Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/14/2011

Ravada Srinivasa Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Subrahmanyam Tandava Krishna Veni - Opp.Party(s)

Malla Tulasiram

07 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:07-01.2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:07-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Saturday, the 7^th day of February 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.14/2011

Between:-

Ravada Srinivasa Raju, S/o R. Satyanarayana,

Hindu, aged 30 years, resident of Flat No.2,

First Floor, Sri Krishna Kotir Apartments,

Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.Smt. Subrahmanyam Tandava Krishna Veni,

   W/o Venkatapathi Raju, Hindu, aged about 85 years,

   Door No. 55-7-19/1, Old Venkojipalem,

   Visakhapatnam.

2.M/s. Kireeti Nirmans, Rep. by its Proprietor,

   N. Raghupathi Raju, S/o Chend Raju , Hindu,

   aged about 49 years, Door No. 55-14-95/1,

   Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530 013.

                                                                                          …  Opposite Parties  

                     

          This case coming on 21.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M. Tulasi Ram and Sri K.P. Kumar, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri J.V. Raghavendra Rao, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to provide proper car parking space to him as promised in the Group House premises of Sri Krishna Kotir, Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

 

  2.     The case of the Complainant in brief is that the 1^st Opposite Party was owner of the House site of an extent of 300 Sq. yards covered by S. No. 29 of Maddilapalem Village, Venkojipalem Area, Visakhapatnam and the 2^nd Opposite Party is a builder who entered into development agreement with the 1^st Opposite Party for the purpose of construction of group house in the said site and on approach to him by the 2^nd Opposite Party that the aforesaid site belongs to him and obtained approved plan for construction of original flats offered him to sell flat No.2 in the first floor to be constructed group house named as Sri Krishna Kotir for a sale consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and further promised him to provide car parking on payment of Rs.50,000/-.   Accordingly, he agreed and purchased the said flat and the 2^nd Opposite Party had executed construction agreement and Registered Sale Deed in his favour after receipt of the entire sale consideration, he also paid Rs.50,000/- towards car parking thereupon and the 2^nd Opposite Party delivered the said flat including car parking space after completion of the Group House.

 

3.       It is also the case of the Complainant without his consent and other flat owners by colluding with the owner the Opposite Parties he has unauthorizedly  constructed a single bed room flat in the parking place by depriving the parking space to them and when they questioned about the car parking space, they are giving evasive replies and did not show the proper car parking space and that he got issued a Lawyer’s Notice dated 27.09.2010 calling upon the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties to remove the structures constructed un-authorized in the car parking space and to provide car parking space to him but there is no proper reply.   Hence, this complaint.

 

4.       The case of the 2^nd Opposite Party denying the material averments of the Complainant is that he has no way concern with the dispute averred in the complaint and the dispute, if any, is in between the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party.   Since, he completed the construction of the flat as per the construction agreement and handed over flat within time.   The complaint a time barred.   He has not constructed any further constructions in the apartment un-authorizedly without getting any approved plan.   He has provided the amenities to the Complainant and all the flat owners, as per the construction agreement since he completed the construction and handed over the flat he is no way concern with any dispute in between the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant, as such, the question of deficiency of service on his part does not arise.    For these the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

5.       To prove the case of the Complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit   and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.   On the other hand, evidence affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

6.       Ex. A1 is the Photo copy of Sale Deed between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties dated 30.07.2008.   Ex.A2 is the Photo copy of Agreement for Construction of Flat between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party dated 30.07.2008.   Ex.A3 is the Additional Amenities Agreement for Construction of Flat executed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 30.07.2008.   Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Approved Plan issued by the GVMC dated 13.04.2007.   Ex.A5 is the Completion and Handing Over letter issued by 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 20.08.2008.   Ex.A6 is the office copy of Registered Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the Opposite Parties dated 27.09.2010.   Ex.A7 is the Acknowledgement from the 2^nd opposite Party.   Ex. A8 is the Acknowledgement from the 1^st Opposite Party.   Ex. A9 is the Document issued by the Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd., dated 30.12.2010.

 

7.       The Complainant and the 2^nd opposite Party filed their respective written arguments.

 

8.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

 

9.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite   Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs for?

 

10.     As seen from record, it is not in-dispute that the Complainant herein approached the Opposite Parties for purchasing flat vide Ex.A1 after payment of consideration there-under and subsequently after construction the flat was delivered vide Ex.A5.    As seen from the contentions, the main dispute is that the 2^nd Opposite Party has not gave car parking as agreed under Ex.A3 additional amenities agreement for construction of flat dated 30.07.2008.   Therefore, it is relevant to draw my attention to Ex.A3 which was entered into between the 2^nd Opposite Party as the first party and the Complainant herein as the 2^nd Party.    In Annexure-I  six items are shown in respect of items of work at page No.2 which reads as follows; the other alleged jobs which will necessary for the completion of flat is shown in the additional agreement as annexure for 2 bed room flat among which No.1 is shown as car parking amount of Rs.45,000/-.  

 

11.     The case of the Complainant herein is that the 2^nd Opposite Party promised to provide car parking on payment of Rs.50,000/- as per the additional amenities agreement and he paid the said amount and the 2^nd opposite Party delivered the flat alone after receiving car parking space amount of Rs.50,000/-.   The Complainant stated in his affidavit as well as complaint, except himself and another person nobody is having any car parking space.   It is also his case that when he questioned about the car parking space, the Opposite Party gave evasive reply, and further case is that  the 2^nd Opposite Party constructed a single bed room flat by depriving car parking to him in the car parking space.     To prove the same, he relied upon Ex.A3 additional amenities agreement dated 30.07.2008 and Lawyer’s Notice is the Ex.A7.   Ex.A3 does not disclose that he paid the amount for car parking.    There is no proof evidencing that he paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards car parking.    Further he has not filed any evidence affidavits of the other flat owners of the apartment, to show that his car parking space is occupied by the 2^nd Opposite Party by constructing a single bed room flat.      In the absence of proof of payment and other link evidence, we are of the considered view that that the Complainant herein has not paid Rs.50,000/- towards car parking space.   Ex.A2 also reveals that he has given undivided and un-specified share 30 Sq. yards i.e., flat No.2 in the first floor with plinth area 1000 Sft. only.   That does not mean to say it includes car parking space.   For these reasons, we are of the view that the Complainant failed to substantiate his case that inspite of payment of Rs.50,000/-  he was not provided car parking space.    For these reasons, the Complainant filed by the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

12.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 7^th  day of February, 2015.

  Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                           Sd/-

Male Member                      Lady Member                                 President

 

                                      

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	30.07.2008	Sale Deed between the Complainant and the Ops	Photo copy
Ex.A2	30.07.2008	Agreement for Construction of Flat between the Complainant and 2nd OP	Photo copy
Ex.A3	30.07.2008	Additional Amenities Agreement for Construction of Flat executed by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A4	13.04.2007	Approved Plan issued by the GVMC	Photo copy
Ex.A5	20.08.2008	Completion and Handing Over letter issued by 2nd OP to the Complainant	Original
Ex.A6	27.09.2010	Registered Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the Ops	Office copy
Ex.A7		Acknowledgement from the 2nd OP	Original
Ex.A8		Acknowledgement from the 1st OP	Original
Ex.A9	30.12.2010	Document issued by the Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd.,	Original

 

 

For the Opposite Parties:-                                           

-Nil-

  Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                            Sd/-

Male Member                       Lady Member                                   President