State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Buddha View Apartments Owners ... vs M/S Mansions Today And Another on 8 September, 2011
BEFORE A BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD E.A.10 OF 2011 IN C.D.NO.15 OF 1999 Between: M/s Buddha View Apartments Owners Society H.No.6-3-1176, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet Hyderabad-016 rep. by its Secretary Mrs.K.Arpitha Petitioner/complainant A N D 1. M/s Mansions Today Flat No.402, Sunrise Apartments Plot No.183, Dwarakapuri Colony Panjagutta, Hyderabad-082 (present address) rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.K.Srinivas 2. Mrs L.Sujatha Reddy W/o L.Sudhakar Reddy H.No.6-3-1176, Begumpet, Hyderabad-016 Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Petitioner Sri V.Padmanabhan Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri P.Premraj QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER THURSDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The petitioner society filed the complaint seeking direction to the respondents for completion of the unfinished work of the building or in the alternative to pay a sum of `9 lakh. On 8.9.2003 this Commission had allowed the complaint directing the respondents to facilitate conveyance of the flat and the first respondent to pay a sum of `2,30,000/- to the petitioner society together with costs of `10,000/- payable by the first respondent.
2. The petitioner society filed penalty proceedings on 26.3.2004 in P.P.No.16 of 2004 which was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner society to file fresh execution application. Thereafter present EAIA No.1131 of 2009 was filed to condone delay in filing execution application and the application was dismissed primarily on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of three years and therefore barred by limitation.
3. The petitioner society has filed appeal F.A.No.386 of 2009 before the National Commission and the order of this Commission was set aside by the National Commission directing this Commission to issue notice to the respondents and decide the EAIA having regard to all relevant factors and various proceedings taken by the parties in the National Commission and Supreme Court.
4. The instant E.A. is filed seeking direction to the respondent to provide water connection to the building irrespective of payment of the requisite amount of `10,000/- by some of the members of the petitioner society and comply with the order passed by this commission.
5. During the pendency of the E.A., the petitioner society has filed the calculation memo and the first respondent in reply, has filed its calculation memo.
6. This Commission has passed order on 29.10.2010 directing the petitioner society to pay `7,79,100/- to the first respondent for the purpose of obtaining the water connection to the building. In compliance of the order dated 29.10.2010, the petitioner society has paid the amount of `7,80,000/- on 20.1.2011 to the first respondent. The parties are at dispute in regard to the amount incurred, for the purpose of obtaining water connection to the building. The petitioner society contends that it had paid excess amount as the amount required for providing water connection to the building is `5,88,750/- whereas the first respondent submits that it had incurred an amount of `7,83,350/- and the petitioner society is due a sum of `3,350/-.
7. In the light of rival contentions of the petitioner society and the first respondent, it is relevant to refer to the calculation memo filed by each of them. The first respondent contends that he had spent the amount shown as under:
_____________________________________________________________ I. Amount received from the complainant - Rs.7,80,000/- i. Processing fee along with application No.2011-3-2069 dt.23.3.2011 Rs. 2,000/-
ii. Water supply connection charges & corresponding sewerage connection Rs.5,88,750/-
iii. Payment to the contractor towards miscellaneous expenses (road cutting 4 depth & 5 width laying of pipeline MCH, liasoning component, construction of several manholes, earth work from apartment to drainage main point. Laying of pipe line from apartment to last point, re-tarring of Tar Road appox.150 RFT) a. Road Cutting Rs. 25,000/-
b. Earth work (Apartment to main point digging and refilling) Rs.
25,000/-
c. Laying of pipe line (from main junction to Sumo) Rs. 11,000/-
d. Manholes(20) (work charges, managed 10 manholes connecting with running line and illegal manholes are legalized. Rs.
40,000/-
e. Bituman Road (Retaring of road infront of apartment) Rs. 23,000/-
f.
Laisoning fee Rs. 66,000/-
iv. Purchase of water meter Rs. 2,600/-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Rs.7,83,350/- -- 7,80,000/-
________________________________________________________
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner society has submitted that the first respondent had incurred an amount of `5,88,750/- to provide water connection to the building. The General Manager O&M HMWSSB has issued letter to the first respondent on 8.4.2011 stating that the first respondent had applied for sanction of 20mm water supply connection and corresponding sewerage connection to the building for which the first respondent was required to pay an amount of `5,88,750/- and the break-up figure of the amount reads as under:
Water supply connection charges (1505) sq. mtrs : Rs. 5,26,500.00 60 days water consumption charges Rs. 4,750.00 Meter Cost 20 mm Rs.
0.00 Green Brigade charges (DCW) Rs. 7,000.00 RWHS Charges (DCW) Rs. 50,000.00 Water supply connection improvement (DCW) Rs. 0.00 Sewerage improvement charges (DCW) Rs. 0.00
------- --------------
Total Amount Rs. 5,88,750.00 _______________ Total Deduction Rs. (-) 0.00 _______________ Tentative Amount Rs.
5,88,750.00 _______________
9. The HMWSSB has issued tariff card showing that the road cutting charges of `7000/- constitutes a part of the deposit made by the applicant. The letter dated 8.4.2011 issued by the General Manager, O&M HMWSSB manifest that Green Bridge Charges (DCW) of `7,000/- for laying water supply connection forms part of the total amount of `5,88,750/- required to be deposited by the first respondent. The first respondent has not filed any document to show that the amount of `25,000/- towards earth work, `11,000/- for laying of pipe line, `40,000/- for digging of manholes, `23,000/- towards charges for repairing of the road, `66,000/- as liaison fees and `2600/- towards cost of the meter.
10. The first respondent failed to substantiate the amount of `1,92,600/-. The letter issued by the General Manager, O&M HWMSSB goes to show that the meter is provided by the HMWSSB free of cost. Likewise the different heads shown in the calculation memo of the first respondent as road cutting, earth work, laying pipe line etc., form integral part of water supply connection and the amount of R`1,92,600/- under these counts cannot be claimed separately by the first respondent in view of the entire water supply connection charges demanded by HMWSSB is an amount of `5,88,750/-. Thus looked at from any angle, it is abundantly clear that the first respondent had incurred only an amount of `5,88,750/- and not `7,80,000/- paid by the petitioner society nor the sum of `7,79,100/- as directed to be paid by the petitioner society. Therefore, the first respondent is liable to refund the amount of `1,92,600/- to the petitioner society.
11. In the result, the Execution Application is allowed. The first respondent is directed to refund the amount of `1,92,600/- to the petitioner society within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default. No costs Sd/-
PRESIDENT Sd/-
MEMBMER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.
08.09.2011 KMK*