A. Venkatarami Reddy, President - The complainants 1 and 2 are sisters. The first complainant purchased apartment No. 301 and second complainant purchased apartment No. 302 in the third floor of DOSHI CHAMBERS(a shopping and commercial complex) constructed by the opposite parties under two separate agreements dtd. 20th June, 1988 for a consideration of Rs. 2,94,000/ - each.

According to the allegations in the complaint, the complex consists of 24 units of a total extent of 33,460 sq. feet, out of which the basement was meant for parking and common utilities, five units of ground floor and two units of mezzanine were alleged to have been sold to Instyle, Delhi, five units of first floor and 3 units of second floor were retained by Doshi Family i.e. opposite parties, two units of second floor was sold to the Fairgrowth Finance Ltd.. Bangalore, two units of third floor were sold to the complainants, two units of third floor were sold to Yam Organics Limited. Bombay and one unit of third floor was sold to an NRI let out to Toshiniwal & Company and two units of fourth floor were retained by the opposite parties.

The deficiencies alleged in the complaint. which was filed by the Power of Attorney Holder and father of the two complainants and the reliefs by way of compensation or rectification sought are as follows:-

1. According to clause 20 of the agreement. the office units agreed to be sold to the complainants. should have been completed and possession handed over to them within 12 months from the date of the agreement of sale i.e. by 206-1989. But actually the possession of the flats were handed over on 11-4-1991 and for this delay of 21 months and 20 days on each unit complainants suffered loss of Rs. 1,56,000/ - calculating the rental at the rate of Rs. 7,200/- per month and the said amount is claimed with interest at 21 % p. a.

2. Under clause 33 of the agreement of sale the opposite parties have to provide generator for the use of all apartments in Doshi Chambers. The opposite parties have installed a generator alongwith necessary transformer etc. which was to serve all the areas of common use such as corridors. passage staircases, parking area, lift, water supply system, basement and open space of the building besides all the apartments. The purchasers of the flats agreed to pay the minimum charges of Rs. 8,000/ - for each shop unit and Rs. 9,000/- each for office unit. But the opposite parties demanded from the owners collectively a sum of Rs. 8,78,845/ - i.e. a sum of Rs. 58,589.71 Ps. from each of the complainant which is 1/15th of the above amount. According to the complainants, the amounts should have been divided by 24 instead of 15. as according to the complainants there are 24 units. and 3. The expenses said to have been incurred for generator, transformer etc., are excessive as could be seen from the estimate received from the Superintending Engineer. A.P.S.E. Board. The difference being Rs. 2,50,000/which has to be reduced from the collective demand of Rs. 8,78,845/-.

4. The maintenance expenses for common facilities should be borne equally by all 24 apartment owners. But the opposite parties are charging arbitrarily Rs. 820/- per unit since 1-9-1989 and increased to Rs. 1,060/- from July, 1991 without any basis and the opposite parties should submit in this Commission the details of actual necessary maintenance expenditure incurred for common facilities alongwith vouchers, records etc. and after ascertaining the correct amount, the complainants are liable to pay 1/24th portion from 11-4-1991 i.e. the date of taking the actual possession of the f1ats and it should be restricted to Rs. 9,000/- for each of the units.

5. According to clause 32 of the agreement of sale the parking space for vehicles in the basement is offered for sale by the opposite parties to the apartment owners and that as per existing provisions under MCH. HUDA, A.P. Apartments Act, the builder should provide free parking space for the vehicles of