DATE OF FILING : 07.10.2009

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.195/2009

Between

Complainant : Sam Thayyil,

Thayyil House,

Ezhalloor P.O,

Kumaramangalam,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : The Secretary,

Thodupuzha Municipality,

Thodupuzha P.O,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

Complainant alleged deficiency in service of Thodupuzha Municipality regarding the question of numbering of a building.
 

Complainant is a resident of Kumaramangalam Village in Thodupuzha. He has 7 cent and 35 links of land in Thodupuzha Village. In this same survey number, one Mr.Francis Nellikkunnel Veedu is also have 7 cent and 965 links of land. Petitioner and Mr.Francis have jointly planned to build a three storeyed building in that area. They applied for the permission of the opposite party for construction and paid Rs.30/- as fees and Rs.3,872/- for permit fee. On 12.09.2006 he had given permit as Number BA 262/06. Complainant had completed his building work in the end of 2008 and approached to the opposite party for numbering his building. On 22.07.2008 the opposite party had demanded a completion plan from the petitioner with rain water storage facility and sanitation facility. In that notice, the opposite party mentioned that complainant's building is a commercial building. Then on 1.11.2008 the opposite party had given another notice to the petitioner that his construction is not according to the plan, he could arrange fire NOC also. Petitioner's building is constructed with special residence permit. Petitioner approached to the opposite party for a temporary number but not obtained. Without Municipality number, he cannot apply for electricity and telephone connections. He had lost his final instalment of building loan because of the same. The act of the opposite party made the complainant to file a petition before the Forum.
 

The opposite party filed written version, wherein it is stated that complainant had been applied for the construction of a special residential building. The opposite party had given permit on 12.09.2006, permit number is BA 262/06. Opposite party received Rs.30/- as fees and Rs.3,872/- for permit fees. On 29.12.2007 complainant presented an application for occupancy certificate. According to his application opposite party inspected the building and find out that this building have no rain water storage facility and sanitation facility. Opposite party had given a notice to the complainant for rectifying the defects. On 2.09.2008 complainant had given his completion plan along with an application stated that he had fulfilled the conditions of opposite party. On overlooking the plan the Building Inspector of the opposite party inspected the building and reported that it is a commercial purpose construction. Three storeyed building must have fire NOC for commercial construction. Opposite party informed the matter to the petitioner on 1.11.2008. Petitioner had given a reply, but the reply of complainant is not satisfactory, so the opposite party have no provision to provide a number to the petitioner's building.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- Complainant is examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. Opposite party has no oral evidence. PW1 was cross examined by opposite party's authorised agent.
 

Ext.P1 is the copy of Building Permit. Ext.P2 is a notice of opposite party. Ext.P3 is also another notice of opposite party. Ext.P4 is the copy of reply letter of complainant. Ext.P5 is the copy of agreement for construction. Ext.P6 is the approved plan.
 

No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party. Opposite party has not produced any documentary evidence supporting his written version. In the written version opposite party stated that Municipal Building Inspector inspected the concerned construction but no report is produced. The main dispute of opposite party is that the construction was not according to the plan. On supporting to that point opposite party could not produce any original plan. Ext.P1, copy of building permit shows that the petitioner has started his construction with the permission of opposite party. Ext.P6 is the approved plan.

The documentary evidence and the deposition of complainant have made us to think that the petition can be allowed.
 

In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to issue a temporary number to the complainant's building for a period of 6 months within 15 days of the receipt of a copy of this order and the opposite party can change the tariff of the number issued after six months if necessary.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of January, 2010
 

                                Sd/-
 

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

                                Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

                                Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Sam.P.Thayyil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Building Permit dated 12.098.2006 issued by the Thodupuzha Municipal Council

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Notice dated 22.07.2008 issued by the Thodupuzha Municipality

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Notice dated 01.11.2008 issued by the Thodupuzha Municipality

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of complainant's letter dated 22.11.2008 addressed to the opposite party

Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Agreement dated 25.10.2007

Ext.P6 - Photocopy of Approved Plan

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil