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

Appeal No.72812013

Filed on:04.06.2013

Disposed on: 02.08.2013

fi

PRESENT

lvI/s. Ansal Forte Apartment Association

Hosur Road, Bangalore 560068

Rep. by its President / Secretary &

Managing Commiuee, Dr. Anirban Basu

(By ShriiSmt B. Shekarappa)

Girish Kumar Gala

Flat No. 106 &. 206, Ansal Forte

Apartments, Hosur Road,

Bangalore 560068.

THE HON'BLE MR.JT'STICE K.RAMANNA

SMT. G.T. VIJAYALAKSHMI

A

al No.728 20t3

: PRESIDENT

: MEMBER

Opposite Party before the DF

....Appellant/s

-Versus-

Complainant before the DF

....Respondent/s

HON'BLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated

08.05.2013 passed by the I Addl., DF, Bangalore in Complaint

No.2446 12012 whereby and whereunder the complaint filed by

the respondent/complainant came to be allowed in part

directing this appellant to restore electricity from the common

generator to the Flat No.106 pertains to respondent and in turn

the respondent is directed to pay dues towards maintenance

charges at the rate of other family members paying from

Ol .lO.2Ol2 till date and also directed the appellant to pay

Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses within 45 days from the

date of the order. Assailing the same Op has come up with

this appeal on various grounds.

BEFORE THE I(ARNATAKA STATE CONSI'MER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSIOI{. BANGALORE.

o/2loal20t3

ORDERS ON ADMISSION

Appeal No. 72812013

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

appellant for admission and perused the records.

3. The point for consideration in this appeal is

1

Whether there is any prima-facie case to admit

this appeal? If so what oidei?

4. Point No.1:- As could be seen from the materials, the

respondent/complainant is the owner of Flat Nos. 106 and 206 and

by virtue of the ownership became a member of appellant/ Op

Association under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1922.

The main object of the society is to provide maintenance, repairs and

replacement of the common area and facilities by contribution

among the owners and it should be equally shared by all the owners

of the flats. As per the bye-law of the Association, right from

beginning 2003 onwards, the appellant was agreed to share total

building maintenance expenses on the basis of per square feet rate

equally by all members. The allegation of the respondent is that,

since the appellant/OP has demanded current maintenance charges

at Rs.2/- per sq.ft. and appellant is unilaterally demanding

additional maintenance charges for the flat occupied by the

bachelors and rented out owners by Rs.O.50 per sq.ft. for all flats

rented to bachelors and Rs.O. l0 per sq.ft., for all flats rented to

family along with other further additional charges of Rs.1,000/_.

The demand of additional charges was illegal and disparity against

the Apartment Ownership Acts and Rules. When questioned the

same appellant failed to reply about displaying the name of the

respondent on the notice board as a Defaulter and disconnected

common generator facility. Appellant informed through an e_mail

that, it was the decision of the Annual General Body Meeting dated

26.06.2011 and the reasons for enhancement was due to problem of

bachelors misbehaviors including tJle eve-teasing or the fact of

drunkenness. Therefore, the power supply was disconnected from

common generator. Since the respondent was not paying the

maintenance charges fixed by the appellant,s association, they have

2

RO

Appeal No. 72812013

disconnected the electricity supply from common generator.

Therefore, Iiled a complaint.

5. The DF after considering the averments of the complaint and

the defence taken by the appellant/OP in their version passed the

order under challenge.

6. It is argued by the leamed counsel for the appellant that the

DF has not taken into consideration that the respondent is not a

consumer as defined in Section 2(l)(d) of the C.P Act. The DF has

not accepted the contention of the appellant/OP. Since the

respondent is the owner of the flats and being the m

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top