State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Sri.B.B.K Sastry vs Sri. K. Chandramouli on 11 July, 2022
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
of Telangana, Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad at Hyderabad
FA NO.516 OF 2019 AGAINST CC NO.217 OF 2017
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COMMISSION-l, HYDERABAD
Between:
1) Sri B.B.K. Sastry S/o B.Dakshinamurthy,
aged 85 years, R/o Flat No.D-24,
Steel & Mines Complex, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad 500 073 (since died).
2) Smt B.V.S.Lakshmi W/o late B.B.K. Sastry,
aged 75 years, R/o Flat No.D-24,
Steel & Mines Complex, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad - 500 073.
3) Sri B.Shyamsunder S/o late B.B.K.Sastry,
aged 47 years, R/o Flat No.B-14,
Steel & Mines Complex, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad- 500 073 (shyan1sunderb@ gmail.com
4) Sri B.Akhilesh Arka S/o late B.B.K. Sastry,
aged 50 years, R/o Flat No.B-14,
Steel & Mines Complex, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad - 500 073.
(Appellant No.4 is impleaded as per orders
in IA No.1564/2020, dated 19.01.2021)
...Appellants/Complainants
And
Sri K.Chandramouli S/o K.Venkatapapaiah,
President, Steel & Mines Employees
Complex Welfare Association,
Aged about 66 years, R/o Flat A-34,
Steel & Mines Complex, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad - 500 073.
...Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellants Sri Devender Kumar Jain
Counsel for the Respondent Served with notice
cORAM:
****
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal President
and
Smt Meena Ramanathan Member
Monday, day of
the Eleventh
July Two Thousand Twenty Two
Oral Order k*
Complainants
unsuccessful
by the
This is an appeal preferred the District
dated 05.08.2019 passed by
the orders
aggrieved by dismissing the
in CC No.217/2017 in
Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad
consumers.
are not
complaint holding that the Complainants
referred to as arrayed
For the sake of convenience,
the parties are
2)
in the complaint.
No.1 retired a s
3) It is the case of Complainants that Complainant
No.2 is wife and
Geological Survey of India; Complainant Director of Steel 8 in Flat No.D-24 of Complainants 3 and 4 are his sons, residing party Mines Complex, situate at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. Opposite Mines Employees of Executive Committee of Steel & is a functionary Said complex is a Welfare Association being its President.
Complex
112 residential flats belonging to individual
condominium consisting of
connection with meters
owners and each flat is having separate electrical
being
municipal taxes and electricity bills are and service numbers. The The Welfare Association was formed by paid by respective owners.
owners of the flats and it was registered with registration No.2406/1988.
is to look after the routine
4) The function of the Association
common areas and
maintenance and upkeep of the complex, particularly
for which, it collects maintenance charges every month from
facilities,
Rs.1,500/- and
the occupants of the flats. The present charges are
without any default. In 2014, the
Complainants paid the same regularly
Association started collecting additional
Executive Committee of the
charges carry-out certain capital repairs to the complex to initially and amount required was estimated at Rs.80,00,000/- and later it was revised to a little over Rs.5l,00,000/-. Complainants paid a total sum of for all the three flats owned by them Rs.85,800/- by way of six cheques leaving balance of Rs.42,900/-, for which, they sought information by way of etter dated 04.11.2015 addressed to the Opposite party as President of Association.
A letter dated 06.11.2015 signed by Joint Secretary was served on
5) the Complainants which contains ultimatum that if the balance amount is not paid within seven days, essential service will be curtailed to their lats There was no need to issue such ultimatum as the Executive Committee has already received bulk of the amount required tor capita repairs and most of which were unspent and the proposed works were not started till October 2015. Another letter dated 11.11.2015 also Signed by Joint Secretary was served on them which sounded like a charge sheet. On 1+.11.2015 the Complainants informed the Executive Committee that they have no authority to take such decision but on the next day i.e., 15.11.2015. the electricity supply to their flats bearing Nos.D-24. D-13 and B-14 were disconnected without any prOr intimation.
Under compelling cireumstances, the Complainants issued three cheques for Rs.12.500/-, Rs. 12,500/- and Rs.17,900/- in favour of the Association towards balance amount, thereby the power was restored. Disconnection of power had a devastating effect on their family as they suffered health problems. On the day of disconnection of power supply, Complainant No.1 had breathing problem and he could not use nebulizer. His wife too became sick. Complainants got issued a notice dated 02.12.2016, to which, reply dated 29.12.2016 is given with utter issued rejoinder 16.01.2017. As disregard. Complainant got on Opposite party failed to express any regrets, the present complaint came to be filed with a prayer to award compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for deficiency of service and costs of the complaint.
