Date of Filing: 09.07.2014
Date of Order:04.09.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. Kasturi, B.Com., LLM., MEMBER.
Tuesday, the 4th day of September, 2018
C.C.No.534 /2015
Between
Mr. Rajeev Kurapati,
Represented by his POA Holder
Mr. K.Venkata Seshagiri Rao,
Resident of Flat No.005, EGK Enclave,
Beside Bawarchi Hotel, RTC ‘X’ Roads,
Hyderabad – 500020, Telangana. ……Complainant
And
- Tummala Shashikanth Reddy,
Director, SS Avenues Pvt. Ltd.,
R/o. H.No.2-18-37, Sai Towers, Pent House-I,
Subash Nagar, Behind Ameena Complex,
Uppal, Hyderabad – 500039.
- SS Avenues Private Limited
having its registered office at
1-69/4/1, Plot No.10,
Madhuvan Enclave, Street No.4,
Habsiguda,
Hyderabad – 500007.
- K.Pratap Reddy,
R/o. 203, Sai Krishna Nilayam,
H.No.2-2-18/13/C,
D.D. Colony, Bagh Amberpet,
Hyderabad – 500013.
- K.Aruna,
R/o. 203, Sai Krishna Nilayam,
H.No.2-2-18/13/C,
D.D. Colony, Bagh Amberpet,
Hyderabad – 500013.
- G.Sarojini, alias G.Sarojini Reddy,
R/o. H.No.2-3-647/235,
Bagh Amberpet,
Hyderabad – 500013.
- G.S.Reddy, alias G.Sugunakar Reddy,
R/o. H.No.2-3-647/235,
Bagh Amberpet,
Hyderabad – 500013.
- M.Linga Reddy,
R/o. H.No.2-2-319, Amberpet,
Hyderabad – 500013.
- E. Uma Reddy, alias E.Raja Uma Reddy,
R/o. Flat No.204, Venkat Vihar Apartments,
Himayatnagar,
Hyderabad – 500029. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. Karavadi & Associates
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy & S.Rajeshwari
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to dismantle the unauthorized constructions made in the stilt area of the apartment complex and allot a proper car parking area to the complainant as agreed in the sale deed and further direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing damages and hardship to the complainant on account of non-allotment of the Car parking area as agreed in the sale deed and also costs of this complaint.
1. The complainant case in brief is that: the Opposite Parties 3 to 8 are the owners of the land admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards and they entered into a Development Agreement with Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2, for the construction of an apartment complex consisting of Cellar + Stilt for car parking and 5 upper Floors over the said land. Consequent to that Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 secured necessary permissions and commenced the construction of apartment complex they approached the complainant and offered to sell a semi-finished flat and on their representations the complainant had agreed to purchase semi-finished Flat bearing No.402, 4th Floor of the said apartment complex for a total sale consideration of Rs.29,36,000/-. A registered sale deed in document bearing No.1798/2010 was executed by Opposite Parties infavour of the complainant for the said flat on 11.06.2010.
2. The complainant also purchased two car parking spaces admeasuring 100 Sq. feet each one in the cellar area and another in stilt area of the Apartment Complex. At the time of execution of registered sale deed Opposite Parties gave an undertaking that parking spaces would be convenient to the complainant as per the terms of the sale deed and at par with the other residents of the complex.
3. The Opposite Parties were supposed to provide 20 car parking spaces in total to all the residents of the complex but they provided only 17 car parking spaces for use of residents in the complex. To cramp parking spaces the Opposite Parties in contravention of Apartment Rules and sanctioned plan have constructed a driver’s room, gym and security room in the area meant for car parking place as such these constructions are illegal and unauthorized and are liable to be dismantled.
4. The complainant made several requests with Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 to allot two car parking slots as agreed under the sale deed executed in his favour but they didn’t respond. He got issued a legal notice to them on 30.03.2013 and even then Opposite Party Nos.1 to 8 didn’t bother to give a reply for it. However Opposite Parties on receipt on notices got issued by the complainant called the complainant for a meeting and assured that they will provide a car parking space in the stilt area and because of the said assurance he didn’t proceed further legal against them.
5. After much persuasion and request by the complainant the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 have provided a car parking space near the shaft area which has to be left vacant for purpose of ventilation to the flats in the complex. The said car parking slot provided to the complainant is without any roof or shelter and besides that as it is near to the shaft area and highly inconvenient to use for car parking purposes. Hence, the complainant rejected the said slot and requested the Opposite Parties in the regular meetings to construct a roof/R.C.C. over the car parking space proposed to be provided to him near the shaft area. But, the Opposite Parties have expressed difficulty stating that, construction of a roof or shelter to the said car parking slot is not possible on account of objections made by the Association of Flat Owners in the complex.
