R. Krishna V/S Manjula M.A - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1668

Manjula M.A - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. Krishna - Opp.Party(s)

Vidhya zageerdhar

06 Oct 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1668

Manjula M.A						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
R. Krishna						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008 06th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1668/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt. Manjula. M.A., D/o. M.H. Anjanappa, Aged about 46 years, No. 127/1, 6th Cross, 4th Main, 3rd Block, Thyagaraja Nagar, Bangalore 560 028. Advocate (Vidya Jahagirdar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. R. Krishna, S/o. Late Rangappa, Aged about 36 years, Proprietor of M/s. Nisarga Builders, Office at No. 37/1, 2nd Floor, Brigade Road Cross, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (H.S. Rukkoji Rao) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased a penthouse from OP for a total consideration of Rs.14,20,000/- under registered sale deed dated 21.06.2007. At the time of sale of the said property OP promised to provide a lift facility and other amenities including maintenance of the building, sewerage, etc. But within a span of few months complainant noticed the leakage from the roof and the rain water entering into the house from all the corners. Actually complainant let out the said house to the tenants, the tenant who got fixed the A.C. did not use the same because it was spoiled due to dampness. For no fault of the complainant she was to get it repaired, not only that she got repaired penthouse so as to prevented from further leakage and gushing of the rain water. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to the OP to attend to the said deficiencies, it went in vain. Complainant got issued the legal notice on 09.07.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though she has invested her hard earned money in purchase of the said property, she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment and make peaceful stay in the said property. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the apartments are bound to be maintained by the apartment owners association, once when the possession was handed over to them. OP need not take care of the lift, etc., because it is the look out of the association. It is further contended that due to the nature destination some water went to the penthouse, it is again the look out of the complainant to maintain her flat according to her own convenience. The allegation of the leakage is false. On the receipt of the complaint OP sent its Civil Engineer to ascertain the actual grievance, but complainant wanted the repairs beyond the scope of the contract. Hence OP is not obliged to heed to the demand of the complainant. The owners of the flat have to get cleaned the sewerage pipes once when it is handed over to them. The other allegations of the complainant are all baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased a penthouse from OP under registered sale deed dated 21.06.2007 for a valid consideration. After taking possession of the said penthouse she let it out for rent. Now the grievance of the complainant is that the lift provided by the OP invariably struck and it is not usable, not only that during the rainy season rain water enters the penthouse from all the corners, there is a leakage from the roof and drainage system is not working properly, A.C. fixed to the said penthouse has got spoiled because of dampness. To rectify all those defects complainant requested the OP to attend to them, but all her efforts went in futile. Without finding any other way she herself got repaired the said penthouse and the damaged A.C. by spending more than Rs.25,000/- or so. Complainant demanded the OP to settle the said claim, again it went futile. Hence she caused the legal notice. The copy of the legal notice dated 09.07.2008 is produced. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that OP has undertaken to maintain the said flats for 3 years and every now and then OP is collecting the necessary maintenance charges with regard the said facilities and amenities, but still OP has failed to discharge its obligation. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP is very strange. 8. OP wants to breathe hot and cold to the reasons best known to it. At one breathe OP says that it is not the look out of the OP to maintain the said flat once when the project is completed and the flats were sold and handed over to the respective owners. It is for the apartment owners association to take care of the maintenance of the said flats as well as amenities including that of maintenance of the common passage, lift, garden, sanitary, etc. OP further goes to the extent of saying that they are not ready to bear the expenses incurred for repairing the lift. Another strange defence is that nobody have control over the nature destination with regard to the rain water entering into the penthouse of the complainant. That means to say indirectly OP admits all the defects and deficiencies pointed out by the complainant, but still it want to wash of its hands may be with a sole intention to save its skin out of sin. It is unfortunate. 9. It is further contended by the OP that on the receipt of the complaint from the complainant it sent its Civil Engineer to determine the exact grievance. Unfortunately that Civil Engineer is not examined, his affidavit is not filed. When OP failed to attend to the said complaints, complainants got repaired by spending from her pocket. OP further says the maintenance of the drainage system is also the look out of the flat owners. As against this defence OP has produced certain documents wherein he has claimed certain charges with regard to the maintenance and payment made to the security personnel, common area cleaning, electrical bill, labour payment for cleaning and lift repair charges, etc. If OP says that is not their look out with regard to the defect in the lift, what made them to subject the said lift for service and repairs not once but for 4 times is not known. This circumstance speaks with regard to the inherent defect in the said lift. 10. If OP says that it is the look out of the flat owners association to maintain the said flats, then why he demanded the maintenance charges from the complainant, wherein he himself has undertaken to maintain the said flats for 3 years that is up to 2009. So again the approach of the OP is not fair and honest. The flat owners association wrote several letters to the OP with regard to the poor maintenance and blocking of the sanitary, they have also made complaint to the concerned Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk. All those documents are produced. The letter addressed by the OP dated 28th July 2006 speaks to the fact that they will maintain the apartment complex for next 3 years and they are charging for the same. The contents of the said documents are not at dispute. So it is less said the better about the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 11. