Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/67/2013

Welfare Association of Sri Nilaya Residency - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.Yasoda Rao S/o. R.Suryanagendra Rao - Opp.Party(s)

B.Narahari Reddy

10 Jun 2014

ORDER

                                                            Date of filing:30.09.2013

                                                                                                                                              Date of Disposal:10.06.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

 

PRESENT:Sri.M.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

                                  

TUESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.67/2013

 

Between

 

Welfare Association of Sri Nilaya Residency,

Rep. by its President Dr. Kanipakam Narahari Reddy,

S/o. K.Jayasimha Reddy,

D.No.3-1-57/1, Sri Nilaya Residency,

Vidyanagar Colony,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                           …..Complainant.

 

And

 

 

R. Yasoda Rao,

S/o. R.Suryanagendra Rao,

Flat No.2, Royal Plaza,

Janakpuri Colony,

Secunderabad.                                                             …..Opposite party.

 

          This complaint coming  before us for final hearing on 26.05.14 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, counsel for the complainant and opposite party remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

          This is a complaint filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, contending deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. This complaint is filed by the flat owners association represented by its President against the opposite party – builder.

          2.  The case of the complainant is that it is an association formed by the owners of the apartment called “Welfare Association of Sri Nilaya Residency”. It is contended that the opposite party is a builder, who is doing construction business in the name of “Viking Realtors Pvt. Ltd.” and he has started construction of  the apartment in the name of ‘Sri Nilaya Residency’ and he supplied brochures to purchase the flats. Accordingly, the owners of the apartment purchased their respective flats and the same was registered by the opposite party. The next contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has to provide all the amenities within the cost of the apartment, but he collected additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from each flat owner for providing amenities and Rs.60,000/- for providing car parking, which was promised to provide at free of cost. The next contention of the complainant is that the opposite party sold away the approach space in ground floor for parking below the corridor causing much inconvenience to the inmates to access to the lift and staircase. It is further contended that the opposite party yet to complete the pending works in the apartment after collecting additional amount as stated above and he failed to provide amenities as agreed at the time of selling the flats. The complainant further submitted that on 08.05.2010 he addressed a letter to the opposite party calling upon him to provide amenities as promised. After receiving the said letter, the opposite party installed solar water heating system and generator and promised to complete the remaining pending works and directed the complainant to register the association of the flat owners to receive any documents. But after registration of the welfare association, the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 29.03.2013 calling upon him to complete the pending works and to handover the documents pertaining to the said apartment to the association, but the letter was returned as unclaimed and finally on 22.05.2013, he caused a legal notice calling upon the opposite party to complete the unfinished works and to handover the accounts of Rs.25,00,000/-, which was collected by the opposite party from all the flat owners and also BPS receipts. The said notice was returned as unclaimed. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint praying this Forum to direct the opposite party to handover the documents pertaining to the apartment including BPS payment receipts and to complete the pending works and to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the members of the welfare association and to pay costs.

          3.  Notice issued to the opposite party and the same was returned as unclaimed and a paper publication was also published on 18.03.2014 and on the  hearing date i.e. on 26.03.2014 the opposite party called absent and set exparte.

          4.  On behalf of the complainant chief affidavit filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the complainant.       

5. Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether the complainant is competent to file the present complaint?

(ii).  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite

         party?

(iii). To what result?

6.  Point No.(i):- The complainant is the welfare association of ‘Sri Nilaya Residency’ represented by its President Dr.kanipakam Narahari Reddy. Now it is contended that the association is represented by the President and the complaint is filed in that capacity. As could be seen from the documents filed by the complainant, Ex.A1 is brochure in the name of ‘Sri Nilaya Residency’ released by the opposite party, Ex.A2 is the Certificate of Registration of Welfare Association of ‘Sri Nilaya Residency’, Ex.A3 is the letter sent by welfare association to opposite party. Ex.A4 is the returned cover, Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice and Ex.A6 is the returned cover. Now as could be seen from the said documents, there is no document showing the fact that the association has passed any resolution authorizing the complainant to file the present complaint. Hence, this point is answered against the complainant.

7. Point No.(ii):-  The complainant contended that the opposite party failed to provide all the amenities for the cost received towards the flats. Additionally, the opposite party collected Rs.1,00,000/- from each flat owner for providing amenities. So, collectively he collected Rs.25,00,000/- from 25 flat owners along with Rs.60,000/- from each flat owner for providing car parking and also contended that the pending works are yet to be completed. In order to prove their contention the complainant has to prove with documentary evidence but in this particular case except brochure Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 registration of welfare association, the complainant never filed any copy of agreement of sale or any registered sale deed of particular flats and also receipts regarding the collection of additional amounts. Generally, in construction business, in order to promote their sales, they will supply the brochure to the public, but it cannot be considered as evidence. In the absence of sale deed or agreement of sale, which has been signed by both the purchaser and seller, we cannot come to the conclusion that the opposite party violated certain conditions of the agreement and collected additional amount for car parking. The complainant failed to place corroborative evidence to prove their case, that the opposite party committed deficiency of service. Coming to the next contention that the opposite party sold away the approach space in the ground floor for parking below the corridor, which is causing great hindrance and inconvenience to the users to have free access to the lift and staircase, and also contended that there are some pending works, which are yet to be completed by the opposite party. Except bald allegation, the complainant failed to prove the alleged inconvenience causing access to the lift and staircase and failed to file any photographs that the said space causing inconvenience for free access to the staircase and lift, and without any photos or cogent evidence, we cannot come into conclusion that there is lot of inconvenience and hindrance to approach the lift and staircase. The next contention is that there are still some pending works yet to be completed by the opposite party. The complainant failed to list out the pending works, which the opposite party yet to be completed. Regarding that aspect also, the complainant failed to place any evidence regarding the pending works. The next relief is that to handover the BPS receipts and other documents pertaining to apartment to the complainant is also negatived because without any sketch and plan of the particular apartment, we cannot come to correct conclusion that the said apartment construction deviated the plan and come under the BPS scheme. Hence, without any cogent evidence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any relief to that aspect. The last relief to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, when the first 2 reliefs are negatived, grant of any relief of compensation does not arise and when the complaint is liable to be dismissed, grant of costs also does not arise. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for, as the complainant failed to establish their case. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8. Point No.(iii):-  In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.

Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 10^th day of June, 2014. 

 

       Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-                    

Lady Member                                                                          President (FAC).

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: Dr.K.Narahari Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1		Brochure in the name of Srinilaya Residency released by the Opposite Party.
2		Certificate of Registration of Welfare Association of Sri Nilaya Residency.
3	29.03.2013	Letter sent by Welfare Association of Sri Nilaya Residency to the Opposite Party along with postal receipt.
4		Returned cover from the Opposite Party with the above letter.
5.	22.05.2013	Office copy of Legal Notice issued by Welfare Association of Sri Nilaya Residency to the Opposite Party along with postal receipt.
6		Returned cover from the Opposite Party along with the above Legal Notice.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

- Nil -

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-  

President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.  

 

 

 

Copies to:

 

 

1.  The complainant.
2. The opposite party.