Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President &
Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member
ROHIT KOTHOTIA—Complainant
versus
CHATHURBHUJA ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS—Opposite Party
C.D. No. 25 of 1997—Decided on 11.11.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. V. Gourisankar Rao, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. K.V.L. Narasimha Murthy, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 12-Three complaints about defects in the flats against builder-Only third complaint pressed regarding 8 defects-A Commissioner appointed-Only three defects proved-Result complaint partly allowed directing OP to construct a drinking water sump, compound wall on the rear side of the complex, and fix the second lift after the prohibition in the Civil Court is lifted. In the Commissioners report it is stated that he found a bore well with a motor and there is pump to store the bore well water with another motor to pump the bore water into the overhead tank and as such the claim for a bore well need not be acceded.
The only other question that remains to be considered is covering of the existing pump. There is nothing in the Commissioners report about the same. Therefore, we cannot hold that there is no covering on the existing pump.
For all these reasons, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to construct a drinking water sump, compound wall on the rear side of the complex and fix the second lift after the prohibition in the Civil Court is lifted and these incomplete works should be completed within a period of three months from today except the lift which should be erected within three months after lifting the prohibitory order. In these circumstances each party shall bear their own costs.
Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President—The three complainants joined together to raise a common grievance against the opposite party builder. The first complainant wants to withdraw the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed so far as the first complainant is concerned. The second complainant has not filed any agreement entered into by him with the opposite party in his favour. As such we are unable to grant any relief in his favour and hence the complaint is dismissed so far as the second complaint is concerned.
2. The third complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 8.2.1993 marked Ex. A-1. According to which she agreed to purchase flat No. 20C in the second floor in “Pleasant Homes” of an area of 1056 sq. ft. together with proportionate share of land for a consideration of Rs. 2,13,000/-. She also entered into another agreement for amenities on 11.2.1993 marked Ex. A-2 which is for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. A sale deed dated 30.3.1995 under Ex. A-3 for flat 20C together with proportionate share of land was obtained by her. But the flat was not completed. Minutes were recorded on 25.11.1995 under Ex. A-4 stating as follows :
“1. Minutes of the meeting of flat owners of Pleasant Home Apartments and Sripad Deshpande, Developer on 25.11.1995—Payment of Common Electricity Bills : for the period intervening the charging of transformer and receiving of individual bills (i.e. May-July 1995) and water bill. Of the total of electricity bill of Rs. 10,576/- Sri Deshpande agreed to pay Rs. 3,500/-. The remaining will be shared equally by flat owners of the water bill of Rs. 4,660/-, Rs. 1,000/- will be paid by the builder and the rest will be equally divided among flat owners. These will be Rs. 590/- for electricity and Rs. 306/- for water, per flat. It was agreed to collect the amounts from the flat owners.
2. Installation of Second Lift—Sri Deshpande promised to commence the work and complete it within 45 days.
Expeditious action was promised on the following items as they were long delayed.
3. Main gate along with wicket gate.
4. Drinking water sump—Sri Deshpande will decide the location of the sump according to technical feasibility.
5. Second Borewell—It was noted that Sri Deshpande instructed Sri Ravi to take steps in this regard.
6. Compound wall on the rear side of the complex—Decision will be taken on the height of the wall on the basis of the placement of the manhole in Sri Atre’s ground floor flat.
7. The cover of the existing water sump will be packed to avoid contamination.”
On 12.5.1996 a notice was issued under Ex. A-7 whereunder items of work still to be completed are mentioned as follows :
“1. Main gate along with wicket gate—While you have provided a rickety old gate — without proper alignment there is no plaint and the wicket gate should not be less than 3½ ft. as decided as agreed by all of us.
2. Drinking water sump.
3. 6½” borewell with efficient standard accessories.
4. Covering of the existing sump.
5. Compound wall on the rear side of the complex.
6. Accommodation for the watchman.
7. Two lifts.
8. Wall constructed in the common area at the pent house to be removed. In addition there are several other items which remain undone.”
A Commissioner was appointed by this Commission, who noted that there was no compound wall on the eastern side, no sump to store tap water, second lift is not installed while the first lift erected is locked up at the pent house. Hence the complaint.
3. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the flats were constructed and handed over before time to the parties who paid the amounts as per the agreements. A civil case was filed against the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad by the Landlord, wherein status quo as on 30.7.1997 was granted. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad would not have given permission to construct flats without drainage, water and electricity. There is one lift existing and the other one wil
