Advocate D. G. Sant for the
Complainants
Opponent No.1 exparte
Advocate Karande for the
Opponent No.2.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 28th May 2013
This complaint is filed by flat owners against builder and developer as well as Pune Municipal Corporation u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service. Brief facts are as follows-
1. Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly purchased flat No.1 in the building situated at S.No.18/5/6 known as Yashodeep A Apartment, Vadgaon Bk., Manikbaug. Complainant Nos. 3 and 4 also purchased flat No. 8 on the second floor of the same building. They have paid consideration amount as per the Agreement. They have also paid extra amount of Rs.5,000/- for formation of society and execution of conveyance deed. The Opponent No.1 had not executed conveyance deed and also not formed the society as per the agreement and thereby caused deficiency in service. The Opponents have not supplied adequate water to the complainant as per the agreement. The Pune Municipal Corporation is also not co-operating for supplying water. The Opponent No.1 had not constructed a coba floor in the parking place. Hence complainants have filed present complaint and prayed for directing the Opponents to supply adequate and equitable water to the complainant, to form co-operative housing society, effect conveyance deed and construct coba flooring. The complainants have also asked compensation for deficiency in service and cost of proceeding.
2. Opponent No.1 though duly served remained absent hence complaint proceeded ex-parte.
3. Opponent No.2 i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation resisted the complaint by filing written statement. It is the case of Pune Municipal Corporation that the complainants are consumer of Opponent No.2 hence complaint is not maintainable against Opponent No.2. It is further contended that adequate and sufficient water is supplied to the complainants. Opponent is providing three hours per day water supply to the Yashodeep building and it is the responsibility of the society to distribute the said water to the flat holders. It is also contended that the Opponent No.1 had unauthorizedly taken water connection. There is no connection in the name of the society. Complainants never made complaint to Corporation with respect to inadequate water supply.
4. After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, affidavits, pleadings of both parties as well as after considering the written arguments of both parties and hearing the argument of both counsel following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainants have proved that Opponent No.1 has caused deficiency in service by not forming co-operative housing society and executing conveyance deed ? | In the affirmative |
2 | Whether complainants have proved that opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have caused deficiency in service by not supplying adequate water supply ? | In the negative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed |
REASONS-
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
Complainants have produced voluminous documents such as agreement between the parties, the sanction plan. These documents are sufficiently eloquent to prove that the complainants have purchased the flats from the Opponent No.1 as alleged in the complaint. As the Opponent No.1 had failed to contest the complaint and not disputed about payment of consideration then it should be presumed that complainants have purchased these flats by making payment of consideration amount which is referred in the complaint as well as in the agreement and this fact is also substantiated by receipts which are produced on record. It is also not in dispute that complainants are in possession of the disputed flats. Besides execution of conveyance deed and formation of society the complainants have asked relief as regards supply of adequate water and construction of coba floor for parking. It reveals from the agreement that there is no such specific clause in the agreement as regards construction of coba floor in the parking. Complainants have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they have approached to Pune Municipal Corporation before filing the complaint as regards insufficient supply of water. They have not produced any documentary evidence to show that there is relation as regards consumer and service provider between themselves and the Opponent No.2. In such circumstances I held that this complaint is not maintainable against the Opponent No.2. It reveals from the written statement of the Pune Municipal Corporation that the builder has not obtained authorized water supply connection. In such circumstances no relief can be granted against the Opponent No.2.
As the Opponent No.1 has not resisted the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint are substantiated by documentary evidence such as agreement, receipts etc. inference can be drawn that complainants have complied with their part of agreement but the Opponent No.1 had failed to comply its part. It is also referred in the complaint as well as in the agreement that complainants have paid extra charges for execution of conveyance deed and for formation of society hence they are entitled for the said relief. Complainants have proved that the Opponent No.1 has proved deficiency in service by not executing conveyance deed and also not formed co-operative housing society. Hence complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5000/- for deficiency in service from the Opponent No.1. They are also entitled to get Rs.2000/- by way of costs of proceeding.
I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed as against the Opponent No.1 only.
2. Complaint is dismissed against the Opponent No.2.
3. It is hereby declared that the Opponent No.1 has caused deficiency in service by not executing conveyance deed and forming co-operative housing society.
4. The Opponent No.1 is directed to execute conveyance deed and form co-operative housing society within three months from the date of order.
5. The Opponent No.1 is directed to pay to the complainants compensation of Rs.5000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- by way of costs of proceeding.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
