

10.    In regard to the installation of firefighting equipment, it is explicitly made clear that the firefighting equipment is an essential amenity to be provided by the building to the flats and it has to be considered in the light of the contention of the appellants that the building in question does not measure more than 18 meters.  The GO relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants or the National Building Code that he has sought rescue for, does not help the case of the appellants as the firefighting department has issued notice wherein it was categorically stated that the appellants failed to provide the facility.  A perusal of Exs.A6 and A7 would show that the appellant failed to provide the firefighting equipment to the complex in question. 

11.    At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the installation of the firefighting equipment cannot be made as the passage is very narrow for the engine to go through as also substantial portion of the flats would be damaged for installation of the equipment.  There is no denial of the fact from the complainant association.

12.    As regards to the parking allotment, a perusal of the possession letters show that the members of the complainant association had taken possession of the flats and they have been enjoying the same.  The complainant association in fact has not sought for relief of the car allotment space.  Absolutely there is no necessity for the District Forum to award the relief for the car parking space allotment.  The direction to the effect is liable to be set aside.

13.    Insofar as the installation of the firefighting equipment is concerned, we have given our careful consideration and came to the conclusion that as all the reliefs have been complied with, this relief can effectively be reconsidered by the District Forum as there is likelihood of substantial loss of place in many of the flats and the flat owners have to decide the option in this regard. 

14.    In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The complaint is remitted back to the District Forum to decide the limited question of installation of firefighting equipment by giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and prosecute their case.  The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 16.2.2012.  No costs.

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                            Dt.07.02.2012

KMK*