This case is coming for final hearing on 25.09.2014 in the presence of Sri Pydi Papa Rao Advocate for the Complainant and Opposite Party called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.     The case of the Complainant is that, the Complainant and his family members gave their premises for development to the Opposite party for the construction of the apartment and accordingly, the Complainant and his family members approached with the Opposite party and executed development Agreement between the Complainant and Opposite party on 06.08.2009 wherein, specifications were mentioned in ‘C’ schedule page-13 of the said Development agreement.  But the Opposite party failed to construct as per the terms and specifications in the Development Agreement.  Then the Complainant issued a legal notice on 14.05.2011 regarding the deficiency of service in the construction of apartment even though the Opposite party on receipt of notice did not oblige and failed to rectify the defects.  The Complainant further stated that the Opposite party has not specified in the Development Agreement regarding the car parking but not provided car parking to the complainant.  The Opposite party not used teak wood for entrance door and the door was made with seasonal wood, but as per the development agreement the Opposite party has to provide teak wood door, but failed to do so and the doors fixed by the Opposite party were already decade and the cupboards were also not painted properly and the flooring was not in-accordance with the Development Agreement.  These acts of the Opposite party clearly shows its deficiency in service and gross negligence, hence this complaint to direct the Opposite party;

a) to rectify the defects as mentioned in the Development

Agreement.

b) to provide car parking besides costs.

2.     On the other hand, the Opposite party called absent even after ordering notice by way of publication and set exparte.

3.     At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A4.  No written arguments are filed by the Complainant hence, treated no written arguments and posted for hearing. 

4.     At the time of hearing, there is no representation by the Complainant even after many opportunities given by the Forum, hence treated it heard and posted for orders. 

5.     In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

6.     As per Ex.A1 i.e., Development Agreement between the Complainant and Opposite party dated 06.08.2009 and the Complainant is one of the member of out of total 13 members.  All the 13 members were entered into Development Agreement with the Opposite party with some terms and conditions.  In page-7 clause-12 of Ex.A1 speaks that “incase the developer stop construction work for five months in the agreed 24 months period without reasonable cause this agreement will be cancelled by the Opposite party without any notice and also the developer agrees to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- per month per Flat till the completion of the built up area to be given to the owner for the delayed period as mutually agreed as fair and reasonable”.  According to this clause, we are of the view that the builder agreed to construct the apartment within 24 months from the date of construction agreement and the date of Construction Agreement is 06.08.2009, hence the builder has time up to 05.08.2011.  But the Complainant issued a legal notice on 14.05.2011 i.e., Ex.A2 regarding the disturbance between the delivery of the flats and shops and for other reliefs like handing over the original documents and providing the amenities according to the supplementary agreement and not allotted the shop to the complainant and car parking and not used the teak wood for entrance door and cupboard painting etc.  But as per Ex.A1 there is still three months time to complete construction work by the Opposite party.  More over, the Complainant did not file any document to show that the main entrance door was not made with teak wood as specified in the construction agreement and also not furnished any document regarding the painting of cupboards were not properly done by the Opposite party and the doorsill was already decade due to use of cheap wood.

7.     Exhibit A3 is the Supplementary Agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite party dated 19.10.2009, but in that agreement there is no mention about the specifications regarding the construction but only mentioned about the allotment of Flats and plinth area and extent only.  Hence, the Forum is of the view that this Ex.A3 is no way concerned to look into present dispute.  Ex.A4 dated 19.11.2012 is the estimation for an amount of Rs.26,000/- for main door with teak wood, doorsill including labour cost and also for car parking at cellar, the Complainant estimated it as Rs.15,000/-, how interior decors can estimate Rs.15,000/- for car parking at cellar?

8.     It is to be noted that the Complainant cannot substantiate his plea regarding the defective construction and the construction was not made by the Opposite party as per the specifications mentioned in the Development Agreement.  In Ex.A2 there is mention about the defective construction, but in our view there is still three months time to Opposite party to complete the construction.  Hence, after the completion of the construction, the Complainant has to file the document to show that the construction is not well or the wood work is not well etc., but he failed to do so and more over, Ex.A4 is not reliable document.  Hence, the Complaint is dismissed, as there is no sufficient document filed by the Complainant to strengthen his plea.

9.     In the result, the Complaint is dismissed with no costs. 

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of October, 2014.

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                        Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party:

                    NIL

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//