1.      Heard Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate, for the appellant, and Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Advocate, for the respondents.

2.      Aforementioned appeal has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated 21.01.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 2011, dismissing the complaint.

3.      Sunrise Park Owners Welfare Association (the appellant) filed C.C. No. 97 of 2011 for directing the opposite parties, (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to reimburse Rs.1313546/-, incurred for carrying out the pending works, (ii) to provide fire safety equipment to Sunrise Park Apartment, (iii) to provide solar fencing and rainwater harvesting pits, (iv) to provide lightening arrestor/ conductor, (v) to provide proper electrical cabling and safety earthing for each flat, (vi) to provide alternative bore-well with 6.5” diameter, (vii) to provide automatic sprinklers in the parking area, (viii) to construct jogging track, (ix) to construct rainwater drainage lines in the cellar and plastering of the duct, (x) to arrest water seepages & leakages of water in all the flats and common area, (xi) to rectify the wall cracks developed in all the flats, (xii) to carry out terrace water proofing works, (xiii) to fix sheets to the railing for the safety of the kids, (xiv) to apply final coat of painting in the corridors, (xv) to clean and polish the corridors (xvi) to put Name Boards for the apartments, (xvii) to replace the existing defective lift, (xviii) to change cellar parking tiles, (xix) to provide office room and visitor car parking (xx) to segregate various cable like power, TV, telephone and replacement of TV & telephone cable to Sunrise Apartment (xxi) to replace flush doors of flat No.403, with B.T. wood, Or in alternative to pay Rs.8100000/- towards prayer Nos.-2 to 21, (xxii) to furnish GHMC approved plans, design of water, drainage and electrical lines, link documents, warrantee/guarantee cards of the equipment & instalments, (xxiii) to demark the car parking areas as GHMC approved plan, (xxiv) to pay compensation of Rs.200000/-, (xxv) to pay cost of Rs.25000/- and (xxvi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.

4.      The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that Sunrise Park Owners Welfare Association (the appellant) is a residents association of flat buyers in  “Sun Rise Park” and was registered on 02.12.2010, under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Society Registration Act, 2001. M/s. Sunrise Builders & Developers (respondent-1) (hereinafter referred to as the builder) was a partnership firm, constituted on 15.06.2006, of 7 partners, who were landowners of the land on which “Sun Rise Park” was constructed. P. Srinivas was its Managing Partner and Manish Kanchal was Working Partner of the builder. The builder launched a group housing project of total 40 flats, in the name of “Sun Rise Park”, each flat consists of 3 bed rooms, at Bunglow No.23/A, Czech colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, in the year 2008. The members of the complainant were allured with colourful brochure and the representations of the builder. The members of complainant booked flats in 2008 and they were given possession of their flats from July, 2010 to May, 2011. After taking possession, they noticed that the work of several common facilities were incomplete. On several occasions, the buyers individually and jointly made requests to the builder for completing those works but of no effect. On 16.08.2010, the buyers gave representation for providing municipal water connection, to install 80 KVA DG set, to replace bore-well and sump motors, not to permit any flat to be used for commercial purpose, to provide office space for the association, to replace the lift with six passenger capacity lift, cable trunking between DB in the flat up to Meters JB as per norms, to provide intercom facility, air conditioned gym, jogging track etc. They also demanded copies of all approvals, plans & designs of electrical, water supply system, occupancy certificate, warrantee certificate etc. The builder however did not attend the demands. The buyers then vide representation dated 26.09.2010, requested for a meeting for 28.09.2010, to discuss the pending issues. The Managing Partner P. Srinivas attended the meetings dated 31.10.2010, 21.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 and assured to remove the problems. But thereafter, no proper response was given. The complainant gave a detailed representation on 16.07.2011 to the builder, for the problems, for which the prayer have been made in the complaint, as mentioned above. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.

