State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri P.Jagan Mohan Rao S/O.Padmanabham ... vs Shri Manthri Kasaiah, Doctor, Warangal on 4 March, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.958/2011 against C.C.No.99/2010 District Forum, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. Between Sri P.Jagan Mohan Rao S/o.Padmanabham R/o.Flat No.102, 1st floor, M.S.Complex, Plot no.82, Ward No.5, Block No.4, Kamalanagar, Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., ..Appellant/ Complainant And Shri Manthri Kasaiah, Doctor, S/o.Sri M.Srisailam Lakshmi General Nursing Home, Opp:Bus stand, Parakala, Warangal, Warangal District. Respondent/ Opp.party. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. K.Rajasekhar Counsel for the Respondent : - served. F.A.No.959/2011 against C.C.No.100/2010 District Forum, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. Between Sri Karna Shankar Kyvalam S/o.K.Koteswara Rao R/o.Flat No.103, 1st floor, M.S.Complex, Plot no.82, Ward No.5, Block No.4, Kamalanagar, Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., ..Appellant/ Complainant And Shri Manthri Kasaiah, Doctor, S/o.Sri M.Srisailam Lakshmi General Nursing Home, Opp:Bus stand, Parakala, Warangal, Warangal District. Respondent/ Opp.party. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. K.Rajasekhar Counsel for the Respondent : - served. F.A.No.960/2011 against C.C.No.101/2010 District Forum, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. Between Smt.N.Sreelakshmi, Doctor W/o.M.Suresh Kumar R/o.Flat No.101, 1st floor, M.S.Complex, Plot no.82, Ward No.5, Block No.4, Kamalanagar, Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., ..Appellant/ Complainant And Shri Manthri Kasaiah, Doctor, S/o.Sri M.Srisailam Lakshmi General Nursing Home, Opp:Bus stand, Parakala, Warangal, Warangal District. Respondent/ Opp.party. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. K.Rajasekhar Counsel for the Respondent : - served. QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE Incharge President AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Incharge President) *** Since all the appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order:
F.A.No.958/2011Aggrieved by the order in CC 99/2010 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased flat No.103 with car parking for Rs.4,22,500/- for a built up area of 880 sq. ft. by executing a sale deed on 30-1-2006. The complainant submits that the opposite party has recently removed the shops in the cellar portion to provide car parking but still did not do so.
The opposite party also did not provide drinking water and is not maintaining the lift and without obtaining any proper sanction for further construction, commenced work in second, third, fourth and fifth floors. A complaint was also given to GHMC Commissioner on 27-4-2010 but there was no response. The complainant and other occupants got issued a legal notice on 25-3-2010 for not providing car parking, drinking water, provision of lift and for shortfall of built up area but received no response. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to provide car parking and drinking water and also to pay compensation of Rs.53,000/- for not providing car parking and another Rs.53,000/- for not providing drinking water from the date of purchase of the flat together with damages of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Opposite party filed written version admitting that the flat was sold to the complainant in the year 2006 and submits that the building is having a lot of water resource with a bore well of 500 feet depth with sufficient water. Water connection HMWSSB was obtained in the month of September, 2008 itself and after the allotment of water connection line, this opposite party immediately applied for the same and provided Manjeera water connection. The complainant did not purchase car parking area along with the flat and submits that the complainant is not having any car and that there is a vast car parking area of 2800 sq. ft. and there is no provision for lift in the agreement. Additional floors were constructed and regularization was obtained by BPS scheme.
The opposite party further submits that all the flats were regularized vide GHMC Circle 3 proceedings on 02-1-2010. The complainant is enjoying the drinking water facility from the year 2008 and using parking space without payment of any amount and the lift was not provided as the upper floors were vacant and finishing work is still pending and that as the complainant purchased the property in the year 2006 itself, it is barred by limitation.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A6 and B1 to B9 and the pleadings put forward, dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
Heard the counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. One weeks time was given to the respondent to file written arguments, if any, but the respondent did not choose to file written arguments.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the complainant purchased flat in the first floor and paid Rs.4,22,500/-
and it is including car parking. He relied on Ex.A1 sale deed, dated 30-1-2006 entered into between the complainant and the opposite party in which the total sale consideration of Rs.4,22,500/- was for all amenities including transformer, lift, drainage and car parking. We observe from the record that internal page 3 of the sale deed clearly states that the consideration includes lift and car parking. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,22,500/-. It is the case of the opposite party that car parking and lift have never been agreed to but the sale deed shows that this contention is unsustainable. It is also stated in the internal page 6 of the sale deed in para 15 that the vendor is responsible to provide water(bore and municipal to the said property). The opposite party filed Ex.B2 dt.6-9-2008 which is the application for sanction of water supply to HMWSSB to which an amount of Rs.1,79,500/- was paid through demand draft for providing water connection to the said building. The opposite party also stated in his counter affidavit that a bore well of 500 feet depth was also provided. The complainant did not file any documentary evidence/report to counter this contention.
Therefore we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to establish that water connection was not provided. Further the case of the complainant that the opposite party is liable to pay compensation as he has made illegal constructions without proper permission is also unsustainable as the opposite party filed Exs.B4, B5, B6, B7 and B8 dated 2-1-2010 which are the regularization proceedings of the said constructions.
Therefore we address ourselves only to the prayer of the complainant with respect to provision of lift and car parking area which is clearly mentioned in the sale deed. The opposite party admittedly did not provide the same on the ground that there is no provision for lift in the agreement and that the complainant has not paid for the car parking. Both these submissions are unsustainable in the light of internal page 3 of the sale deed which provides for both these facilities to be provided for the purchaser.
Keeping in view the aforementioned reasons, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to provide lift and car parking area to the complainant as promised in the sale deed together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
F.A.Nos.959/2011 and 960/2011:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.958/2011, these appeals are allowed in part and the orders of the District Forum are set aside directing the opposite party to provide lift and car parking area to the complainants as promised in the sale deed together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.
04-3-2013.