7) Opposite party filed its written version contending that he is not proper and necessary party to the complaint as the same is filed against him in individual capacity. There is no privity of contract between him and the Complainants. Complainants ought to have filed the complaint the Association but not against him. He never rendered any against services to the Complainants nor received any consideration, hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to
8) prove their case, the Complainants got filed the alffidavit evidence of Complainant No.3 as PW1 and got marked the documents Ex.Al to A13.
Opposite party himself filed his aflidavit evidence as RW1 and got marked the documents Ex.Bl to B13.
available on
material
considering the
The District Forum alter
9) No.217 of 2017, by orders
dismissed the complaint bearing CC record, paragraph No.1, supra.
dated 05.08.2-10, as stated, at
preferred the present
10) Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellants
mis-appreciated the facts and forum below appeal contending that the facts in wrong dismissed the complaint. It misunderstood the thereby of the the is filed against the then President perspective a s complaint misfeasance. Hence, prayed Association who is responsible for the acts of and the orders impugned to allow the appeal by seting aside consequently modify the orders.
arises for consideration is whether the impugned
11) The point that error or Forum suffers from any order as passed by the District interfered irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or with, in any manner? To what relief?
learned counsel appearing the Appellants/
12) Heard the
Complainants.
parties in the
13) The controversy is about the wrong description of the
at the time when the same was pending before the
consumer complaint
District Forum for more than two years.
stated, the facts are that the 1st Appellant is the
14) Briefly
'Steel
Complainant No. 1 and resident of an apartment which is known as He had and Mines Employees Complex' at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.
with the Association people who, it is said have arbitrarily
disputes
disconnected the electricity connection for unknown and irrelevant
the said acts of the Association, the deceased 1st
reasons. Aggrieved by
complaint on the file of
Respondent/Complainant has filed the consumer wherein he has shown as many as three District Forum-1, Hyderabad Sastry; Smt B.V.S.Lakshmi persons as the Complainants viz., Sri B.B.K. complaint was filed by showing and Sri B.Shyamsunder. The consumer While describing the parties in K.Chandramouli as the Opposite party.
have described the third Complainant the cause title, the Complainants B.Shyamsunder as the President of Steel & Mines Employees Complex Welfare Association. Having shown the President of the Association as viz., the co-complainant, the relief was sought for against the said person A4 lti T Opsil l a n l rven lpli llel t n l igl nlednss is allegr Hinat tl l ' s n t ol Assn hation y k i p l l I l h mistnks nel r O s , e ompluint was i l hhl hal houg the OM, 20)19 wlin, i i s lenuly inelivicdual bul H t l l u Ilemin th lif is sgll lor ngrins maleral o1 recorel. The TO W nvr oehlly prueel ti enti lor than Oplail Ws nproprerly druftod nnd the trial went 0 more lo be WO y r , Al pmil of tinne, neilher the Complainant wlo cluimt he oluCaled pot0 uv oberrved the scrious mistake which They 4D11ilteel in eleneribing tlie cnu itle wer oliced, more rlieilarly, ven the lat thut the Preniclent ol the Associlion against whom thcy arc wis not laiming he reliela hun nol been alown ns un Oppositc party 110tecd by the Conmpluinauls nor his Advocnle on rcord. Thc matter proceeded un il the third Conplainant i the Presiclent of the Associntion K.Chudrumouli who is nol cV¢n h Oponle purty iN l y leeribed as the Presiclent ol the Associntion.
I7) laviug conductel the cuse in such a nanner, now at the appeal
ntuge, the Appelluntn/Complainants cunot b heard saying that all
mistukes and wlhal they intended was that the third
thc ure
Complainnt is not the Presiclent but Sri K.Chandramouli is the
President of the Association.
18) ven il wat they say is acceptled, the complaint as filed in the ume of K.Chandramouli cannot be considered or the rcason that the cts of thc Presiclent or the Scerctary of an Association have to bc challengel but not indivicdunlly. When thcre is a registered Ass0ciation, the still jury is the person who is competent to suc and be sucd is cither the Seeretury generally or the President if the Byc-laws provide. Instcad of makingk the Presilent/Sccretary as the Opposite party, the complaiants who claimed to be educated persons have iled the complaint aguinst K.Chundramnouli as if he is liable in his individual 6 came to be filed and the the complaint capacity. With all those mistakes, Therefore, the complaint. Therelore, District Forum has rightly dismissed the maintainable. Upon K.Chandramouli is not Complaint as filed against interiere r e a s o n to see n o S i d c T i n g the entire material on record, we and hence no reliels with the well-considered order of the District Forum and the same is Ilabie can be granted. There are no merits in the appeal to be dismissed.
but no
19) n the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, COsts.