National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mughal Maskan Aptts. Owners ... vs Mughal Constructions on 9 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ289(NC)
ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. Appellant filed O.P. No. 72 of 1995 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, contending that respondent, M/S. Mughal Constructions, envisaged a scheme for construction of flats and for that purpose issued a brochure. As per the specifications, it promised one Indian W.C. with high level tank and another European W.C. with low level tank in the flats and regular water Supply throughout; bore well water for household purposes and municipal water supply for drinking purpose with separate overhead tanks. Despite the aforesaid specification, it failed to honour, the commitment and delivered the possession of the flats to the members of the appellant Association on various dates commencing from January 1993 onwards. It was pointed out that since there are 40 flats in the complex the minimum consumption of water per day would be 40,000 litres. For constructing overhead tanks the respondent collected a sum of Rs. 4,500 from each of the flat owners.
2. For the purpose of water respondent obtained three domestic water connections of half-inch from the water works department which are totally inadequate for supply of water to the 40 families. Two bore wells dug by the respondent became inoperative even before the possession of the flats was handed over to the owners. On repeated requests the respondent agreed to dig one more bore well on condition that the complainant Association meets the cost of zet assembly pipe lines, electrical wrings, etc. The Association also dug one more bore-well by its own expenses. Still however, they are unable to get sufficient supply of water. It is pointed out that if the respondent had gone for a singe bore-well of six-and-half-inches with intimation pump system, many bore wells with futile results would have been decided. Hence, the complaint.
3. After considering the contentions raised by the parties, the State Commission by its judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2002 partly allowed the complaint for the deficiency in service in not handing over the title deeds, building permits, plans, electrical and telephone wiring, drainage lines and other papers, deeds and documents which are required for administration and control of the complex, and directed the respondent (i) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation and (ii) to obtain municipal water connection of one-and-half inch diameter, in case all the owners contribute the expenditure on intimation by the respondent about the approximate cost. It was also directed that the respondent shall take steps to obtain the said water connection from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board as early as possible. It was clarified that if the complainant Association does not contribute within the period of three weeks from the date of intimation about the approximate amount; the respondent will not have any further responsibility for obtaining such water connection thereafter.
4. At the time of hearing of the appeal, both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties took us through relevant documents for appreciating the contentions raised in the appeal.
5. The main dispute between the parties is with regard to supply of water and who should bear the charges for having water connection from the Municipal Corporation and Sewerage Board.
(a) For this purpose, our attention is drawn to Clauses 22, 23 and 24 of the Tripartite Agreement dated 13th December, 1991, which read as under:
Cluse 22: The purchaser hereby agreed and undertakes to pay all such amounts as may be required by the concerned Government Departments for water works electrical and such other amenities services and facilities which are separate and apart from the total cost consideration specified above. The said amount shall be paid within 3 (three) weeks from the date of demand made in writing by the builders in that behalf.
Cluse 23: That the purchaser has to pay to the builders the cost of external electrification such as meter boxes fixing of meters laying of cables, transformers and also other developmental works done for the complex.
Cluse 24: The purchaser hereby agrees that in the event of any amount becoming payable by way of premium to the Municipality or to the State Government or by way of betterment charges or development tax or any other tax or payments of a similar nature becoming payable by the builders the same shall be debited to the account of the purchaser in proportion to the area of the said residential flat.
(b) Thereafter, there is a letter dated 30th October, 1992 to the allottees of the Mughal Maskan Apartments, that construction was completed and the possession of the flats be taken within a period of 60 days by making regular payments. It also mentioned as under:
'Meanwhile, we are glad to say that required electrical and water supply sanctions are received from the concerned authorities. In this regard you are requested to pay the following amounts:
External electrification Rs. 12,500.00
and electrical transformer
Water supply and Rs. 4,500.00
drainage systems
--------------------
Rs. 17,000.00
--------------------
(Rupees seventeen thousand only)
Kindly make the payment at an early date in order to fulfil the conditions of entered tripartite agreement Clauses 22 and 23. If the payment is not made upto 15th of November, 1992 we shall not be held responsible for the deconnection of electricity and water which may please be noted".
