BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
C.C.NO.32 OF 2012
Between:
Manjeera
(regd.No.1664/07) D.No.11-14-262/4LB Nagar, Hyderabad-074, rep. by its General
SecretaryS/o lateOcc: Advocate, R/o Flat No.A-403,
Manjeera
M/s # 304,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Counsel for the complainant Counsel for the opposite parties
QUORUM:
MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
Oral Order (As per Sri 1. `2,52,150/- towards delay in returning the amount of corpus fund, an amount of`18,84,000/- towards reimbursement of BPS charges, for repairing of leakage of water from bathroom ducts and expansion joints, a sum of`5 lakh towards compensation for non-construction of club house, for providing solar heating system, street lighting system, sewerage treatment plant, iron grills to the ducts in the corridor and swimming pool, a sum of`45,000/- towards reimbursement for reconstruction of collapsed compound wall and`2 lakh towards compensation as also sum of`25,000/- towards costs.
2. `300/- per
3.
4. `18,000/- for three bedroom flat and`12,000/- for two
5. `18 `45,000/-.
6. `5 lakh towards compensation for non-construction of club house. `5 lakh which was not acceptable to the complainant.
7. `38`17,72,820/- and another quotation dated 14.2.2012 for installation of 34 solar street lighting system for`10,10,625/-.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. `20,000/- along with application of BRS and the amount of`18 `20,000/- to the opposite party.
14. `5 lakhs as compensation of non-construction of club house towards full and final settlement of all issues.
15.
16.
17.
1. Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation?
2. Whether the opposite party has rendered any deficiency in service to the members of the complainant association?
3. To what relief?
18.
19. 20. 21.
22. A perusal of letter dated 8.2.2010 addressed to the opposite party would show that there were several meetings held between the representatives of the complainant association and the opposite party company. 23. `17 `17`90,000/- on 14.11.2008.
24.
25. `18
26. `18 `18
27. `20,000/- by the opposite party along with the amount of`18 `20,000/- paid by it on the premise that deviation of sanction plan was made at the request of the flat owners and it cannot be held liable to pay the amount either to GHMC or to the members of the complainant association.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33. `45,000/- on the premise that western portion of the compound wall of the building was collapsed due to defect in the construction and it had got reconstructed the collapsed compound wall.
34. `5 lakhs towards compensation for non-construction of club house. `5 lakh for non-construction of the club house to the left over issues which was not acceptable to the complainant association. `5 lakh for non-construction of the compound wall in its letter dated 3.6.2011, the opposite party cannot turn round to say that the amount of`5 lakh would be paid provided the other issues are not pressed.`5 lakh as agreed for non-construction of the compound wall.
35. `5 lakh for non-construction of the club house, to follow up submissions under BRS, fix grills to the corridors and swimming pool of
36. `5 lakh for non-construction of the club house, to follow up submissions under BRS, fix grills to the corridors and swimming pool. `3,000/-.
కె.ఎం.కె.*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant
NIL EXHIBITS MARKED
For complainant
Ex.A1 Ex.A2
Ex.A3 Ex.A4 Ex.A5
Ex.A6
Ex.A7
Ex.A8 Ex.A9 Ex.A10 Ex.A11 Ex.A12 Ex.A13
Ex.A14
Ex.A15 Ex.A16 Ex.A17
Ex.A18
Ex.A20
Ex.A21
For opposite party
Ex.B1
Ex.B2
Ex.B3
Ex.B4
Ex.B5
Ex.B6
Ex.B7
Ex.B8
Ex.B9
Ex.B10
Ex.B11
Ex.B12
Ex.B13
| |
| [HONABLE MR. SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO] |
| PRESIDING MEMBER |
| |
| [HON'ABLE MR. T.Ashok Kumar] |
| MEMBER |