5.      The builder contested the complaint and filed its written reply. It has been stated that the complainant association has no right to file ‘consumer complaint’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was malafide and filed by two individuals to coerce the builder for their illegal demands. The builder firm was constituted on 27.03.1993 and raised various prestigious projects, namely (a) Sunrise Enclave, Vimanand Nagar, (b) Subasana Green Field, Shamshabad, (c) Sunrise Homes, Begumpet, (d) Suraj Arcade, Begumpet and (e) several project in Elure. There was no complaint by any buyer of these projects. For “Sun Rise Park” the builder released Brochure and highlighted the proposed facilities. The facilities, which were not mentioned in the Brochure but in Highlights cannot be treated as the commitments of the builder. It was specifically mentioned that it was conceptual presentation of the project and not legal offering. The builder reserved their right to make changes in elevation, plans and specifications. It was also mentioned that Car parking, Municipal Water, Drainage Charges, APSEB & Transformer Charges, Registration Charges and taxes etc. to be borne by the buyers and these charges were not included in the sale price of the flats. The builder did not advertise the project nor gave any inducement to the buyers. The terms and conditions of the Brochure were followed in agreements for sale and sale deeds. The builder provided all the facilities mentioned in the Brochure. Jogging track was not mentioned in the Brochure. The builder was planning to provide jogging track but some of the buyers requested to construct a staircase connecting the main road in rear side of the complex, which was constructed expending Rs.300000/-. As per demand of the buyer, the builder constructed ramps/staircase, to have direct access to the flat from the road. The place earmarked for jogging place was utilised for construction of staircases, in front and back of the complex. Now, construction of jogging place was not possible. All the documents and sanctioned orders were examined by the buyers at the time of agreement. In various meetings, the buyers demanded for individual works in their flats, which were done by the builder. The majority of the buyers were satisfied with the works of the builder and had no grievance. As per sanctioned layout plan of the project, height of the building was 14.95 meters as such the builder is not obligated to provide fire safety equipment, sprinklers etc. under Fire Services Act, 1999. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, issued “Occupancy Certificate” on 12.04.2010 after examining all the legal formalities. It has been denied that the complainant had done any work in the project at its own level. The builder constructed a sump of the capacity of 30000 litres at the higher level in order to avoid rain water coming to the sump. The builder provided two bore-wells of 1200 ft. deep. The builder constructed boundary wall of the compound. On the request of the buyers, height of the boundary wall was increased in southern side. However plaster works have not been done. The builder constructed room for security personnel with fibre sheet roof, which was objected by the buyers as such it was dismantled. The builder has done water proofing work. It is for the complainant to maintain normal wear and tear. The car parking spaces were marked on first come first serve basis. The builder provided two-wheelers parking space. There was no clause for providing visitor’s car parking space. Flat Nos. 108 and 208 were occupied 1-1/2 years ago. At the time of giving possession there was no water seepage. It is for the buyers to maintain minor problems. The ducts are open to sky and are surrounded all through and are not exposed to outside. There was neither any need nor commitment to provide lightening conductor. The builder provided common earthling to the project. The electric cable has been provided as per requirement. As per, sale deed, the buyers have to pay the bills for usage of power. The builder has cleared all the dues. The builder applied for municipal water connection 1-1/2 inch and deposited requisite fee. Some of the buyers told that they had source in concerned department and on the same fee, they would get 2 inch water connection. For 2 inch water connection, the concerned department has raised a demand of Rs.2105750/- in place of Rs.1740746/-. This extra amount has to be paid by the buyers. The builder incurred huge amount in purchasing bricks and special soil for jogging track. Later on, due to demand of the buyers, staircases/ramps were constructed. The builder constructed air-conditioned gymnasium and yoga room. The builder has installed a lift of reputed company. The builder installed 25 KV DG set. The complaint has been filed on various false allegation and liable to be dismissed.           

6.      State Commission by the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 found that the complainant association was formed for maintenance of the building and looked after the welfare of the residents. The various reliefs claimed in the complaint were related to internal issues relating to individual buyers and related to rectification of defects in individual flats. The amenities mentioned in the Brochure were superseded by the agreements for sale and the sale deeds. The builder has provided two bore-wells and a sump of 30000 litres. The builder constructed compound wall. Its height was raised on the request of the buyer at some portion, which was not plastered. The room for security guard was constructed and on the objection of the buyers, it was demolished. The place earmarked for jogging place was utilised for construction of staircases, in front and back of the complex, on the demand of the buyers. The car and two wheeler parking spaces were allotted. Additional amount deposited by the complainant in respect of water connection was due to taking connection of 2 inch. Various reliefs were contrary to the sale deeds. Under Rule-15 of A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Rules, 1987 and Section-13 of A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999, fire equipment was necessary for the building of the height of more than 15 meter, while height of present building was 14.95 meter. The complainant has not approached with clean hand. On these findings the complaint was dismissed. Hence this appeal has been filed.

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the appeal deficiency in respect of (i) non-installation of fire safety equipment, (ii) tiles flooring of car parking area (iii) rain water harvesting system, (iv) separate static water storage tank and (v) certificate of architect for wiring, have been pressed. So far as demand of installation of fire safety equipment are concerned, State Commission, relying upon Rule-15 of A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Rules, 1987 and Section-13 of A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999, held that fire equipment was necessary for the building of the height of more than 15 meter, while height of present building was 14.95 meter as such it was not necessary. In the Brochure, there was no commitment for installation of fire safety equipment. Thus there was neither statutory compulsion nor commitment as such it cannot be counted as deficiency in service.

8.      So far as flooring of parking space is concerned, the builder has provided cemented cellar parking space. The complainant was demanding for tiles flooring of parking space. It is not mentioned in the Brochure that there would be tiles flooring of the parking space.

9.      The competent authority has already issued “Occupation Certificate”, which is a prima-facie proof that construction was found as per specification and certified to be as such by the Civil Engineer.

10.    So far as maintenance of the building, is concerned, the builder is not liable for maintenance after handing over possession to the buyer. The buyers have not made any complaint that the builder has not completed the building in all respect at the time of taking possession. The complaint has been filed for various amenities which were neither compulsory under the law nor commitment at the time of agreement.

O R D E R

In view of aforementioned discussions, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.