BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 926
Between
R.Yashodara Rao S/o R.Surya Nagendra Rao
Builder/Chairman M/s Viking Realtors Pvt. Ltd.,
Flat No.402, Plot No.37, Royal Plaza, Janakpuri Colony
Karkhana P.O., Secunderabad.
Appellant/opposite party no.5
- Satya Prakash Arcade Apartments
Flat Owners Association D.No.18-1-587
Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi Chittor Dist.
Respondent/complainant
- Pemmaraju Venkataramana Rao (Accountant)
S/o Late P.Perraju, Flat No.401, Sneha Siri
Sampada Apartment, Sanjeevaiah Reddy
Nagar Post, Hyderabad-500 038 - PVS Mallikarjuna Rao (Superintendent in SMP
University, Tirupati) S/o Late P.Perraju, Flat No.304, - P.Gopalam Pantulu (Business) S/o late P.Perraju
Flat No.401, Sneha Siri Sampada Apartment,
Sanjeevaiah Reddy Nagar Post, Hyderabad-500 038 - Jonnalagadda Padma Prakashini (Govt.School Teacher)
W/o JVR Vittal Flat No.401, Sneha Siri Sampada Apartment,
Sanjeevaiah Reddy Nagar Post, Hyderabad-500 038
(Respondents no.2 to 5 are not necessary parties)
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent No.1
QUORUM:SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
The opposite party no.5 has constructed the flats as per agreed specifications, standards, design, drawing and fittings.
The second room was sold to one of the opposite parties as the same belongs to the opposite partyno.5.
The fifth opposite party is proceeded against on his personal capacity. The complainant association has no right or locus standi to claim for separate two wheeler parking slots for all the 20 flats.
As a gesture of good will the opposite party no.5 had left the room towards the northern side of the ramp and toilet for the watchman utilization without charging any consideration from the complainant association.
There is a wall on the boundary lane and it does not require and grill. If the complainant association decides to make them again, the opposite party no.5 will consider for doing the same as a gesture of goodwill. All the members of the complainant association admitted that the opposite party no.5 had constructed the building very neatly with all quality material and expressed their happiness that they became the owners of the flats in the buildling.
The President of the complainant association D.Krishnaiah Chowdhary, has filed his affidavit in support of the complainant’s case.
On behalf of the opposite parties, the opposite parties no.2 and the the opposite party no.5 have filed their affidavits.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party no.5 has filed the appeal contending that the opposite party no.5 had not constructed the two rooms in the cellar portion from out of the total plinth area of space sold to the flat owners.
The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the appellant had constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan issued by the municipality?
2) Whether the opposite party no.5 has violated the provisions of the A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Constriction and Ownership) Act and Rules 1987?
3) To what relief?
POINTS NO.1 AND 2 whereunder it was agreed that the opposite parties no.1 to 4 are entitled to 6050 sft built up area out of the total built up area of 17,325 sft inclusive of common areas balcony areas, circulation areas etc., and 34.92% area in cellar.
The complainant association has applied by submitting the memorandum of association and byelaws of the association to the District Registrar for registration.
The complainant association has filed the complaint claiming the amenities mentioned in the first paragraph of the complaint.
The opposite party no.5 has sold to the opposite party no.1 under Ex.A4 the room constructed in the cellar portion and the toilet in the terrace at the top of the apartments.
Sec.6
1) After the plans, specifications and the nature of fixed, fittings, amenities, and common areas as sanctioned by the local authorities or urban development authority concerned are disclosed to an intending transferee u/s 4 and a written agreement of
1) if it effects any apartment without the previous consent in writing of the transfer he intends to take
2)
2) Any of the additions or alterations referred to above shall be carried out only with the prior approval of the local authority or the Urban Development Authority concerned.
The opposite party no.5 had constructed the room without obtaining any prior consent of the members of the complainant association.
The opposite party no.5 has sold the room in the cellar portion of the building to the opposite party no.1.
The opposite party no.1, it appears obtained service connection to the room purchased by him and used it for commercial purpose.
In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 25.6.2007 of the District Forum.
KMK*
