This case is coming for final hearing on 11-09-2014 in the presence of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate for Complainant and Sri K.Govinda Rajulu, Advocate for Opposite parties and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

: O R D E R :

(As per Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)

1. The present complaint is filed by the Complainant under Sec.12 of C.P.Act on 10.02.2012 against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and requested the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties (1) to provide Car parking place admeasuring about 60 Sq.ft. to the Complainant for the Flat No.402 in Plot No.12 of T.C.No.50/4 situated at Allipuram, Visakhapatnam District (2) to provide and install branded lift in place of existing local assembled substandard one (3) to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience supplied by complainant due to deficiency of service on part of Opposite party (4) to pay costs for legal expenditure (50 to pass any order or orders as this Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief averments are as follows: The Complainant submits that he purchased Flat No.402 from one Sri P.Veera Appa Rao and Sri V.Nagabhushanam represented by their registered GPA holder M/s.Navya Constructions which is a partnership firm i.e. 1^st Opposite party represented by 2^nd Opposite Party. The said flat was purchased by him on 1.12.2010 vide Registered Sale deed for total sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- situated at S.No.39/1P, Plot No.12 of T.C.No.50/4 to the extent of 25 square yards of undivided and unspecified share out of 573 sq.yds along with a flat bearing No.402 in the 4^th floor with a plinth area of 910 sft and 60 sq.ft of Car parking area in P.A.R.Residency. At the time of purchasing the property Opposite Parties agreed to install branded lift for the Flat and also 60 sft car parking area for the Complainant’s flat. The Lift which was erected in the residential complex i.e. P.A.R. Residency was non-branded and locally assembled and there are frequent breakdowns of the lift and due to breakdown Flat owners of the 5^th Floor and other floors residents are facing so much inconvenience. Even though the Panchayat was held before the elders, the Opposite Parties are postponing the same issue and not providing Car parking area and branded lift for the residential complex. Hence due to the inaction of the Opposite Parties for not providing Car parking area and branded lift for the residential complex, the present complaint is filed seeking reliefs sought for.

3. Notice was served to the Opposite Parties and on behalf of Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Sri K.Govinda Rajulu, advocate filed Vakalatnama.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Parties filed the counter on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party also stating that the Opposite Parties has originally entered into agreement with Landlord on 8.8.200 Development of the Property vide 50% : 40% + 10% for landlords. 50% of the share in the building will be for the Opposite Parties and 40% of the share will be for one Landlord Sri P.Veera Apparao and 10% of the share in the building for another Landlord Sri Vegi Nagabhushanam. After obtaining permission from the Municipal authorities vide B.A.No.2007-BA-11114/G1, dt. 19.04.2007 the Opposite party proceeded for construction for the residential apartment and handedover the shares of the 2 landlords. As some of the plots were kept unsold which were in the possession of the Opposite Party. The VMC levied tax to the unsold flats and in the said unsold flats list Plot No.402 is there. For the Flat No.402, the Opposite Party paid tax on 18.09.2009 to the VMC authorities.

5. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties for purchasing Flat No.402 on 1.12.2010 from the Opposite Party, which is a completed deluxe flat. He approached the Opposite Parties for purchasing the flat for 15 months of the completion of the building. Like-wise there are 20 flats in the residential complex and 50% work under the custody of the Opposite Party. For all 20 apartments Car parking slots were allotted in the presence of the President of Apartments Association Sri Tirumaladevi, Secretary Damodara Rao, Treasurer Ramadevi vide Lottery system and the Car parking slots were ear-marked. With regarding to the Lift, the Opposite parties has erected BECON and ISI Lift in the year 2009 itself. The lift erected in the residential complex is of ISI standard one and the complainant cannot question about the lift after completion of warranty period i.e. one year after its erection in the complex. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

6. On perusing the pleadings of both sides, the Forum has framed the following points for consideration :

   1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties 1 & 2

   2. To what relief.

7. The Complainant filed his Evidence Affidavit and on his behalf Ex.A1 i.e. Sale Deed dt. 1.12.2010 is marked. On behalf of Opposite Parties Sri P.L.S.Prasad, Managing Partner of the 1^st Opposite Party filed Evidence Affidavit and on his behalf Ex.B1 to B12 were marked. Both the Complainant and Opposite Parties submitted their Written Arguments and adduced oral arguments.

