National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Sai Gokul Constructions vs A. Radhika Devi & 2 Ors. on 27 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 242 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2014 in Appeal No. 1093/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) WITH IA/559/2015,IA/560/2015 1. M/S. SAI GOKUL CONSTRUCTIONS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.N.SHARNATH,S/O N.MALLIKARJUN RAO, R/O PLOT NO-44 MANIVIKAS NAGAR, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD A.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LANKA SARATH & ANR. S/O LATE L. SUDHAKAR, R/O H.NO-1-4-792/ PART, 1-4-793 & 1-4-793/1, FLAT NO-301, IV FLOOR, BABA TOWERS, ST.NO-1.BAKARAM MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD A.P 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD, TANK ROAD, HYDERANAD A.P ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2014 in Appeal No. 1094/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) WITH
IA/559/2015,IA/560/2015 1. M/S. SAI GOKUL CONSTRUCTIONS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI N.SHARATH , S/O N,MALLIKARJUN RAO, R/O PLOT NO-44, MANOVIKAS NAGAR, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD A.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. A. RADHIKA DEVI & 2 ORS. W/O Y.B.L. NARASIMA RAO, H.NO-1-4-792/ PART, 1-4793 & 1-4-793/1, FLAT NO-302, IV FLOOR, BABA TOWERS, ST NO-1, BAKARAM, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD A.P 2. SRI.Y.B.L. NARASIMA RAO, H.NO-1-4-792/ PART, 1-4793 & 1-4-793/1, FLAT NO-302, IV FLOOR, BABA TPWERS, ST NO-1, BAKARAM, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD A.P 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD, TANK BUND ROAD, HYDERABAD A.P ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 244 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2014 in Appeal No. 1095/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) WITH IA/559/2015,IA/560/2015 1. M/S. SAI GOKUL CONSTRUCTIONS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.N.SHARNATH S/O N.MALIKARJUN RAO, R/O PLOT NO-44, MANOVIKAS NAGAR, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD A.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Y. MANJULA & 2 ORS. W/O H.MAHALINGA PRASAD, R/O 1-4-792/PART 1-4-793 & 1-4-793/1, FLAT NO-303, IV FLOOR, BABA TOWER, ST,NO-1, BAKARAM, MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD A.P 2. SRI H.MAHALINGA PRASAD, S/O H. REVANAPPA, R/O 1-4-792/PART 1-4-793 & 1-4-793/1, FLAT NO-303, IV FLOOR, BABA TOWER, ST,NO-1, BAKARAM, MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD A.P 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD, TANK BUND ROAD, HYDERABAD A.P ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. V. S. Sudhakar, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 27 Jul 2015 ORDER JUDGMENT JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The petitioner raised construction of a residential complex, comprising ground plus four floors in property no. 1-4-792, situated at Bakaram, the land underneath which, according to the learned counsel, was owned by some other persons. The complainants purchased flat in the aforesaid building from the petitioner though the sale documents in their favour were executed jointly by the petitioner and the land owners. The grievance of the complainants is that after taking possession of their respective flats, they came to know that construction of the fourth floor was unauthorized since permission had been taken only for construction of the three floors. According to them, the petitioner had made a misrepresentation to them that he had permission to construct ground plus four floors. Consequently, they had to make payment to Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for regularisation of the aforesaid excess construction. They approached the District Forum, seeking payment of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner.
2. The complaints were resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the complainants were fully aware that he had permission only to construct ground plus three floors and despite that, they had agreed to purchase flats on the fourth floor. He further pleaded that the complainants wanted to get the said flats regularised after purchase and thus they initially took the risk of purchasing flats which were unauthorisedly constructed.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 09.07.2013, directed the petitioner to make payment of the second and third instalment of the compounding fee paid to Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for regularisation of the excess construction @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. He was also directed to pay compensation quantified at Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. The District Forum declined to direct payment of the first instalment on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation as regards the said payment.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having being dismissed, vide impugned order dated 22.09.2014, the petitioner is before us by way of these revision petitions. The State Commission was also of the view that in fact, the District Forum should have directed the payment of all the three instalments by the petitioner/builder.
5. It is not in dispute that the construction of the fourth floor was an unauthorised construction, since the plans were got approved only for constructing ground plus three floors. It is also not in dispute that in terms of the rules of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, compounding fee was payable for regularisation of the excess construction. The petitioner having raised the fourth floor without obtaining the requisite approval from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, it is he and he alone, who has to pay the compounding fee charged by the said Corporation. There is no material on record to prove that the complainants had agreed, while purchasing the property, to pay the compounding fee which Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation would demand for regularising the fourth floor. In the absence of such an agreement, even if we presume that the complainants were aware that the construction of the fourth floor was unauthorised, the compounding fee would be payable by the builder and not by the complainants. Therefore, the Fora below, in our view, were more than justified in allowing the complaints to the extent the same have been allowed alongwith what can be termed as token compensation and token cost of litigation to the complainants.
6. Finding no merits in the revision petitions, the said petitions alongwith the accompanying applications are dismissed. We, however, make it clear that dismissal of these revision petitions shall not come in the way of the petitioner approaching any other Court or Forum for availing such remedy, if any, that may be available to him in law against the owners of the property.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER