Date of Filing     :22-09-2014

                                                                                                            Date of Disposal:18-05-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the  18^th day of   May, 2015

          PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                             Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, Member.

C.C.No.67/2014

P. Suresh Roshan,

P.Soloman Raju,

Christian, Aged about 35 years,

Resident of Yagna Park Apartments,

Satyam G Nagar,

Vaviletipadu, Nellore Rural Mandal,

Nellore District.                                                                                        ..… Complainant   

                                                                           Vs.

            This complaint coming on 01-05-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Md. Rahimkhan, advocate for the complainant and                                                                opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

              The brief averments of the  complaint are as follows:

The first opposite party is the builder.  The second opposite party is the  main concern of the  first opposite party.  The opposite parties  are dealing  in construction of  houses and apartments.  The mother  of the complainant purchased undivided  shares to an extent of 33 ½ ankanams   in Vaviletipadu  village  under a sale deed.  The first opposite party entered into a building agreement with her and collected an amount of Rs.7,60,000/- towards construction of her flat.  The mother of the complainant expired on 19-08-2013 and the complainant is entitled  as her  heir.   The flat was given possession to the complainant.  However, the opposite parties have not completed the construction of compound wall from South to West, installation of a generator, transformer and  changed elevation,  steps with railing, second coating painting,  drainage  facilities, car parking   and approach road.  The same amounts to deficiency of service.  The builder has  not completed the above things inspite of agreeing to do the same.  The opposite parties have promised to complete the things whenever the complainant approached them.  Hence, the complaint for completion of the above unfinished works or pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards  construction of their work with costs and damages.

            2.         The opposite parties have not contested the matter.

            3.         Now the point for consideration is “whether  the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”

            4.         The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to  A5. 

            5.         POINT:   The complainant  is  the apartment owner.  They filed this case against the builder and a developer.  The  second opposite party is alleged to be the main concern and the developer.  However, the agreement for the construction of the apartment  is between the complainant  and the first opposite party.  The second opposite party has nothing to do with the agreement between the complainant and the first opposite party.  As such, the complaint against the second opposite party does not lie.  The complainant  alleged that the first opposite party has not provided the nine features  as mentioned in para-3 of the complaint.  Normally these features  will be promised  by almost all the  builders in the brochure supplied by them.   The contents of the brochure are not empty promises.  They  are the features undertaken by the builder to provide on payment of money from the  apartment owner.  Therefore, they are in the nature of services promised by the  builder.  Failure to provide  any one of them amounts to deficiency of service.   The first opposite party inspite of having an opportunity to contest the matter has not contested the case.  In the absence of such contest, the averments of the complaint, were  established by the complainant.  The complainant in his evidence deposed to the same.  Therefore, the first opposite party committed  a deficiency of service.  The first opposite party is directed to complete provision of the above nine features ( as mentioned in para-3) within one month from the date of the order in this case.  In addition, the first opposite party is directed to pay damages of Rs.30,000/-  and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

            6.         In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the first opposite party to provide the nine features mentioned in para-3 of the complaint within one month from the date of the order and also pay damages of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).  The complaint is dismissed against the second opposite party without costs.

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 18^th day of  May, 2015.

                Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

-Nil-

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

                                                                                                                                Id/-

                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

Copies to:

Date when free copy was issued: