1.      Heard Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Kartik Jha, Advocate for the respondents.

2.      Above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telanagana, dated 26.03.2021 in CC/09/2014 whereby complaint was partly allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to (a) provide sufficient rain harvesting pits; (b) provide proper drain pipes from the terrace of the building; (c) install domes in the building complex; (d) rectify the cracks on the wall (west side) as per report Ext.C1; and (e) rectify the imperious coat on the terrace to stop leakages.

3.      The office has reported delay of 113 days in filing the appeal. Although the appellant has not filed the application for condoning the delay. Delay is condoned, subject to objection by the respondents.

4.      The complainants, (appellants herein) filed Consumer Complaint No.09 of 2014 for directing the opposite parties to (i) rectify the structural defects in the construction of the building and the flats according to Vasthu by securing the services of vasthu expert to examine the structural defects according to the directions and instructions of vasthu expert; and (ii) any such other orders deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.      Case of the complainants is that opposite party-1 is the developer and opposite parties-2 & 3 are the land owners of plot No.1/A admeasuring 1000 sq. yards, municipal No.10-2-317/21, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. Opposite parties-2 & 3 had entered into an agreement with opposite party-1 on 25.06.2009 for development of a project on the said land. As per clause 9 of the agreement, project was to be completed within 21 months from 06.08.2009 (by 06.05.2011), failing which the developer was to pay delay penalty to the land owners. Opposite party-1 completed the project and handed over the same on 09.01.2012, with a delay of seven months. The opposite parties sold the flats of their shares and the flat buyers formed an association in the name of Royal Home Splendour Apartments Welfare Association. Clause 16 of the development agreement dated 25.06.2009 provided the developer and the land owners (the opposite parties) shall become the member of the welfare association and pay their respective share of maintenance and any amount with the developer was to be payable to the welfare association within 15 days from its formation. The developer has not paid the amount to the welfare association. The opposite parties provided the drinking water, lift and generator facility after a delay of one year. The developer had provided one point for generator connection instead of two points and the generator was installed in an open area on the ground floor. The opposite parties also failed to provide rain water harvesting pits as well as drainage connections through PVC pines from the bath rooms in each flat situated in the southern side resulting in overflow of contaminated water. Fire fighting equipment for safety of the building has also not been provided. The flats have not been constructed according to vasthu, per agreement. The complainants sent legal notice dated 20.01.2013 to the opposite parties seeking compensation for deficiency in service. Opposite party-1 did not reply to the legal notice. Opposite party-2 replied to the legal notice but denied compensation. Therefore, the complainants filed consumer complaint 09/2014 with the State Commission.

6.      The complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing a joint written version stating that the development agreement was executed between opposite party-1 and 2 & 3 inter se. The complainants are bound by their respective sale deeds and they have no right to raise any question on the development agreement. The construction work was completed in time. The generator was also installed as per advice of the Engineer. The opposite parties have never promised two points for generator connection. After full satisfaction that the building is safe, the competent authority issued the occupation certificate. The allegation that there are structural defects in the building and the firefighting equipment has not been installed is incorrect. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint deserved to be dismissed.

7.      State Commission, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 allowed the complaint with the direction to the opposite parties as stated above.

8.      We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The complainants have not challenged the impugned order on merit. However, they are aggrieved that the State Commission while passing the impugned order has not granted compensation to the complainants and the present appeal is limited only to the point of compensation. The complainants took possession in the year 2011 and sale deeds were executed in their favour.  Regular water connection was installed on 28.12.2012.  Prior to it the opposite parties were arranging for water supply.  The complainants were living and enjoying in their respective flats. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to rectify the defects as pointed out by the Engineer. In my considered opinion, none of the defects as mentioned in para-2 above is of the nature which could have created hindrance in using the flats or the common area nor any allegation has been made in the complaint in this regard. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled for any compensation. The appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal is dismissed.