State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Mrs. Chaganti Sreevalli, vs 1. M/S. Cecon Builders on 15 September, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMIsSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.57 OF 2017
Between:
1. Mrs. Chaganti Sreevalli,
W/o. Chaganti Kishore,
Aged about 37 years, Occ: House Wife,
2. Mr. Chaganti Kishore,
S/o. Sri Tirupathaiah,
Aged 39 years, Occ: employee,
R/o. Flat No.401, Cecon Manor,
Huda Trade Centre, Serilingampally,
Hyderabad -500019. *
.Complainants
And
1. M/s. CECON BUILDERS,
A Partnership Firm,
Represented by its Partner,
Sri K.Srinivas Gupta,
S/o. K.C.K.A. Gupta,
Office Situated at T 201, Technopolis,
1-10-74, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500016.
2. Srinivas Gupta (CEO),
S/o. K.C.K.A. Gupta,
CECON BUILDERS,
Suit 2 T201, Technopolis Galda Towers,
1-10-74, Lane Next to Pantaloons,
500016. ..Opposite Parties
Begumpet, Hyderabad -
Counsel for the Complainants :Mrs. G.Uma Rani
Counsel for the Opposite Parties :Sri A.Bhuvanasundar Reddy -
OP1 &2
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWOo ******* (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial) Order
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainants under Section 17 (1) a ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
2a). To pay the amount of sale consideration received Rs.35,55,000/- with interest @ 24% per a n n u m .
b. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, suffering and escalation of construction Cost.
c). To pay legal charges of Rs.25,000/- being the legal charges of this complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The case of the complainants is that they resided at Lingampally from 2006 to 2012 and after that shifted to GNR Enclave, Chandanagar and through their friends they came to know that a Apartment has been constructed adjacent to the new PUJITHA RESIDENCY where they stayed at and that Lingampally with an intention to purchase a lat at Lingampally they contacted the Sales Manger of Opposite Parties and after several negotiations they have booked Flat No.402 which was of 100 Sft., at the rate of Rs.2,620/- per Sft., and the said flat was booked by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance on 22.12.2012.
After a week the complainants intended to buy a more spacious apartment as such requested the Opposite Parties to provide for the Flat No.401 admeasuring 1200 Sft for which the Opposite Party No.2 had agreed and quoted the cost of Flat as Rs.2,750/- per Sft., instead of Rs.2,650/- per Sft., and apart from that demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as the advance amount.
other alternative the Having no complainants agreed to purchase the Flat No.401 and paid sum of a Rs.5,00,000/-. On 22.12.2012 the complainants paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ again on 21.01.2013 paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash. On 14.02.2013 the complainants paid Rs.24,90,000/- by availing a loan from LIC and subsequently, Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cheque on 02.03.2013 and Rs.3,20,000/- by way of cash on 26.03.2013. This way the complainants paid total sum of rs.35,65,000/-.
a Apart from this the complainants had spent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for wood work and Rs.40,000/- for grill and registration of Rs.3,50,000/- the registration amount was paid to the Opposite Partics by way of cash. In this way the complainants have totally spent a sum of Rs.45,55,000/- for the purchase of thec flat No.401 on 30.03.2013 the opposite parties have executed a Sale Deed in the name of the complainants and the possession of the llat was handed over in the month of November, 2013 and at the time of handing over, the flat was in incomplete state and the month Occupancy Certificate was issued to the complainant in the of January, 2014.
The opposite party had promised to provide world class construction with the quality work and also agreed to provide lift, generator, electricity, and water etc., but the lift is not working and the generator is not provided nor there is any direct electricity, nor separate electricity meters are provided. Apart from these the walls and ceilings have developed cracks and the water started Due leaking from the roof and the water is seeping into the walls. to such defective conditions none of the tenants of the complainants are willing to reside at the said apartment as such the complainants was compelled to let out the lat at a very low rent. And the said tenant is also complaining about the leakage of the water from the roof and there is a threat that the said roof may collapse at any time. All these defective acts of the opposite party have not only caused financial loss to the complainant but also had caused severe mental agony. Due to which this complainants got issued a legal notice on 26-01.2017 to the opposite party explaining the failure on the part of the opposite party to provide the amenities and the defective constructions and also demanded for refund of the sale consideration and compensation for the mental agony. The opposite party though received the same failed to respond or repay. As such having no other alternative the complainants is before this commission seeking refund of total sale consideration with interest and compensation and costs.
3. Written version of opposite parties:
The opposite party filed the written version while admitting the receipt of Rs.35,05,000/- as the total cost of the flat but had segregated the same as under:
A cost ofthe flat@2,650/- for sft
1. Rs. 31,80,000/- towards the for 1200 sft.
2. Rs.2,00,000/- towards car parking.
3. Rs. 25,000/- towards corpus fund.
also paid sum of Apart from the above, the complainants had the taxes Rs.3,19,050/- as the registration charges which included VAT & Service Tax]. The opposite party further pleads that the present complaint is filed by the complainants based on false allegations with an intention to defame the opposite party. And that opposite party no.2 is only a managing partner of M/s. CECON BUILDERS as such he is not personally liable for any acts of the firmn.