6. Under the relevant rules and regulations of Andhra Pradesh Building Rules parking slot should be provided to all the owners of the flats in the complex at par. Under the said rules parking stilt area cannot be used for any habitation or non- habitation purpose but in contravention of the same the Opposite Parties have constructed three rooms in the stilt area which is meant for parking. The said constructions are also contrary to the sanctioned plan issued by GHMC. Because of these unauthorized constructions in the stilt area the proposed slot in the shaft area is unsuitable for parking and that too without a roof or shelter. The Opposite Parties by not providing car parking slot as agreed under the sale deed have committed an act of deficiency in service.
7. Since, the Opposite Parties failed to provide car parking slot in terms of the registered sale deed executed by them and failed to fulfill the assurance given after receipt of the first legal notice got issued by him, he was constrained to cause a sanctioned legal notice on 30.05.2014 which was received by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 7 on 31.05.2014. The notices sent to Opposite Party Nos.5, 6, & 8 were returned with an endorsement as not claimed whereas, the notices of Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 were returned with endorsement as addressee left the place. Refusal of the Notices by Opposite Party Nos.5, 6, & 8 reveals their malafide intention. In those circumstances the complainant was left with no alternative except to file the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
8. The written version filed by Opposite Party No.1 is adopted by Opposite Party Nos.2 to 8. In the written version Opposite Parties have admitted the purchase of a Flat by the complainant along with the car parking slots and execution and registration of a sale deed infavour of the complainant conveying Flat No.402 in 4th Floor along with two car parking area one in the cellar area and another in stilt area but, denied the rest of the complainant’s version in the complaint. The contest set out in the written version is that, the complainant himself had approached for the purchase of a semi-finished flat and after settlement of terms an agreement of sale was entered into for the sale flat No.402 for a sale consideration of Rs.29,36,000/- and accordingly a registered sale deed was also executed infavour of the complainant on 11.06.2010. The complainant along with flat also purchased two parking slots of 100 Sq. feet each one at cellar and other in stilt area of the apartment building and accordingly two car parking spaces were provided to the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that only 17 car parking areas instead of 20 parking areas are made available to the Flat Owners in the Complex is false. In actual 20 car parking areas as mentioned in the brochure supplied to the concerned residents at the Agreement of Sale were provided. In the stilt area the car parking slot it Sl.No.16 and another car parking slot No.2 as shown the brochure were allotted to the complainant. Driver’s room, gym and security room were constructed shown in the brochure supplied to the prospective purchasers at the time of execution of Agreement for Sale. The said Driver’s room, gym and security room are meant for use of residents in the apartment complex and Opposite Parties have not benefited anything out of them. Since, the car parking slots as agreed under the sale deed were handedover to the complainant. The question of repeated requests by the complainant with the Opposite Parties for allotment of car parking slots doesn’t arise. The car parking slot at Sl.No.16 allotted to the complainant and Sl.No.1 & 2 allotted to other residents are covered with Asbestos Sheets. The allegation of the complainant that, he requested to construct a roof over the car parking slots near the shaft area is false. At no point of time the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to constructed roof. Infact, it is not possible to construct a roof over the car parking slot since the same is open to sky and in the floor it was covered with sheets. 20 Car parking slots were allotted to the occupants strictly as per the details shown in the brochure and there is no contravention of the details mentioned in the brochure with regard to the allotment of car parking slots. In the brochure itself it was clearly mentioned about providing the Driver’s room, gym and security rooms and the complainant of having gone through details shown in the brochure and having fully satisfied had purchased the flats. Since, the complainant was provided with two car parking slots one is at cellar and other is stilt area of the apartment complex and there was fulfilment of promises and undertakings given to him at the time of purchase of the flat and execution of a registered sale deed in his favour there is no deficiency of service on their part to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
9. In the enquiry stage Power of Attorney Holder of complainant filed his evidence affidavit on through him and got exhibited 6 documents. The Opposite Party No.1 who is Director of Opposite Party No.2 registered Firm filed his evidence affidavit and got exhibited 3 documents.
Complainant filed alone written arguments, but both sides have submitted the oral submissions.
On a consideration of material on the record the following points have fallen for consideration.
- Whether the Opposite Parties have allotted the two car parking slots to the complainant as agreed in the sale deeds executed by them in his favour?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation from the Opposite Parties?
- To what relief?
In the enquiry stage of this complaint, the complainant filed a Petition in I.A.No.2/2017 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine whether the Opposite Parties have provided two car parking slots and submit report and the said petition was allowed and an Advocate Commission was appointed whose report is on record with the objections filed for it by the Opposite Parties. One of the objections taken to the report of Advocate Commission is the Advocate Commission filed the report is not in accordance with the warrant entrusted to him, which will be examined during the course of this orders.