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to spend certain amount for getting repaired her penthouse and so also the A.C. There is a proof about the non-maintenance of the said flats properly so also water entering the penthouse, leakage, sanitary blockage, etc. Under such circumstances we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant. Of course we do not dispute the claim of the OP with regard to the maintenance charges which is due from the complainant to the tune of Rs.8,132/- from September 2007 to August 2008, OP can take recourse to law for collecting the said amount if in due With these observations we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 06th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008 06th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1668/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt. Manjula. M.A., D/o. M.H. Anjanappa, Aged about 46 years, No. 127/1, 6th Cross, 4th Main, 3rd Block, Thyagaraja Nagar, Bangalore 560 028. Advocate (Vidya Jahagirdar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. R. Krishna, S/o. Late Rangappa, Aged about 36 years, Proprietor of M/s. Nisarga Builders, Office at No. 37/1, 2nd Floor, Brigade Road Cross, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (H.S. Rukkoji Rao) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased a penthouse from OP for a total consideration of Rs.14,20,000/- under registered sale deed dated 21.06.2007. At the time of sale of the said property OP promised to provide a lift facility and other amenities including maintenance of the building, sewerage, etc. But within a span of few months complainant noticed the leakage from the roof and the rain water entering into the house from all the corners. Actually complainant let out the said house to the tenants, the tenant who got fixed the A.C. did not use the same because it was spoiled due to dampness. For no fault of the complainant she was to get it repaired, not only that she got repaired penthouse so as to prevented from further leakage and gushing of the rain water. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to the OP to attend to the said deficiencies, it went in vain. Complainant got issued the legal notice on 09.07.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though she has invested her hard earned money in purchase of the said property, she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment and make peaceful stay in the said property. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the apartments are bound to be maintained by the apartment owners association, once when the possession was handed over to them. OP need not take care of the lift, etc., because it is the look out of the association. It is further contended that due to the nature destination some water went to the penthouse, it is again the look out of the complainant to maintain her flat according to her own convenience. The allegation of the leakage is false. On the receipt of the complaint OP sent its Civil Engineer to ascertain the actual grievance, but complainant wanted the repairs beyond the scope of the contract. Hence OP is not obliged to heed to the demand of the complainant. The owners of the flat have to get cleaned the sewerage pipes once when it is handed over to them. The other allegations of the complainant are all baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased a penthouse from OP under registered sale deed dated 21.06.2007 for a valid consideration. After taking possession of the said penthouse she let it out for rent. Now the grievance of the complainant is that the lift provided by the OP invariably struck and it is not usable, not only that during the rainy season rain water enters the penthouse from all the corners, there is a leakage from the roof and drainage system is not working properly, A.C. fixed to the said penthouse has got spoiled because of dampness. To rectify all those defects complainant requested the OP to attend to them, but all her efforts went in futile. Without finding any other way she herself got repaired the said penthouse and the damaged A.C. by spending more than Rs.25,000/- or so. Complainant demanded the OP to settle the said claim, again it went futile. Hence she caused the legal notice. The copy of the legal notice dated 09.07.2008 is produced. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that OP has undertaken to maintain the said flats for 3 years and every now and then OP is collecting the necessary maintenance charges with regard the said facilities and amenities, but still OP has failed to discharge its obligation. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP is very strange. 8. OP wants to breathe hot and cold to the reasons best known to it. At one breathe OP says that it is not the look out of the OP to maintain the said flat once when the project is completed and the flats were sold and handed over to the respective owners. It is for the apartment owners association to take care of the maintenance of the said flats as well as amenities including that of maintenance of the common passage, lift, garden, sanitary, etc. OP further goes to the extent of saying that they are not ready to bear the expenses incurred for repairing the lift. Another strange defence is that nobody have control over the nature destination with regard to the rain water entering into the penthouse of the complainant. That means to say indirectly OP admits all the defects and deficiencies pointed out by the complainant, but still it want to wash of its hands may be with a sole intention to save its skin out of sin. It is unfortunate. 9. It is further contended by the OP that on the receipt of the complaint from the complainant it sent its Civil Engineer to determine the exact grievance. Unfortunately that Civil Engineer is not examined, his affidavit is not filed. When OP failed to attend to the said complaints, complainants got repaired by spending from her pocket. OP further says the maintenance of the drainage system is also the look out of the flat owners. As against this defence OP has produced certain documents wherein he has claimed certain charges with regard to the maintenance and payment made to the security personnel, common area cleaning, electrical bill, labour payment for cleaning and lift repair charges, etc. If OP says that is not their look out with regard to the defect in the lift, what made them to subject the said lift for service and repairs not once but for 4 times is not known. This circumstance speaks with regard to the inherent defect in the said lift. 10. If OP says that it is the look out of the flat owners association to maintain the said flats, then why he demanded the maintenance charges from the complainant, wherein he himself has undertaken to maintain the said flats for 3 years that is up to 2009. So again the approach of the OP is not fair and honest. The flat owners association wrote several letters to the OP with regard to the poor maintenance and blocking of the sanitary, they have also made complaint to the concerned Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk. All those documents are produced. The letter addressed by the OP dated 28th July 2006 speaks to the fact that they will maintain the apartment complex for next 3 years and they are charging for the same. The contents of the said documents are not at dispute. So it is less said the better about the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 11. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to spend certain amount for getting repaired her penthouse and so also the A.C. There is a proof about the non-maintenance of the said flats properly so also water entering the penthouse, leakage, sanitary blockage, etc. Under such circumstances we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant. Of course we do not dispute the claim of the OP with regard to the maintenance charges which is due from the complainant to the tune of Rs.8,132/- from September 2007 to August 2008, OP can take recourse to law for collecting the said amount if in due With these observations we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 06th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.