The opposite party further pleads that the complaint is barred by limitation as the sale deed has been registered on 30.03.2013 and the present complaint is filed in 2017 which is beyond two years. And that the complainants had never approached this opposite party with any of the issues as raised in this complaint except for the first time in the legal notice issued on 24.01.2017. Inspite of the same though this opposite party had come forward to resolve all the issues with regard to cracks the complainants is reluctant to cooperate with the opposite parties.
With regard to the water shortage the opposite party had drilled in three bore wells and that the said bore wells had abundant water and if at all there is any scarcity of water it is because of the depletion of ground water and the same cannot be due to any fault of the opposite parties. The opposite party further pleads that the complainants have falsely made several and created and fabricated all the facts allegations only to enrich himself by filing this present case with all false allegations. As such the same be dismissed with exemplary costs.
The complainants has filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A18, and the Opposite parties filed their Evidence Affidavit and written version.
4. Points for consideration:
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the Opposite Party has been deficient/ negligent in their services ?
3. Whether the complainants is entitled for the reliefs sOught in the complaint ?
4. Ifyes, to what extent?
5. Point No.1:
have The grievance of the complainants is that they purchased a flat in opposite parties venture in the year 2013 where in the opposite party had promised certain amenities such as car parking, electricity connection, separate meter, water connection, children play area and the construction is also defective due to which the walls and roof had developed cracks and the water is leaking from the roof. In view of such deficiency the present complaint is filed seeking refund of total cost of the flat along with compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings in support of their case and they filed Ex.No.A1 to A18.
The opposite party opposed the complaint apart from factual aspect on the legal aspect of limitation stating that since the sale deed has been executed in the year 2013 and the present case is filed on 13.03.2017 which is beyond two years.
Admittedly the Agreement of Sale and the Sale Deed were executed on 21.01.2013 and 30.03.2013 respectively and both are two simple conveyance of title deeds without any promises or assurances made by the Opposite Parties either with regard to the provision of amenities or specifications of construction. Whereas the grievance of the complainants is with regard to the amenities and having purchased the flat in 2013 the first complaint raised by the complainants is by way of legal notice, dt.24.01.2017 under Ex.No.A1 which is beyond two years and the first prayer of the complainants is for refund of sale consideration amount but such claim is made beyond four years of sale, and the possession was also handed over to the complainants on 30.03.2013 as such the same is barred by limitation as per section-24(A) of Consumer 1986. The cause of action for the complainantss Protection Act sale dccd i.c., 30,03.2013 arosed on the date of execution of thc iled on 13.03.2017, which is and the present complainants is answered in favour of teyand two years, As such this point is oppoaite party.
6. Point Nos.2&3 The complainants has filed Ex.No.A3 Agreement of Sale, Ex.A4 Sale Decd, Ex.A13 bunch of mails, Ex Al4 Photographs, Ex.A15 CD.
As stated in point No.1 the Ex.No.A3 & A4, Agrcement of Sale &sale deed are simple deeds of conveyance of title and the grievancc of the complainants is with regard to provision of certain amenities such as lift, clectricity, water and the defective construction.
But the complainants had not filed any development/construction agrecment to substantiate that the opposite party had promiscd any such amenities nor had promised any spccilications of construction. There does not exists any relationship of the builder and purchaser between the opposite party and complainants the relationship is only that of a vendor and vendee.
Though under Ex.A14 & 15 photographs and C.D., the poor construction is visible but the date and time of the same is not mentioned, that apart in the absence of any promise/assurance given by opposite party for quality construction no can be liability cast upon the opposite parties.
Similarly, the bunch of mails filed under Ex.No.A13 are the ones, exchanged between the association and other flat owners, though these mails reveal that the complainants along with other flat owners are aggrieved by the non-provision of amenities such aas water and lift, but there is not even a single mail addressed by the complainants nor any reply mail by opposite party promising to provide the same, in the absences of any such commitments by the opposite parties no liability can be cast upon the opposite parties.
Coming to the reliefs sought by complainants the complainants had sought for "refund of total Sale consideration", compensation for mental agony and costs.
Refund of sale consideration can be claimed only in case he possession is not handed over, instant case the in the possession has been handed over in the year 2013. 1f at all the Complainants has any grievance with regard to the sale, the remedy for the sale lies before the Civil Court but not before a Consumer Commission. The complainants without making any effort to get the sale deed cancelled from any appropriate court cannot claim for refund of the sale consideration. It is not the case of the complainants that the sale is subject to the completion of development of the apartment or the sale deed is accompanied with the development agreement. Having purchased the flat without any promises from the builder the complainants cannot now complain about the non-provision of amenities.
In view of the above discussions as the complainants had miserably failed to establish any deficiencies on the part of the opposite parties. We are of the considered view that the complainants had failed to establish her case on merits.
7.Point No.4 In the result, the complaint is dismissed.