BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.

F.A.No.641/2009 against C.C.No.605/2005, District Forum-1,Visakhapatnam.

Between:

Thaltham Venkata Raghava Rao,

S/o.Ramachandra Rao,

Hindu, aged 52 years , Occ: Business,

R/o.Pent House, Swarna Residency ,

Near Grameena Bank, TPT colony,

Seethammadhara (NE),

Visakhapatnam-13.

1.Swarna 

2. Swarna Soudha Apartments Flat Owners

                                                                                   Counsel for the Appellant      

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.K.V.Subrahmanya Narsu-R1

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE 

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE  

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                          

           Aggrieved by the order inC.C.No.605/2005 on the file of District Forum-1 Visakhapatnam, the 

                       opposite party in the month of April                electricity charges to the               abandoned the project    

The opposite party did not deliver the flats             

1.   The lift is not provided  

2.   The 

3.   No shelter (with cement) is provided for the motor, pumping water of the Bore well and sump to the overhead tank, which is exposed to rain and which may cost about Rs.1,000/- .

4.   Proper shelter is not provided for the transformer covering the cutouts which may cost around Rs.300/- .

5.   No pakka flooring is done on the cellar and many breaches were found in the cellar, floor, and it may cost about Rs.5000/-.

6.   The plumbing works    7.   There is no concealed wiring for telephone connection and cable connections as agreed 

8.   No proper protective fencing is provided for the electricity panel board which is causing safety hazard, which may cost around Rs.5,000/- .

9.   The bore well is not functioning  

10.          The Opposite party did not provide the office accommodation   

11.           The doors 

12.          The opposite party as per the written agreement st 

13.          The opposite party      

14.          The soak pit for the rain water which is a requirement   

15.          Distempering of the walls on other sides of the staircase was 

16.          The opposite party may be directed to pay the loss of rent sustained by the flat owners  

17.          The opposite party has not completed the other miscellaneous work i.e. grills work and etc. 

Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party            

partner  opposite  

complainant no.1                                  

The                                            

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A14           

Aggrieved by the said order , the opposite party preferred this appeal.            

       and therefore it cannot be said to be barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that the complainant and the opposite parties entered into an agreement of sale, Ex.A4 dated 16-11-2001 in which the opposite party has agreed to complete the construction of the flat within 15 months from the date of this agreement.   

                                                                       JM