Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/52/2013

Smt S.Vijaya Lakshmi W/o. S.Bhima Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Jul 2014

ORDER

Filing Date:02.09.2013

Order Date: 16.07.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

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

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.52/2013

 

Between

 

Smt. S.Vijayalakshmi,

W/o. S.Bhima Rao,

Flat No.202, Sridevi Apartment,

Opp. Padmavathi Tuda Park,

K.B.Layout,

Tirupati – 517 507.                                                                          … Complainant

 

And

 

1.         The Commissioner,

            Tirupati Municipal Corporation,

            Tirupati – 517 501.

 

2.         Sri.P.Kanakabushanam,

            151, Sairam Street,

            Tirupati – 517 507.                                                              …  Opposite parties.

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 01.07.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing party-in-person for complainant and Sri.P.Ramana, counsel for the     1^st opposite party, and Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This is a complaint filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The brief facts for the complaint are as follows:-  The complainant is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and she is the owner of flat No.202 in Sridevi Apartment, Kanakabushanam layout, Tirupati, and she purchased the same in the year 1999. The 2^nd opposite party is the land owner of the said apartment and due to harassment of the family members of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant and her husband forced to vacate their apartment and she is residing at D.No.10-15-11, K.K.layout, Tirupati, for the past 3 years, keeping their flat under locked. The 2^nd opposite party made some illegal constructions, due to which the 2^nd opposite party caused inconvenience to the complainant and it is also violation of the plan approved by the 1^st opposite party, as per Section-6 of A.P.Apartment and Ownership Act 1987. After the plan is approved, the owner of the flat should not make any additions and alterations without approval of the 1^st opposite party. This was taken to the notice of the 1^st opposite party and there is no response or result. The 2^nd opposite party also collecting extra rent by utilizing the common passage area and thereby denying the benefit and usage of the common area of other flat owners of the apartment. It is therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

3.  The 1^st opposite party filed the written version stating that at present there are no unauthorized constructions in the stilt floor of the apartment. It is further alleged that there are personal grudges between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party and therefore they are causing inconvenience to other residents in the said apartment.

4.  The 2^nd opposite party filed the written version admitting that he is the owner of the site where Sridevi Apartment has been constructed. One Chenna Krishnaiah, is the developer and as per the agreement, the developer handed over flats to him towards his share. Thereafter, the 2^nd opposite party looses the ownership over the land and he is also one of the flat owner in the flat owners association. The opposite party is the owner of the adjoining flat of the complainant and the plinth area of the flat of the complainant is 717 sq.ft. and the super built up area is 825 sq.ft., where as the plinth area of the flat of the 2^nd opposite party is 943 sq.ft. and super built up area is 1068 sq.ft. and the same is shown in C-Schedule in the sale deed of the complainant. The complainant misleading the Forum and given wrong extent for both the flats. The 2^nd opposite party never altered his flat subsequently. The 2^nd opposite party further alleged that if the complainant aggrieved by any means, she ought to have approach the Civil Court for proper remedy and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. So saying, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.  On behalf of the complainant P.W.1 examined and Exs.A1 to A7 marked. On behalf of opposite parties R.W.1 and R.W.2 examined and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked. Both sides filed the written arguments. Heard the oral arguments.            

6.  The points for consideration are:-

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

        parties as contended by the complainant?

(ii).  To what result?

7.  Point No.(i):-   There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of flat No.202 in Sridevi Apartment and the same is belonged to the complainant. According to P.W.1 i.e. the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party, who is the site owner of Sridevi Apartment, encroached plinth area and raised iron grills in the common area of common passage and four wheeler parking area and thereby depriving the right of the complainant. The said two areas are common undivided spaces and none could claim exclusive possession on the ground of boosted plinth area and super built up area. It is further deposed that having the complainant questioned about the illegal activities of 2^nd opposite party and his family members, developed vengeance against the complainant and her husband and harassing and assaulting them resulting which the complainant and her husband kept their flat under lock and residing in a rented house. On the other hand, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their affidavits on evidence as R.W.1 and R.W.2 respectively. Though the complainant added the 1^st opposite party, The Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati,  to the proceedings, nothing is stated in the evidence of P.W.1 against the 1^st opposite party. It is therefore no case is made out against the 1^st opposite party by the complainant.

8.  The 2^nd opposite party filed his affidavit on evidence admitting that the complainant is the owner of the flat No.202 of Sridevi Apartment. It is further admitted that R.W.2 i.e. 2^nd opposite party is the owner of flat No.201 and 2^nd opposite party and the complainant are the owners of adjoining flats. The plinth area of the complainant is 717 sq.ft. and super built up area is 825 sq.ft., where as the plinth area of the flat of the 2^nd opposite party is 943 sq.ft and super built up area is 1068 sq.ft. and the said extent is clearly shown in the complainant’s sale deed and in the transfer deed given to the 2^nd opposite party by the builder. It is further deposed that he did not altered the constructions made by the builder subsequently and if the complainant wants to question the constructions made, she ought to have filed a case against the builder and not against the 2^nd opposite party. It is further stated that the complainant is in the habit of filing one case after the other and used to give petitions to different authorities without base and in the said process, the complainant filed this complaint against the 2^nd opposite party with false and baseless allegations.

9.  Though nothing is stated against the 1^st opposite party by P.W.1 in her evidence, one V.Pravathi Priya, Town Planning & Building Overseer, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, filed affidavit on evidence on behalf of the 1^st opposite party as R.W.1. According to R.W.1, there are personal disputes between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party and due to personal grudges, both of them causing inconvenience to other flat owners in the said apartment. It is further stated that at present there is no encroachment of parking area by the flat owners as alleged by the complainant. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 is categorical that at present there are no any encroachments in parking area in the Sridevi Apartment as alleged by the complainant and this case has been filed by the complainant against the 2^nd opposite party only due to personal grudges between them. The facts in the complaint are clear that they are purely in civil nature and that the complainant has to approach the Civil Court for proper remedy. Assuming that the 2^nd opposite party made illegal constructions, occupied common area like car parking etc., it is for the complainant and other flat owners to approach the Civil Court for proper remedy.

10.  In view of the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this point is answered against the complainant.   

11.  Point No.(ii):-  In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 16^th day of July, 2014.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/-                

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: Smt. S.Vijaya Lakshmi (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-1: V.Parvathi Priya (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: P.Kanakabhushanam (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1		Copy of the approved plan No.BA/282/G2/97/16.02.1999.
2	27.02.2013	Reply received under RTI Act 2005 from the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati.
3.		Extract of Section 6 of the AP Apartments Ownership Act 1987.
4		Extract of Section 9 of the AP Apartments Ownership Act 1987.
5		Extract of Section 24 of the AP Apartments Ownership Act 1987.
6		Representation made to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati. Dt:10.06.2011, 02.07.2011 and 11.02.2013.
7		Application of RTI Act, 2005.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1		Letter issued by 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent.
2		Flat transfer deed executed by Builder A.Chennakrishnaiah in favour of  P.Kanakabhushanam. Original.

                                                                                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

President (FAC)

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                                      Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.