S.A, Kader, President - These complaints arc filed under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Items 1 to 16 above are complaints filed by individual allottees of the flats while item No. 17 is filed by the Association of flat owners knows as Ragamalika Apartment Association. The opposite parties are referred to as arraigned in the individual complaints. In fact in the complaint filed by the Association in O.P. 201/92(item No. 17 above) tile builders who arc the opposite partied 1 & 2 in tile other O.Ps. are not impleaded as parties, but the complaint is a replica of the other complaints and the relief’s are claimed against all the complainants including the builders, who are referred to as the opposite parties 1 & 2 in the said O.P. also.

2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the builders of the multi-storeyed building complex at Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Madras known as Ragamalika apartments. This complex consists of three blocks namely A, Band C adjacent to each other. There is a total of 109 apartments in these 3 blocks and they have been allotted to 109 persons, of whom I G allottees have filed O.P.146/ and O.Ps. 264/92 to 278/92. Of those 16 allottees 5 relate to block ‘A’. 3 relate to block' B' and 8 relate to block ‘C’ As already pointed out the association of the allottees is the complainant in O. P. 201/n. The avennents in all these complaints including the complaint in O.P. 201/92 arc identical and various acts of deficiencies arc alleged against the opposite parties.

3. The allegations against the builders opposite parties 1 & 2 are failure to provide sufficient parking space For the apartment owners for their cars, failure to install common antenna for each of the three blocks, failure to install generator and generator room in each block, transformer room in each block, a separate overhead tank for block ‘C’ separate metro-water supply to block ‘C’ separate sewerage connection to block ‘C’ Failure to provide lifts with solid doors, failure to procure and provide electric lighting to the 30 ft. road in front of the three blocks, leaving concrete pillars at a height of 3 f1. on the terrace of Block ‘C’ construction of the basement just about two inches above the ground level instead of 2 ft. above the ground level, the laying of the water lines on the terrace of block ‘C’ in criss-cross manner, inadequacy of 4 bore-wells to supply water, failure to give mosaic finish to the steps, failure to give a second coat of painting to outer walls of the block ‘C’ and failure to put up fire resistance tanks on the terrace and Failure to provide fire lift.

4. The third opposite party is the Corporation of Madras and the allegation there against is the failure to provide water connection, and drainage services, Failure to provide the road work including the earth work metalling of the 30 f1. road in the layout, failure to provide street light to the said 30 ft. road and failure to close the road on the western end and laying of swears, provision of culverts and construction of storm water drain.

5. The allegation against the 4th opposite party which is the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority is irregularity in issuing of a planning permit dated 9/4/87 to the builders with provision for parking space on the 30 ft. road and a claim to close the road on the western end.

6. The 6th opposite party is the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and the allegation is that it has failed to provide and arrange water supply directly and sewerage connection to the three blocks.

7. The 6th opposite party is the State of Tamilnadu and the allegation is that it has acted negligently in granting building exemption to the builders.

8. The first opposite party has filed a detailed counter which has been adopted by the second opposite party. While strongly refuting all the allegations and deficiencies levelled against them it is contended by the opposite parties