Back
TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Meena Ramanathan, I/C President and V.V. Seshu Babu, Member - (Judicial)
G. Ram Babu and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Mitra Constructions and Ors. – Respondents
F.A.No.460 of 2019
Decided on 25.6.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:M/s. S. Leo Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mrs. Zehra Rasheed, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Shaik Altaf, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Water connection – The water received from half inch pipe size, under any stretch of imagination cannot cater the needs of the six apartments.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Services – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Water Connection – Legality of – The Opposite Parties relied upon Ex.B1 and B2 to show that water connection is available to the apartments and the flat owners are utilizing the same by paying the bills – Thus, a close look at the Ex.B1 and B2 goes to show, that the bills were issued in the name of Opposite Party No.3 who was the original owner of the 247 sq. yards of land – The category of connection is mentioned as “domestic” and pipe size is mentioned as 0.50 – Thus held, it is half inch size pipe – Besides, such connection will be given to the single houses, but not to the apartments. The water received from half inch pipe size, under any stretch of imagination cannot cater the needs of the six apartments. It shows the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2 have conveniently restored or revived the old connection that was standing in the name of Opposite Party No.3, and now asking all the six apartment people to use the municipal water that will come through half inch pipe size – Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2 as far as providing the water service is concerned – Appeal partly allowed and dismissed. [Paras 10 to 15].
Result: Partly allowed and dismissed.
ORDER
V.V. Seshu Babu, Member – Judicial—This appeal is filed by the complainants U/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the complaint without costs, dated 08.07.2019 in CC NO.244/2017 by the DCDRC-I Hyderabad.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that they have purchased flat No.302 in the third floor of “Sri Sai Ram Nivas” situated at Bakaram Village from the opposite parties under agreement of sale dated 28.05.2015; that the extent of the property is 1024 sft of built up area with undivided share of land of 41.66 sq yards out of 247 sq.yards with one car parking; that the total consideration was fixed at of Rs.36,00,000/- and the complainants have paid Rs.9,00,000/- as advance under different cheques; that they have obtained housing loan from ICICI Bank, which disbursed Rs.20,00,000/- and balance of Rs.2,00,000/- was agreed to be paid, after handing over of completion certificate; that the opposite parties have executed a registered sale deed on 08.07.2015 for a semi-finished flat; that the opposite party No.2 is the managing partner in Opposite Party No.1 firm; that Opposite Party No.3 is the land owner who entered into development agreement cum GPA on 05.12.2014 vide document NO.3484/2014; that as per the said development agreement the opposite parties 1 & 2 shall provide municipal water connection; to complete all the works and shall provide occupancy certificate, but they have failed to do so, in spite of several requests; that the opposite parties have used substandard material in making the construction as against the specification mentioned in the development agreement; that the complainants got issued a legal notice on 31.03.2017, which was received by Opposite Party No.2 for which reply notice dated 05.05.2017 was given with false averments; hence, the complaint.
3. The brief averments of written version of Opposite Parties No.1&2 are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainants are put to strict proofs of all the averments made in the complaint except those that are admitted; that obtaining the development agreement from the Opposite Party No.3, entering into agreement of sale with the complainants and execution of sale deed in favour of the complainants is admitted; that without paying the full consideration, the complaint is filed to make a wrongful gain; that the opposite parties got restored the water connection and all the inmates of the apartments are using the municipal water and paying bills; that as far as the occupancy certificate is concerned the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and AP stayed the BRS Scheme and the moment the stay is vacated, the Opposite Party No.1&2 would obtained the same and till then their hands are tied; that in fact, they have applied for BRS application of regularization on 10.01.2016, and it is pending; that the opposite parties have completed all the works; that nothing remained for them to complete; that the claim of the complainants for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- does not arise at all, as no works are pending; that there is no deficiency of service and any question of negligence or unfair trade practice; that the complaint is barred by time and there is no cause of action to file the same. With this, requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary of costs.
4. Sri K. Altaf, Advocate filed vakalt for Opposite Party No.3, but not filed the written version and as per the docket order dated 07.11.2017 it was treated as no written version for Opposite Party No.3.
5. Before the commission below, the complainant No.1 filed evidence affidavit as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12. Mr. Diraj Malani, Managing Partner of Opposite Party No.1 filed evidence affidavit on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and got marked Ex.B1 to B4. Written arguments was filed by both sides.
6. The Commission below settled the following points for discussion:—
1. Whether the complainants could make out the c