Point No.1: There is no contravention with regard to the purchase of two car parking slots by the complainant along with the Flat No.402 in the apartment complex. One of the car parking slot allotted to the complainant in the stilt area of the complex and acceptable complaint on the ground that, the said area should be left open for the purpose of ventilation of the flats in the complex that apart it is without roof or shelter and not a covered car parking area. The answer for it from the Opposite Parties is at the time when the complainant and other prospective purchasers for flats have enquired they were provide with a brochures of Ex.B3 brochure wherein each car parking slot has been shown and there is no deviation of car parking areas from this brochure. It is pertinent to bear in mind that, the specific case of the complainant is he purchased two car parking areas and one car slot allotted him is without any roof of any nature. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that apart from car parking slot allotted the complainant there are two more parking slots and all these three parking slots were not given roof as same are covered with Asbestos sheets. Opposite parties are admitting that one of the car parking slot offered to the complainant is not on par with the car parking’s of other apartments owners there is no denial of complainant’s case that, he purchased two covered car parkings. The report of the Advocate Commissioner also shows that, one car parking slot offered to the complainant is not on par with the car parking of other apartments owners. The report of the Advocate Commissioner also shows that, one car parking slot of the complainant is near the shaft and is not having any cover and it fortifies the complainant’s version. A cursory book at Ex.B3 brochure doesn’t disclose that the Opposite Parties have mentioned three car parking slots will be without any roof. Hence, the plea of Opposite parties that, car parking allotted to the complainant is shown in the brochure itself as such the complainant is estopped to say that the Car parking slot is not acceptable as it is not covered one.
It is the specific case of the complainant is that, in the area meant for parking the Opposite Parties have constructed driver’s room, gym and security room and as a result of it three car parking areas were lost and two cover up the same the Opposite Parties have made adjustments at the shaft area in the stilt and by this arrangement the Opposite Parties have deviated from the sanctioned plan and these constructions are illegal and are required to be removed. Whereas, the stand of the Opposite Parties is since they have shown a driver’s room, gym and security room in their brochure their construction is illegal and these constructions are permitted by the concerned authorities. Admittedly, the brochure in Ex.B3 doesn’t disclose that the concerned authority who released the plan gave permission for the construction a driver’s room, gym and security room. Ex.B3 brochure do not form part of sanctioned plan. What made the Opposite Parties not to file sanctioned plan which will contain the permission details of the construction not explained. By not filing the sanctioned plan for the construction of a driver’s room, gym and security room to the Opposite Parties have suppressed material evidence.
Since, one of the car parking slot offered to the complainant is not a covered one as agreed by the Opposite Parties the complainant is entitled for a direction the Opposite Parties to provide him a car parking area.
One of the direction sought by the complainant is for dismantling of driver’s room, gym and security room but the same is beyond the scope of this Forum. For removal of any unauthorized construction the remedy for the aggrieved party is approach GHMC for dismantling the same and not by Consumer Forum. The relief complainant sought a direction to the Opposite parties to provide him covered car parking for which they have collected money from him. Hence, point is answered infavour of the complainant.
Point No.2: The findings of this Forum to the point No.1 is that, the Opposite Parties failed to allot a covered car parking slot to the complainant having collected the cost of it and thereby made the complainant to suffer inconvenience of the car parking area. Hence, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the compensation for this inconvenience and mental agony suffered by complaint. Accordingly, the point is answered.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite parties to provide a covered car parking slot to the complainant in the stilt area within one month from the date of service of this order.
The Opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of service of this order as otherwise they are liable to pay interest thereon at 9% p.a., from the date of receipt of this complaint of this order.
Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 4th day of September, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Sri K.Venkata Seshgiri Rao Sri T.Shashikanth Reddy
Power of Attorney Holder Director of O.P.No.2
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Exhibit: A-1 is a copy of Registered Power of Attorney, dt.24.08.2007.
Exhibit: A-2 is a copy of Sale Deed dt.11.06.2010.
Exhibit: A-3 is a copy of first Legal Notice, dated 30.03.2013.
Exhibit: A-4 is a copy of second Legal Notice, dated 30.05.2013.
Exhibit: A-5 is a copy of Proof of service of legal notices to Ops.1 & 7.
Exhibit: A-6 is a copy of returned envelopes received from the Ops.2 to 6 & 8.
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
Exhibit: B-1 is a copy of Letter issued by the GHMC to The Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad for releasing the Mortgage dated, 14.10.2011.
Exhibit: B-2 is a copy of Occupancy Certificate issued by the GHMC, dt.13.10.2001.
Exhibit: B-3 is a copy of Original brochure along with specifications.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
kps
