State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. J. Aunradha, Wife Of Sri P. ... vs Ms. Siri Building Consructions And ... on 24 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/492/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/06/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/17/2014 of District Hyderabad-II) 1. Smt. J. Aunradha, Wife of Sri P. Srinivasulu Aged about 40 Years, Occ Govt. Employee, R.o. Flat No.202, Sharon Residency 2nd Floor, Plot No.46, West Maredpally, Secunderabad 500 026 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ms. Siri Building Consructions and Building Material Suippliers, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri T. Venkat Narayana Son of T. Yanadhi, Aged about 32 Years, H.No.26.112 by 24, B.No. No.417 Balaramnagar, Saifilguda Secuderabad 500 056 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 24 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FA NO. 492 of 2014 AGAINST CC NO. No. 17/2014, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD Between: Smt. J. Anuradha W/o Sri P. Srinivasulu, Aged about 40 years, Occ : Govt. employee R/o Flat No. 202, Sharon Residency, 2nd floor, Plot no. 46, West Maredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026 .. Appellant/complainant And M/s. Siri Building Constructions & Building Material Suppliers Rep. by its Managing partner, Sri T. Venkat Narayana S/o T. Yanadhi, aged about 32 years, H.No. 26-112/24, B.No. 417, Balaramnagar, Safilguda, Secunderabad - 500 056 ... Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellant/complainant : Sri Y. V. Narasimhaharyulu Counsel for the Respondent/Opp. party: served. Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Monday, the Twenty Fourth Day of July Two Thousand Seventeen Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) ****
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the Appellant/complainant to set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2014 made in CC No. 17/2014 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainant , in brief, is that she agreed to purchase flat No. 202 in 2nd floor with undivided share of land admeasuring 48.00 sq. yards out of 285.67 sq. yards with built up area 1155 sft for sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- including one car parking area and obtained agreement of sale on 8.4.2004 and subsequently obtained a registered sale deed on 3.5.2012 and the opposite party handed over possession on 3rd May, 2012 and the complainant performed Gruhapravesham ceremony on 15.06.2012 and on that day she shocked to observed the seepage and leakage from the slab and the opposite party also present at the time of Gruhapravesham and he also noticed the same. The Engineer inspected the defects, assessed and certified on 14.12.2013 that the total cost for repairs is Rs.1,25,000/-. She sent notice to the opposite party on 25.10.2013. Despite promise to provide 3 phase power supply to each flat, the opposite party failed to do so. Therefore, the electrical bulbs and Tube lights were burnt and 6 flat owners are agreed to dig new bore well with a new submersive pump set since the old bore well not serving the purpose of residents which was provided by the opposite party and each owner contributed Rs.60,000/- for the purpose of digging new bore well. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards repair charges as estimated by the valued Engineer along with 12% interest, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damage of electrical items such as Fan, tube lights etc. due to defective construction, to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- for not providing 3 phase power supply connection to complainant flat, to pay Rs.60,000/- towards expenses for digging new bore well with new submersive pump set, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and inconvenience and costs of Rs.20,000/-.
4. The opposite party was called absent even though summons were served.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the appellant/complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-9 and the complainant also filed written arguments.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards effecting repairs and to pay Rs.2,000/-towards costs within 30 days.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal on the grounds that the District Forum failed to observe the genuine claim of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest towards repair charges of leakage of roof of flat as estimated by the Engineer on the ground that the estimation does not contain the details such as cost of the material, labour and cement etc. and electrical items were damaged due to leakage and to allow the complaint as prayed for .
8) Counsel for the appellant has advanced his arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, in addition to, the written arguments filed by him. Heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant. No representation for the Respondent despite service of notice and also did not choose either to advance oral arguments or to file written arguments despite giving ample opportunity.
9) The points that arises for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ?
