BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.485 OF 2017 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.239 OF 2016, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD Between:

The Deccan Residency Flat Owner’s Welfare Association, Rep. by its General Secretary Mohd.Bahadur Ali Khan, S/o.Mohd.Asgar Ali Khan Aged about 72 years, Occ: Retired, R/o.16-2-705/A/207, Akbarbagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad – 36. .…Appellant/Complainant And M/s.United Constructions, Rep. by Shaheed Siddique, S/o.Late Abdul Razza Siddiqui, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Builders/Developers (Business), R/o.21-1-92/A, Moti Masjid, Nayapul, Hyderabad – 02.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s. R.K.G.Bhatia Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party: Mr. Vikram Ragi QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO,…MEMBER-JUDICIAL WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble I/c President)

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986, praying this Commission to allow this appeal and set aside orders dated 22.11.2017 passed in CC.No.239/2016 on the file of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainant is an association named as “The Deccan Residency Flat Owner’s Welfare Association” represented by its General Secretary. It is their allegation that the Opposite Party flouted the sanctions granted by GHMC in respect of Building Regulations and failed to construct the apartments as per the specifications in the brochure given by them.

4. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party failed to handover the occupancy certificate to the individual owners nor have they released the mortgaged apartments. They also failed to provide common amenities such as lift, diesel generator, fire extinguisher equipment, indoor games facilities etc. The documents secured with Water Sewerage and Electricity Board were also not handed over. Moreover, the Opposite Party is due to pay electricity and water bills for the period from 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011 to the Association, amounting to Rs.1,72,589/-. Hence, the Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

5. The Opposite Party filed their written version and contended that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties as they have failed to implead the land owners. It is further contended that the apartment is completed in the year 2010 and the complaint has been filed in the year 2016 which is beyond the period of two years as per Section-24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. The Opposite Party denied that they have flouted the building regulations as sanctioned by GHMC. They also denied that they have not handed over the possession of the premises. In fact, they installed an additional flat for the convenience of occupants. With these contentions, the Opposite Party denied deficiency in service on their part and pleads for dismissal of the case.

6. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A15 are marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Party filed and Ex.B1 is marked on their behalf.

7. The District Forum after hearing and considering the material on record allowed the complaint and directed the dismissed the complaint with no costs.

8. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Appellant/Opposite Party filed this appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:

 The District Commission failed to appreciate the reported judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission filed along with written arguments.

 The Commission below did not appreciate the facts and passed the impugned order in a mechanical way.

 The District Commission failed to appreciate that the complaint is m