8. The present complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 for allotting the Car Parking area for his flat and erecting new branded lift for the Residential complex. On perusing the Ex.A1, Sale deed which is in favour of the complainant it seems the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Managing Partner of the 1^st Opposite Party Navya Constructions. In that Ex.A1 in the Annexure-I(A) Cl.(4) 60 Sft Car parking area was allotted to the Complainant’s Flat No.402. On perusing the entire document Ex.A1 nowhere in the document it was mentioned about the erection of the lift with a branded one for the residential complex. Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of the Development agreement cum G.P.A. between the Opposite Party Constructions and the two Landlords Sri P.V.Appa Rao, Sri V.Nagabhushanam in that agreement it seems there is 50% of the share should be given to the Opposite Party Builder and out of 50%, 40% of Sri P.V.Apparao and 10% to the Vegi Nagabhushanam. In the schedule of the specifications Pg.No.16, in Ex.B1 vide Cl.10 it was mentioned as “lift will be provision”. Except the word Lift will be provision it was not mentioned anywhere in the Ex.B1 that it should be with a branded one or some ISI mark or with some other one. That too, the said Development Agreement in between the 2^nd Opposite Party through the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Land owner Sri P.V.Appa Rao & V.Nagabhushanam only. There is no privity of contract with regarding erection of the lift between Oppostie Parties 1 & 2 and the Complainant.

9. Observing the Ex.B6, B7, B8, B9 i.e. the Certified copies of the BECON Elevator Engineering with regarding to the lift erected in the Residential complex (P.A.R.Residency) for maintaining the lift that is the date of the servicing 2/2/10 to 20/6/11, 7/11/11, 6/12/2011. In that said Exhibits B6 to B9 which were certified by BECON company. It seems there is no breakdown and parts were replaced only servicing is completed by that time.

10. At the time of arguments Complainant is stating that the documents i.e. Ex.B6 to B10 are fabricated. More particularly on observing the Ex.B6 to B9 i.e. Maintenance Certificates given by BECON Elevator Engineering for 4 times and observing the Ex.B1, Schedule ‘C’ specifications Pg.16 (Cl.10 Lift will be provision), it reveals that there is no fault on part of the Opposite Parties for erecting the lift and that too there is no fault from the side of the lift also and even observing the Ex.B1 specifications there is no particular branded lift should be erected in the Residential complex, Complainant cannot question the Opposite Parties for erecting a new brand or a particular brand lift in the residential complex. Hence the issue related to the erecting of the lift in the residential complex is answered against the Complainant.

11. With regarding to the Car Parking slot to be allotted to the Complainant, the Complainant stated that Car Parking has not been allotted to his Flat. Except the allegations against with the Opposite Parties with regard to Exs.B6 to B10 that they are fabricated, the Complainant kept silent about the Exs.B11 & B12 i.e. 2 photographs showing one Car AP31BC7957 is parked in a parking place. It seems the Car parking for the complainant is allotted to the Complainant and there is no fault on part of the Opposite Parties for non allotment of the Car Parking to him. That too as seen from the Para No.9 of the Counter filed by the Opposite Parties, it seems there is an Association formed in the residential complex i.e. in P.A.R.Residency and one Smt.Tirumala Devi is President and Damodar is Secretary and Ramadevi is Treasurer and it seems the Car Parking slots were allotted to the 20 flat owners in P.A.R. Residency vide lottery system. Except the allegations of the complaint that Car parking was not allotted to the Flat No.402, after receiving the Counter he has not discussed about the Para No.9 counter part of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 i.e. with regarding to the allotment of the Car Parking of Flat owners in the residential complex in the Evidence Affidavit and Written arguments.. When the issue was not raised and the complainant kept quiet with regarding to that point it deems that the particular point was not rebutted by the complainant by way of Counter blast answer, for the para No.9 in the counter filed by the Opposite Parties. As seen from Ex.B11 & B12 it seems it was allotted to him and for further litigation if any or of there is any problem with regarding to “Car Parking” he has to approach the Apartment Owners Association. The said grievance cannot be sort out by the Builder after handovering the Apartment along with Car parking area to the Complainant. As the said relief is related to the common prayer, to be raized by the Apartment Owners Association. Hence the issue regarding Car Parking is answered against the Complainant.

12. Observing Exs.B6 to B9 and Clause 10 in Page 16 of Ex.B1 and along with Exs.B11 & B12 (2 photographs) showing the Car Parking place we are of conclusive opinion that there is no fault on Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and so there is no deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2. Hence the complaint is dismissed without costs.

13. In the result the Complaint is dismissed without costs.

    Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2014.

     

          Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

    President (FAC)                                                         Member           

                                                                       District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                Visakhapatnam

     

    APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:   

      Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

President (FAC)                                                         Member           

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                            Visakhapatnam