10) We have perused the record. It is evident from the record that the appellant/complainant agreed to purchase Flat No. 202 in 2nd floor with undivided share of land admeasuring 48.00 sq. yards out of 285.67 sq. yards with built up area 1155 sft for sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- including one car parking area vide Ex.A-3 and subsequently obtained a registered sale deed on 3.5.2012 vide Ex. A-2. There is no dispute that the respondent/opposite party handed over the said flat to the appellant/complainant on 03.05.2012.
11) The first contention of the appellant/complainant is that at the time of Gruhapravesham on 03.05.2012 in the presence of the opposite party, she shocked to observe the seepage and leakage from the slab. In support of her contention, she relied on ExA4 photos which show that there is some leakage of water. The certificate under Ex.A-5 dated 14.12.2013 issued by authorized Engineer shows that there is some leakage of water and the authorized Engineer estimated the cost at Rs.1,25,000/- towards repairs.. He simply estimated Rs.75,000/- towards roof water leakage treatment and Rs.50,000/- towards cracks filling and painting inside the flat. From the said certificate it can be inferred that there is water leakage from the roof and there are cracks in the flat. The District Forum estimated Rs.25,000/- towards effecting repairs. But as rightly pointed out by the District Forum, the said Engineer did not give the details of estimate, i.e.. Quantity of cement required, labour cost, painting cost and other details. The cost of the commodities and labour changes from day to day and hence the right figure of the cost could not be arrived at. In view of the fact, it is not possible to estimate the exact cost that would be compensated to the appellant/complaint by the respondent/opposite party as it depends upon many factors. In order to disprove the contentions of the appellant/complainant, the respondent/opposite party did not choose to contest the matter either before the District Forum or this Commission, despite service of notice, for the reasons best known to him. In those circumstances, we are of the opinion instead of granting amount for repairs if we direct the respondent/opposite party to attend the repairs as pointed out by the said Engineer to the satisfaction of the appellant/complainant it would meet the ends of justice.
12) The further contention of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/opposite party promised to provide 3 Phase power supply to her flat but failed to do so and she applied for the same. We have perused the specifications mentioned in Ex.A-1, wherein, it was specified that the opposite party will provide 3 - phase power supply.. The District Forum pointed out that since the appellant/complainant failed to prove that the respondent/opposite party did not provide 3 Phase power supply, it cannot be made liable. Since the documents pertaining to the electricity department may be possessed with the respondent/opposite party, it may not be possible to prove the deficiency of the respondent/opposite party. Since there is no rebuttal from the side of the respondent/opposite party on this ground, we will have no option except to accept the version of the appellant/complainant. If the respondent/opposite party already complied with the said promise, then there would be no additional burden on him to accept the version of the appellant/complainant. Hence we cannot credit the opinion of the District Forum on this count.
13) The further contention of the appellant/complainant is with regard to claim amount of Rs.60,000/- towards contribution for digging new bore well. Undeniably, the respondent/opposite party provided a bore well to all the flat owners. Probably, it may not be possible to have sufficient water from the said bore well and hence all the flat owners may have contributed for digging another bore well to meet their necessitated demands, for which, respondent/opposite party cannot be made liable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party on this count. The District Forum rightly discredited the same on this ground.
14) The further contention of the appellant/complainant is that she sustained an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damage of electrical items such as Fan , Tube lights etc due to leakage of defective construction. There is no evidence placed before us to prove the same. Hence we cannot credit the same in favour of the appellant/complainant.
15. After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant, this Commission is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if we direct the respondent/opposite party to attend the repairs as pointed out by the Authorised Engineer to the satisfaction of the appellant/complainant instead of granting an amount of Rs.25,000/- as ordered by the District Forum, to provide 3 Phase Power Supply to the flat of the appellant/complainant and costs of Rs.2,000/- as imposed by the District Forum as it is. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
16. Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the respondent/opposite party to attend the repairs as pointed out by the Authorised Engineer to the satisfaction of the appellant/complainant, to provide 3 Phase Power Supply to the flat of the appellant/complainant and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- as imposed by the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated :24.07.2017. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER