Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/221/2015

K.Narasimhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary, CRF ABlock Association - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Persion

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 10.04.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                      CC. NO.221 /2015

WEDNESDAY THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2018

                                              

K. Narasimhan,

Advocate,

AS 1 Citadel Flats,

142, 5^th Street,

Ram Nagar,

Velachery, Chennai – 42.                               .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

The Secretary,

CRF A Block Association,

140 & 142 5^th Street,

Ram Nagar, Velachery,

Chennai 42.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for complainant         :  Party in person

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s. M.Sundar

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to stop threatening the complainant to stop water supply to his ASI flat and to refix the ply board to protect the complainant and his family from seepage in rainy season and electro cushion and to dismantle the wall in the sump and restore water supply to his BS2 flat  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that  he is the owner of AS1 and BS2 flats in citadel flats and he is regularly paying water tax and maintenance charges through cheque.   The opposite party stopped water supply to BS 2 flat and threatens to stop water.   Earlier also the opposite party stopped water supply and only when the complainant threatened that he will report to police they restored water supply.   Again they threatened to supply water.  When the complainant is paying water bill and maintenance charges to the association they cannot deny water to the complainant’s flat.   Further the complainant state that  he fixed wooden board to protect his electrical meter and main switch from Seepage and electrocution of his family.   The connection is poor construction and leakage was there.   Only to stop this seepage and leakage the complainant fixed the strong board and this has been removed by shanthi the treasurer.   The complainant further state that   he is the owner BS2 flat also.  So far there was only one association and there is one sump.  There is only one CMDA approval for both A Block and B Block.   The builder constructed only one sump on the middle of the block and erected central wall on the sump resulting denial of water supply.     As such the act of the opposite party; amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.  

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party submit that the complainant may pay the water tax to the Corporation and not to the Association.   It is true that the complainant is the owner of the AS1  & BS2 flats in Citadel.   The A Block & B Block was constructed by the same promoter but both the blocks forming part of separate sale deed, separate approved plan, separate water connections, different door numbers with separate entrance.  The builder for their convenience, constructed both the blocks at the same time and at the time of constructing the above blocks they constructed a water sump in between two flats for their convenience.   The opposite party also denies the averments that water supply was restored on police complaint.    The complainant demolished the compound wall and putup a Grill gate for  car parking without the approval of the association and the same was brought the notice to the police and finally not proceeded further due to the old age of complainant.   The opposite party also state that it is illegal to use one apartments water and sewage connections to another apartment.   The CMWSSB officials directed us to either to construct separate sump for each connection or to construct a wall in the sump.   Hence the opposite party constructed a wall within the boundary of “A” block plot to reduce the cost of constructed a new sump.   The complainant intentionally fails to file the water charges receipt to both the flats, since it will expose his claim.   It is not true that the B Block owners are not getting water due to the separation of the sump for each blocks as per the direction of CMWSSB.   The claim of the complainant is not come under the preview of consumer protection Act.    Therefore there  is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief of threatening the complainant to stop water supply to his ASI flat as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refix the ply board to protect the complainant and his family from seepage in rainy season and electro cushion  as prayed for?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to dismantle the wall in the sump and restore water supply to his BS2 flat as prayed for ?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

POINTS 1 to 4 :

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.    Admittedly the complainant is the owner of AS1 in A Block and BS2 in the B  Block in Citadel Flats.  The complainant pleaded and contended that both flats are situated in respective of apartments block A and B as per a single partner.   But the complainant has not filed any approved plan in this case.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the construction is incomplete.  Inordinate to safeguard himself and his family complainant fixed wooden board to protect his electrical  meter and main switch from Seepage and electrocution of his family.   The opposite party treasurer and others damaged the ply wood board and removed.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2 there is nothing visible with regard to electrical meter and main switch and there is no possibility of seepage of rain water.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party proclaimed  that there are two blocks namely A Block and B  Block and are constructed at the same time for convenient purpose.  The builder constructed only one sump on the middle of the block and erected central wall on the sump resulting denial of water supply.  But admittedly there are water supply in both A block and B block.  The complainant has not explained in what manner his water supply supplied has been denied.  The complainant also has not  taken any Advocate Commissioner to find out the alleged deficiency in service of ply wood board and the construction of wall on the centre of the sump causing denial of water supply and electro cushion.   Further the contention of the complainant is that for the alleged deficiency of compensation of Rs.50,000/- claimed for mental agony. 

2.     The  learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that the complaint is baseless and misleading.  The complainant  shall pay the water tax to the Corporation and not to the Association.    The complainant is having apartment AS1 in A block  and BS2 in the B Block both  A & B blocks was constructed by the promoter at the same time.  Both blocks forming part of separate sale deed separate approved plan, separate water connections, different door numbers with separate entrance.    It is proved from Ex.B2 & Ex.B3 approved plan for A block and water sewerage connection of A Block.   Ex.B4 & Ex.B5 proved  approved plan for B block and water sewerage connection of B block.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that A Block owners formed an association namely Citadel welfare association; while B block owners has not formed any association.  The complainant has not taken any steps to implead  A block welfare association; which is necessary party in this case.  The complainant has not challenged the said fact in this case at any point of time and has not taken any steps to implead A block welfare association.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant demolish the compound wall and put the grill gate for car parking without approval of association and the same was  brought to the notice of the police and family and finally  not proceeded by the complainant.   But there is no record.  Further the opposite party contended that since A & B block have separate water connection and both water connection was obtained with undertaking that both water connection should have separate sump.  It is necessitated to construct the central wall in the sump to split the sump in to two one for A block and one for B block.  CMWSSB also cannot give two water connection for one slump.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of denial of supply of water or threatening to supply of water is false and imaginary.  The complainant can avail proper supply of water for his representative plots.   The complainant also has not taken any steps to prove his allegation by way of appointment of Advocate Commissioner.  The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and imaginary.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 7^th   day of March 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-             - Copy of proof of payment of maintenance.

Ex.A2-             - Copy of photos showing damage

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1- 12.1.1999 - Copy of approved building plan for A Block

Ex.B2- 10.8.2001 - Copy of CMWSSB payment receipt.

Ex.B3- 11.8.2003 - Copy of CMWSSB water connection approval.

Ex.B4- 10.8.2001 - Copy of CMWSSB payment receipt.

Ex.B5-            - Copy of CMWSSB water connection approval.

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.