STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/419/2017 null RAJESH PRATHAP SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT 6C, SOORYA ENCLAVE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI- 682020 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRESENT ADDRESS - PB NO.2012, KOCHI- 682020 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 419/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14.02.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 766/2012 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. Rajesh Pratap Singh, S/o Ravindra Pratap Singh, residing at Flat 6 C, Soorya Enclave, Kadavanthra, Kochi-682 020.

2. Benny Methala Antony, S/o M.V. Antony, residing at IX/227, Marvar Villa, Perumbavur Road, Aluva P.O., Ernakulam-683 101 represented by his Power of Attorney Priya Singh, W/o Rajesh Pratap Singh, S/o Ravindra Pratap Singh, residing at Flat 6 C, Soorya Enclave, Kadavanthra, Kochi-682 020.

3. Prasad Balakrishnan Nair, S/o P.K. Balakrishnan Nair, residing at 12 D, Soorya Enclave, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020.

4. Stigimol P.C., D/o P.J. Chandy, residing at Flat No. B124, Jal Vayu Vihar, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682 036.

(By Adv. Sandeep T. George and Adv. R. Sanjith)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Greater Cochin Development Authority, P.B. No. 2012, Kochi-682 020, represented by its Secretary.

(By Adv. Jimmy George)

rd

2. M/s Blue Dot Constructions Private Limited, 3 Floor, Veejay Towers, Salim Rajan Road, Gandhi Nagar, Kadavanthara, Cochin-682 020 represented by its Managing Director, Mr. T.G. Varghese.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in C.C. No. 766/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short “the District Commission”).

2. The complainants purchased separate apartments auctioned by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, pursuant to the advertisement made on 11.01.2011.

st The tenders were invited, and the 1 opposite party provided a brochure issued by the nd

2 opposite party showing the facilities available in the apartment complex. Pursuant st nd to the tender offer, the 1 and the 2 complainants purchased one flat each in the complex, namely, ‘Soorya Enclave’ at Kadavanthara. The auction was on 25.02.2011.

rd th The 3 complainant and the 4 complainant purchased two other flats on 16.02.2011 and 30.03.2011 respectively.

3. Though it was stated that the flats were ready to occupy, a lot of work had to be done at the time of the auction. The opposite parties assured that the works would be completed within one month. Subsequently, pursuant to the tender procedure, sale st deeds were executed by the 1 opposite party in favour of the complainants and the complainants were put in possession of the flats. After occupying the flats, it was noticed that the common amenities offered in the tender and brochure were not provided. More than 15% of the work is yet to be completed. The tender document and the brochure offered separate fitness centers for ladies and gents, recreational areas for children, covered car parking and common rooms on the ground floor. However, none of the facilities was provided.

4. The lifts were not working properly, the installation of electrical connections was defective, the fire security system was not functioning, and the piped gas system was not provided properly. There was seepage and leakage from the external walls of st the flat. Based on the above-said allegations, the complainants approached the 1 st opposite party to rectify the defects. However, the 1 opposite party did not rectify the defects. In the said circumstances, the complainants filed the above complaint after issuing a lawyer's notice, alleging deficiency in service