(c) Again, there is a letter dated 12.7.1996 written by the appellants to the respondent which reads as under:
We are enclosing herewith copies of the water bills received from HMWS Board for the periods from 8/92; 9/92 and 11/92 to 3/96 totalling an amount of Rs. 82,331.
As admitted, your possession and management of the subject building was upto May 1993, you have to legitimately share the bills for the respective periods which comes to Rs. 14,973.
It would be highly appreciated if the above amount is paid at the soonest possible, pending case settlement. This bill's payments were not included in the suit.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully, For Mughal Maskan Apartment Owners sd/- xxxx (S. A. Munaff) Secretary Sent hand carried on 12.7.1996.
Refused by Builder sd/-xxxx 14.7.1996
(d) Next is the important document dated 29.4.1997 written by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to the Secretary of the appellant which, inter alia, states that three water connections of 15 diameter were sanctioned for the said apartments and the builder has not applied for water supply and Sewerage connections under multi-storeyed complex. Thereafter, appellant Mughal Maskan Apartments Owner Association, applied for adequate water supply and Sewerage connection under multi-storeyed category. To meet the water supply demand of residents of 40 flats of the complex: (i) a 40 mm diameter water connection, and (ii) a 150 mm diameter sewerage connection were sanctioned by order dated 13.4.1995 subject to payment of Rs. 3,50,600. It was also mentioned that the Association has not paid the connection charges and proportionate cost of pipe line amounting to Rs. 3,50,600. Since the original sanction order has lapsed, the Association has to pay the connection charges as per the Board's rules and proceedings dated 20.1.1997. The charges were in all Rs. 4,25,600.
(e) Thereafter, there is a letter dated 19.1.2002 written by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to the respondent, the Mughal Constructions, whereby the respondent was asked to deposit to Rs. 16,39,000 for laying down the pipeline of 40 mm diameter water connection and 200 mm diameter sewerage connection to the apartment complex. The respondent has written the said letter on the basis of the directions issued by the State Commission by impugned order.
6. It appears that members of the Association failed to comply with the direction and to contribute the amount, despite intimation.
The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the brochure given by the respondent which, inter alia, provides "regular water supply through more well for washing and municipal supply for drinking purposes with separate over-head tanks". It is contended that this has not been complied with by the respondent.
7. It is true that the aforesaid brochure provides that the contractor would see that there is a regular water supply through bore well and the municipal water supply for drinking purposes with separate overhead tanks. However, this brochure is subject to specific conditions mentioned in the tripartite agreement dated 13th December, 1991. The said conditions contemplate that the purchasers of the flats have agreed to pay such amounts as may be required by the Government Departments for water works, electrical and such other amenities, services and facilities which are separate and apart from the total cost of construction specified in the agreement. It also contemplates that the amount was to be paid by the flat purchasers within three weeks from the date of the demand made in writing by the builder in that behalf. The condition also contemplates that any amount becoming payable by way of premium to the municipality or to the State Government or such other tax it shall be borne by the purchaser in proportion to the area of the said residential flat. As early as on 30th October, 1992 appellants were informed that flats were ready for delivery of possession and that the amount mentioned therein was required to be paid on the basis of the agreement Clauses 22 and 23. There is, further, acceptance in the (sick matter) management of the building was taken over by the appellants and for the prior period amount was to be paid by the respondent.
8. From the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that on the basis of the agreement, appellants applied for water connection. They were asked to pay the amount of Rs. 3,60,000. As they failed to pay water and sewerage connections were not granted. Again, they applied and they were asked to pay Rs. 4,25,600. This amount was not paid, but the complaint was filed. The aforesaid documentary evidence leaves no doubt that for water and sewerage connections appellants were required to pay the amount. That was not done. And, therefore, the State Commission rightly passed the impugned order. The State Commission also directed the respondent to apply for the same and to collect the money from the appellants for paying it to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. That also was done by the respondent. If the appellants failed to pay the amount, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service by the respondent.
9. In the result, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.