BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 776/2005 against C.D. 384/2003, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
1. K. Balraj, S/o. Late Eswaraiah Goud
Age: 59 years, Retd. Traffic Inspector
APSRTC, Barkatpura Depot
Hyderabad.
2. K. Harishankar Goud
S/o. Late Eswaraiah Goud
Age: 54 years, Administrative Officer
Rajaji Institute of Public Affairs &
Administration, Vishwaniketan
Bollaram, Hyderabad.
3. K. Sadanand,
S/o. Late Eswaraiah Goud
Age: 48 years, Sr. Stenographer
Administrative Staff College of India
R/o. H. No. 16-1-442, Saidabad
Hyderabad.
4. K. Sudhakar,
S/o. Late Eswaraiah Goud
Age: 46 years, L.D.C.
Regional Passport Office
Nampally, Hyderabad.
5. K. Chandramohan
S/o. Late Eswaraiah Goud
Age: 37 years, Employee in LIC
R/o. H. No. 16-1-442, Saidabad
Hyderabad. *** Appellants/
Complainants And
1. M/s. Tirumala Associates
Rep. by its Managing Partner
G. Ramesh, S/o. Sattaiah
R/o. 2-2-1076/5/D/1,
Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad
2. G. Ramesh, S/o. Sattaiah
Age; 42 years,
R/o. 2-2-1076/5/D/1,
Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad
3. P. Srinivas, Age: 42 years,
M/s. Tirumala Associates
R/o. 16-1-486/A/A.1
Beside Mathrusri Engineering College
Saidabad, Hyderabad. *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Suresh Kumar Bang
Counsel for the Resps: Mr. Srinivasa Rao T.
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
The appellants are the unsuccessful complainants.
The case of the complainants in brief is that they entered into a development agreement-cum-GPA with respondents under Ex. A1 Dt. 24.6.1997 for construction of residential flats over the premises bearing No. 16-1-439/1 admeasuring 1449 sq.yds and No. 16-1-486/A/A admeasuring 542.03 sq.yds situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad. In pursuance of Ex. A1 the respondents have obtained permission from MCH for construction and commenced the construction. They entered into Ex. A2 MOU Dt. 13.4.2000 wherein they were entitled to 32% of the flats viz., allotment of 12 flats in a constructed area of 11095 sft besides a share in parking, terrace etc. While so, they delivered 12 flats with an area of 10205 sft with a shortfall of 890 sft. Therefore, they are entitled to the amount towards shortfall viz., Rs. 4,29,875/- and Rs. 33,000/- towards loss and after adjustment of refundable security deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- they are liable to pay Rs. 1,37,125/-at the time of delivery of flats. There were also deficiencies in the construction like not laying water pipe line, installation of old motor, not providing shelves etc. When they neglected to deliver possession and complete the construction etc., they issued Ex. A6 registered notice Dt. 28.11.2000 for which respondents gave reply vide Ex. A7 Dt. 8.12.2000 alleging that in view of the court orders they could not proceed with the construction. There was an injunction restraining from proceeding with the construction. In fact, the complainant’s sister Smt. P. Bhagyavathi filed O.S. 886/2000 on the file of VII CCC against them for partition. On an application
the Court restrained them from alienating the property. There was no injunction against the respondent from proceeding with further construction. Later, without notice to them(complainants) the court modified the order permitting the respondents to alienate the flats fallen to their share and restrained them from delivering the 12 flats. Later on an application the Court restrained from alienating Flat No. 303 in the third floor and directed the respondents to provide basic amenities. The said flats were in-complete
and not fit for occupation. Later the court modified the orders in I.A. 446/2000 directing the respondents to hand over the possession of 12 flats in terms of Ex. A1. They gave notice on 26.11.2001 vide Ex. A13 demanding delivery of 12 flats and also balance of liquidated damages of Rs. 5,28,575/- after adjustment of Rs. 1,37,125/-. The respondents gave Ex. A14 reply Dt. 12.12.2001 with false allegations. The flats were made ready, however, claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages on the ground that they have incurred loss and agreed to give possession of the flats provided the said amount is paid to them, for which they gave reply. On 18.12.2002 when the respondents delivered possession of flats, they took possession subject to verification of construction of flats and the amenities provided without prejudice to their rights. When they have taken possession, they found that there were several defects and deficiencies in construction like non-laying of water line, installation of old motor for the second bore well, not providing shelves, broken electricity plugs not bearing ISI mark, non-working of flush, leakages, seepage, lift not being in working condition etc. A commissioner was also appointed by the Civil Court who noted the various irregularities . This amounts to deficiency in service and the respondents are liable to compensate them. Therefore, they claimed Rs. 15,59,431/- towards liquidated damages, Rs. 2,97,471/- towards interest for delay in delivery of possession, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to rectify the defects and costs, in all Rs. 19,56,902/-
R1 & R2 filed counter denying each and every averment made in the complaint. However, they admitted the execution of Ex. A1 & A2. They alleged that there was no deficiency in service on their part either in delivering possession of the property or construction of flats. They alleged that due to filing of O.S. No. 866/2000 on the file of VII CCC, Hyderabad and the orders of injunction restraining them from proceeding with the construction work or from alienating the flats, their business was affected. They with-held payment of the balance. They could not complete the construction in time. The suit was filed in collusion with their sister to harass them. There was no delay on their part in delivering the flats. In fact the complainants have violated the terms of Ex. A1 & A2. Later, they have obtained modified orders permitting them to alienate all the flats fallen to their share. In fact they informed about the completion of the flats to the appellants by various notices. They demanded Rs. 6,37,125/- from the appellants towards damages and refund of the amount. Since they did not comply and a cloud being cast on the title in view of the partition suit, and in order to counterblast the cl
