This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 03-05-11 in the presence of Sri S. Satyanarayna, advocate for complainant and opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 & 14 of CP Act, seeking a direction to the opposite party for restoration of amenities like drinking, usage bore water and drainage etc., permanently to his flat No.518, Rs.20,000/- for non providing those amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint here under:
The complainant is the owner of the flat No.518 of white house apartments besides a member in the association of the opposite party. About 3½ years ago the complainant and the opposite party found that the top of the roof and the walls connected to the roof developed cracks and due to which rain water is leaking from the top of roof and spread into side walls and came into the flat. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite party and to the executive when the General body meeting was conducted to get the same repaired. The opposite party did not provide its by-laws. Even as per the Apartments Act the amenities, outside walls, roofs, drainage, drinking water, bore water and its pipe lines, paintings to the apartments at outside and common areas, watch man etc., are under the control of owners association, maintenance and its repairs and expenditure is common and will be distributed among all the members of the association. The complainant requested the opposite party to permit her to get the same repaired at her own cost for which the opposite party did not give any reply or permission. The opposite party is collecting monthly a lumpsum amount towards maintenance instead of actual monthly expenditure incurred. The complainant filed CC 591/07 against the opposite party seeking a direction to the opposite party herein to repair the leak of water from the roof of the flat of the complainant and it was dismissed. Till the disposal of the case the opposite party provided amenities like drinking and bore water and drainage facilities. After dismissal of the CC 591/07 the opposite party disconnected the drinking and usage bore water and drainage from the flat of complainant without any prior intimation or notice high handedly and arbitrarily. Due to such attitude of the opposite party the complainant and her family suffered discomfort. The opposite party did not show the accounts and receive maintenance though the complainant offered. Services of the opposite party towards the complainant are defective and due to such deficiency the complainant and her family suffered a lot of inconvenience and mental agony. The complaint therefore be allowed.
3. Right of the opposite party to file affidavit was forfeited on 16-07-10. The opposite party did not file any affidavit and as such he was set exparte.
4. No documents were marked on either side. This Forum permitted the counsel for the opposite party to argue.
5. Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?
6. POINT No.1:- The complainant filed IA 218 of 2010 seeking restoration of amenities as prayed and this Forum disposed off IA 218/10 on 28-05-10 with the following directions:
“The petitioner/complainant is hereby directed to pay entire arrears due towards maintenance charges including separate pipe line charges amounting to Rs.2500/- aggregating in all Rs.22,750/- forth with to the Secretary of Association and obtain receipts there for.
On making such payment the respondent/opposite party association shall immediately restore water and electricity supply and drainage system as required for day to day pursuits.
We also direct the petitioner/complainant to pay regularly monthly maintenance charges pending disposal of main case and enjoy such facilities. Order accordingly”.
7. In pursuance of the above order, the opposite party filed memo on 11-06-10 stating that the complainant paid Rs.22,750/- towards by way of demand draft as per the orders of this Forum. The complainant filed her affidavit on 26-08-10. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the complainant represented that the opposite party provided drinking water and bore water.
8. The complainant did not take out a commission to know whether the opposite party provided drainage facility or not in view of orders passed in IA 218/10 dated 28-05-10. It can therefore be inferred that the opposite party provided drainage facility also. Under those circumstances, the relief claimed in the clause NO.1 seeking restoration of amenities became infructuous. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
9. POINT No.2:- The order passed in IA 218/10 dated 28-05-10 revealed that the complainant did not pay maintenance charges. It can therefore be said that the complainant himself committed deficiency. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any amount towards compensation or mental agony. In view of the afore mentioned discussions, this point is answered in favour of the opposite party.
10. POINT No.3:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by junior stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, dated this the 18th day of May, 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant: NIL
For opposite party: NIL
PRESIDENT
