SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Syed Abdullah and R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Members
R. YASHODARA RAO - Appellant
Versus
SATYA PRAKASH ARCADE APARTMENTS AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 926 of 2007
Decided on : 26-05-2010

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.S.N. Prasad, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent

Violation of provisions of the A.P. Apartments Act and Rules by the opposite party No. 5 in constructing a room without prior consent.

Headnote:

Societies Act - Non-providing of facilities and amenities - A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act and Rules 1987 - Section 6 - The court discussed the construction agreement, violation of provisions of the A.P. Apartments Act, and the rights of the complainant association and the opposite parties. The court found that the opposite party No. 5 violated Section 6 of the A.P. Apartments Act by constructing a room without prior consent, and the opposite party No. 1 purchased the room illegally. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant association filed a complaint against the non-providing of facilities and amenities by the opposite parties, including issues related to parking space, construction violations, and lack of common parking.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the opposite party No. 5 violated Section 6 of the A.P. Apartments Act by constructing a room without prior consent, and the opposite party No. 1 purchased the room illegally. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

Issues: The issues included the construction agreement, violation of provisions of the A.P. Apartments Act, and the rights of the complainant association and the opposite parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party No. 5 violated Section 6 of the A.P. Apartments Act by constructing a room without prior consent, and the opposite party No. 1 purchased the room illegally.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

ORDER

R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member (Oral)- The complainant is the appellant (sic association).

2. Brief facts of the case as represented by the appellant are that the complainant association was registered under the Societies Act. The complaint is filed for non-providing of facilities and amenities such as, (1) not providing two wheeler parking place to all the 20 flat owners in the building, (2) the illegal occupation of builder and previous land owner of a small size room in the cellar, (3) lack of common parking, (4) fixing of 37 iron ventilators without safety glasses in the cellar, (5) non-fixing of 279 pieces of glass to the compound wall of the cellar to 37 iron windows, (6) sale of common toilet on the terrace, (7) development of cracks and big holes on the terrace RCC flooring, (8) non-fixing of 124 ft. length and six ft. width safety grill at the ground floor, (9) unauthorized construction of pipe lines at drainage canals, (10) failure to carry out civil repairs, (11) not raising of the entering steps at the main entrance, (12) water leakage in the parking areas from upper flat owners bathroom and toilet and kitchen, (13) non-delivery of paper bills, vouchers, receipts guarantee cards, elevator bills, municipality paid bills and other documents to the association by the opposite party No. 5.

3. The opposite party No. 5 and previous land owners of the apartments, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 created registered sale deed bearing document No. 6017 of 2006 in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of a small room in the cellar. The opposite party No. 1 applied for mutation and tax assessment in the name of P.V. Rammohan Rao in respect of the room in the cellar. The complainant intended to demolish the room in the cellar.

4. The opposite party No. 2 has filed counter which was also stated to have been treated as the counter of the opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4. It was contended that the complaint is not maintainable and barred under Section 23 of AP Societies Registration Act. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are the members of the complainant association. Hence, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No prior notice as provided under Section 126 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act was issued before filing the complaint. As per the agreement between the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the opposite party No. 5, the opposite party No. 5 had to develop and construct the flat at his cost. The share of the opposite party No. 5 is 65.08% of the built up area, undivided share of land and parking, etc. The complainant association is not a party to the agreement between the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the opposite party No. 5. For proper conveyance title in favour of the third party purchasers, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the opposite party No. 5 executed the sale deeds irrespective of their extent of share in any such sale transactions. The opposite party No. 5 has constructed the flats as per agreed specifications, standards, design, drawing and fittings. The third party purchasers having satisfied themselves with the title to the property the quality of construction, the nature of amenities provided, purchased the flats. The Secretary of the complainant association Mohd. Samellulah to wreck vengeance against the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 got filed the case as the opposite party No. 1 to opposed the business/commercial activity in the flat by the Secretary of the complainant association under the guise of Advocate profession. The members of the complainant association have been residing in their respective flats since the date of the purchase and after a period of two years got filed the complaint without raising any objection at the time of purchasing the flat. Parking place for cars to all the flat owners is not provided anywhere and it is provided to those who needed it only and for consideration. Of the two rooms constructed in the cellar, one is provided to the watch man w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top