Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/115/2015

R.Raja Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.E.Manohar - Opp.Party(s)

S.Ashokan and K.Selvaraj

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  28.04.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  20.11.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY THE 20^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.115/2015

 

 

1.R. Raja Srinivasan,

S/o. Rasigamani,

Residing at Flat No.F4, 1^st Floor,

Rathinam Apartment, Old Door No.7/1,

New Door No.17/1, Sivan Koil Cross St.,

Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

 

2.P.Gnanaraj,

S/o. K.Perumal, Residing at Flat No.S6, 2^nd Floor,

Rathinam Apartment, Old Door No.7/1,

New Door No.17/1, Sivan Koil Cross St.,

Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainants

 

..Vs..

 

E.Manohar,

S/o.P.Ekambaram,

Owner of Iswarya Builders,

Old Door No.14, New Door No.20,

West Arasamaram Street,

Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 04.08.2015

Counsel for Complainants                    : M/s. S.Ashokan & K.Selvaraj

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s. R.Rajasekaran, R.Bavani Sekar,

                                                                 A.Arunkumar

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to rectify the defects in the water tank and to pay compensation for mental agony with cost   u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          Tmt.T.Chitra is the owner of the land situated at Old Door No. 7/1, New Door No.17/1 Sivan Koil Cross Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. The opposite party developed Ratinam Apartments in the said land consisting of 6 flats bearing Nos. G-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, S-5 and S-6. The land lady Chitra retained flats numbers G-1, F-2 and S-5. The complainants purchased  the flat numbers F-4 & S-6 and one Mr.R.Jayapal purchased F-3.

          2. The opposite party constructed water tank for supply of the metro water to the occupants of the 6 flats.  The complainants faced water crisis every day for their usage. Hence, on inspection the complainants came to know that the water tank was divided to four equal parts and three parts were connected to kitchen, bath rooms and toilets of the flats numbers G-1, F-2 & S-5 which are retained by the land lady T.Chitra. An another part of the water tank was connected to the kitchen only with  the complainants  flats and Mr.R.Jayapal flat. Such an arrangement of the supply of water to the complainants flats is deficiency and against the terms and conditions of the promoter agreements. 

          3. The complainants invested their hard earned money and purchased the flats. All the flats owners are paying water tax equally and hence all are entitled for equal share of amenity of water. However, 75% of the total capacity of the water utilized by Tmt.T.Chitra and the remaining 25% of the tank water supplied to the other three flats owner including the complainants.  The complainants gave notice dated 06.10.2014 to rectify the defect of water supply and to give equal supply of water to all the flats owners. The opposite party being a builder to the complainants as well as the constructor of the other flats, he is responsible to comply the request of the complainants. The opposite party failed to comply the request of the complainants and hence he has committed deficiency in service and hence this complaint.   

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party admits that the owner of the property retained three flats and out of the remaining three flats, the complainants purchased two flats and another flat by one  Mr.R.Jayapal. The allegation of the complainants that after taking possession of the flats they faced water crisis and on inspection they came to know that three  water  tanks allotted to land lady and one water tank allotted to the remaining three flats owners is false and they have been put to strict proof of the same.

5. They took possession of their flats during end of February, 2013 and used for all most more than a year. The land lady has undivided share of land about 60%.  The allegation that 75% of the water is utilized by  the land owner and 25% of water used by the other three flat owners is false. The opposite party had given equal facilities to all the flats owners. The equal payment of water and sewerage tax is no way connected to the opposite party liability. The total extent of land in the apartment is 2984 sq.ft. Out of which the complainants and another flat owner Thiru.R.Jayapal were given 1190 sq.ft. land as UDS and the remaining land is with the land lady to an extent of 1794 sq.ft as UDS.

6. The complainants does not come forward with any defective in the constructions or delay in handing over possession and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further the complainants took possession of the flats by the end of February, 2013 and this complaint has been filed  only on 28.04.2015 and hence this complaint is barred by limitation. This opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.    

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that one Tmt.T.Chitra is the owner of the land situated at Old Door No. 7/1, New Door No.17/1 Sivan Koil Cross Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24 and the opposite party developed Ratinam Apartments in the said land consisting of 6 flats bearing Nos. G-1, F-2, F-3, F-4 ,S-5 and S-6 and the land lady Chitra retained flat numbers G-1, F-2 and S-5 and the complainants have purchased the flat numbers F-4 & S-6 and F-3 flat  was purchased by  Mr.R.Jayapal.

          9. It is the specific case of the opposite party  in his written version  that he had handed over the possession of the  flats to the complainants by the end of February 2013 and the complaint had  been filed only on 28.04.2015 and hence  the complaint is barred by limitation. The factum of delivery of possession in February 2013 was not denied by the complainants.  Hence the date of handing over the possession of the flats by the complainants has been taken as February 2013.  As per section 24-A of the CP Act, the complaint should have been filed within a period of two years from the date of possession. This complaint is filed on 28.04.2015 in this Forum after a period of two years from the date of possession. Hence, it is held that the complaint is barred by limitation.

10. POINT NO:2

          The complainants alleged that the opposite party had constructed water tank was divided into four equal parts and three parts was connected to the kitchen, bath rooms, toilets of the flats nos. G-1, F-2 & S-5 retained by the land lady and other one part of water tank was connected to the complainants and another purchaser Mr.R.Jayapal and therefore equal distribution of amenities of water was not supplied to them, even though they were paying water and sewerage taxes equally to that of the land lady flats and the complainants are facing severe water crisis for their use and therefore the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          11. The opposite party  states that the land lady is having more share of undivided land than the complainants. The 2^nd complainant filed Ex.A2 promoter agreement and Ex.A6 sale deed reveals that he purchased only 470 sq.ft UDS land. According to the opposite party, the 1^st complainant purchased UDS land 390 sq.ft and another flat owner of R.Jayapal purchased UDS land 330 sq.ft and thus all the three totally purchased 1190 sq.ft as UDS land as against the total extent of land 2984 sq.ft and thus the land lady retained the remaining extent of 1794 sq.ft land as UDS for her which is more than 60% of total land.  Therefore, the UDS land has not been purchased by the complainants equally as that of the land lady. Since the land lady is having more UDS land, naturally she is entitled to get more amenities than the complainants. Furthermore an another purchaser R.Jayapal has not joined with the complainants that he is facing water crisis. Therefore, in such circumstances even according to the complainants three parts of water tank was allotted to the land lady cannot be construed as deficiency on the part of the opposite party and hence, it is held that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:3

Since the Opposite Party  has  not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th  day of November 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Promoter Agreement

Ex.A2 dated 16.08.2014                   Letter sent by the complainants to the opposite

                                                     Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 06.10.2014                   Legal notice issued by the complainant’s Advocate

                                                     to the opposite party 

 

Ex.A4 dated 25.11.2014                   Reply Notice issued by the opposite party herein to

                                                     the complainant’s advocate

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Photograph of Water Tank and Pipeline

                                                     Distribution

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Sale Deed for vacant land

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                                …….NIL …..

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT