State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahendra Nath Singh vs M/S Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (P) ... on 31 January, 2023
Daily Order BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2023 PRESENT SRI. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI : MEMBER Consumer Complaint No. 44/2011 Mahendra Nath Singh S/o. Sri. Thagai Singh, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Press Reporter, Health Sciences Journal, No.A8-304, Janapriya 1st Avenue, Arasinakunte Post, Nelamangala Tq, Bangalore Dist-562123. (By Sri. K. Chandra Shekar Achar) V/s ....Complainant 1. M/s. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (P) Ltd Corporate Office, Janapriya House, House No.3-6-115, Street No.18, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-560029, Branch Office: Door No.478, 12th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027 Rep. by Sri. K. Ravindra Reddy Chairman & M D. 2. Sri. K. Kranthi Kiran Reddy Executive Director M/s. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (P)Ltd. Corporate Office, Janapriya House House No.3-6-115, Street No.18 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-560029 3. Sri.Srinivas Chaluvadi Chief Financial Officer M/s.Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (P)Ltd. Corporate Office, Janapriya House House No.3-6-115, Street No.18 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-560029 4. Sri.Gopalreddy Executive Director M/s. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (P)Ltd Corporate Office, Janapriya House House No.3-6-115, Street No.18 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-560029 5. Sri.Surendra Reddy Executive Director M/s.Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (P)Ltd Corporate Office, Janapriya House House No.3-6-115, Street No.18 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-560029 6. Sri.Nandanadan Reddy Executive Director M/s.Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (P)Ltd Corporate Office, Janapriya House House No.3-6-115, Street No.18 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-560029 7. M/s Engineers Syndicate (India) Ltd. Door No.478, 12th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027 Rep. by its Managing Director (By Sri. Bhanu Prasad) ....Opposite Parties O R D E R
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service in not completing the construction and also not providing amenities as agreed and not properly installing STP, not providing rain water harvest and other facilities and prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.83.00 lakhs with interest and other reliefs as deemed fit. Later complainant amended the pleadings and sought for prayer for cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.06.2009 and direction for payment of Rs.30.00 lakhs towards purchase of new flat along with Rs.5.00 lakhs towards cost of interior fixtures and fittings, Rs.2,97,050/- which was spent towards repairs, Rs.5.00 lakhs compensation for inconvenience, Rs.5.00 lakhs towards mental agony and financial suffering.
The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant entered into agreement for sale on 14.12.2007 towards purchase of the flat bearing No. A8-304, measuring 790 sq.ft. in 3rd floor Block No.A situated in Sy.No.124/1B (Old Sy.No.124) situated at Arasinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamngala Tq., Bangalore District and also entered into construction agreement at cost Rs.8,00,586/- and land cost is of Rs.1,47,414/-. There afterwards complainant has promptly made all payments towards purchase of the said flat as follows:
16-11-2007 receipt No. 17416- Rs.25,000/- by cash 20-11-2007 receipt No. 17437 - Rs.35,000/- by cheque 25-12-2007 receipt No. 17576 - Rs.4,61,400/- by cheque 28-03-2008 receipt No. 18304 - Rs.1,90,000/- by cheque 05-08-2008 receipt No. 18756 - Rs.2,26,000/- by cheque 05-08-2008 receipt No. 18757 - Rs.10,000/- by cheque 24-03-2009 receipt No. 19269 - Rs.80,000/- by cheque 24-03-2009 receipt No. 19270 - Rs.58,000/- by cheque 24-03-2009 receipt No. 19721 - Rs.5,000/- by cheque 24-03-2009 hand written receipt - Rs.1,38,000/- by cheque Totally complainant had paid an amount of Rs.12,28,400/-. There afterwards on 20.06.2009 OPs have executed a sale deed in favour of complainant before Sub-registrar office. Though OPs have received Rs.12,28,400/- it was only mention of Rs.6,00,400/- in the sale deed. After registration of the sale deed OPs have issued possession certificate confirming delivery of possession on 24.03.2009, but, at the time of delivery of the possession certificate OPs have not handed over the copy of documents and building plan with the contention that they are going to deliver the same at the time of formation of the association. After taking possession of the flat, the OPs have handed over the property document along with building plan where it is noticed that the authority have sanctioned only 4 flats of two bedroom in the 3rd floor against six flats referred in the brochure. The flat No.304 existing in the middle of Eastern side which does not found a place in the sanctioned plan. Further complainant also received information that the Nelamangala Town Planning Authority noticed there is violation of building plan and threatened to demolish with further order and instructions from their higher authority with police protection. Noticing the said, complainant immediately issued notice to OP No.1 on 24.09.2009 and demanded for rectifying all illegal construction and also to complete the above said pending works and to shift STP motor which was located in the ground floor area of 8 blocks. Even on 30.12.2010 the complainant along with other 16 persons have given a joint representation to resolve the problem caused to them. The complainant's wife suffered mentally and physically due to noise pollution from motor of STP and caused hearing problem due to which the complainant and his wife took medical treatment and spent huge amount.
Complainant further alleged that the BDA had published demolition drive in newspaper on 11.11.2010 and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka confirmed legal action of said BDA, but, OP failed to give reply to the representation made by complainant and other persons. Further ad-hoc committee of members of owners' association has issued notice disclosing that owner is not interested to resolve the problem of leakage and seepage in the individual flats.
Complainant further alleged that Marketing Manager of OP Mr.Narendra Reddy had collected Rs.1,38,000/- by cash from the complainant stating that said amount was towards service tax, car parking, STP and other charges. Inspite of collection of the said amount these OPs have not properly provided STP and the OPs have not obtained proper certificate from the competent authority and not followed the guidelines issued by Pollution Control Board.
Further the complainant had valued the property through approved valuer who issued certificate that flat valued at Rs.17,72,000/-. The complainant also approached one Civil Engineer in order to estimate the repair cost of the flat and the said cost is Rs.2,67,050/-. The complainant suffered leakage and seepage in the flat since he received possession from the OP. The complainant had invested his hard earned money and also by borrowing certain amount from private persons to purchase the said flat. The flat sold by OPs are not up to the mark and complainant also deprived from purchase of similar property in Bangalore. Now he has to invest minimum Rs.30 to 35 lakhs for two bed room apartment and additional cost of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards interior and other expenses. Hence, complainant entitled for compensation towards deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 7.
The complainant noticed that the quality of construction is low standard and he has already spent Rs. 30,000/- for temporary repair and got estimation for the total pending work at Rs.2,67,050/- and other incidental charges. Hence, OPs are liable to pay compensation in this regard also. Further due to establishment of STP near A8 Block complainant and his wife suffered ill health for that complainant is entitled for global compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards cost of treatment and other inconvenience. The complainant being retired person from Indian Navy and presently rendering service as a press reporter had lost valuable time and concentration for repairing the damaged structure and totally depressed. His entire family suffered mentally and financially and undergone huge loss due to illegal sale transaction by the OP. Hence, complainant prayed for cost of new flat to the tune of Rs.30.00 lakhs and compensation for deficiency in service from OP Nos. 1 to 7.
After service of notice OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that complainant brought this complaint against these OP Nos. 1 to 7 for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.06.2009 or in the alternative to buy back the said flat bearing No. A8-304 in 3rd Floor and also prayed for a compensation of Rs.30.00 lakhs towards costs of new flat to enable the complainant to purchase two bedroom apartment in and around area and also claimed compensation.
OP No.1 further contended that "Janapriya Engineers Syndicate" has been in the business of developer both at Hyderabad and Bangalore from the last 20 years and some of the projects developed by the OP No.1 in Bangalore is "Janapriya Township" at Kadapagere, "Janapriya Nivas" at Chikkasandra, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, "Janapriya Heights" at Yeshwanthpur, "Janapriya Heavens" at Allalasandra, Yelahanka, "Janapriya Sai Darshan" at Whitefield, "Janapriya Abodes" at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, "Janapriya Lakeview Phase I and II at Kodichikkanahalli, "Janapriya Greenwood" at Chikkabanavara and whereas "Janapriya Engineer Syndicate" has been selected as the most preferred builder in South India for construction of apartments for LIG and MIG.
Complainant had entered into agreement of sale dated 14.12.2007 for purchase of flat bearing No.304 measuring 790 sq.ft. and also entered into agreement for construction to the tune of Rs.8,00,586/- and cost of land is Rs.1,47,414/-. As per the agreement of sale dated 14.12.2007 the developer i.e., this OP furnished all the copies of the documents related to the schedule land in question and also furnished documents pertaining to sanction and permission granted by the Nelamangala Town Planning Authority and after being satisfied with the owner / developer title to the property, complainant entered into agreement of sale dated 14.12.2007. After receipt of the consideration amount they have executed sale deed in favour of complainant and they have allotted a parking slot OPC-61. Further on 24.03.2009 the complainant confirmed the delivery of possession, but, it is false to say that this OP has constructed building violating the sanctioned plan and it is also false to say that 4 flats with two bed room has been sanctioned in 3rd floor. It is also false to say that flat 304 does not find a place in the sanctioned plan. The allegations made are without any basis. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
This OP has constructed the entire apartment in accordance with the sanctioned plan and on account of minor deviation which is compoundable under the Akrama Sakrama scheme and in this regard, the OP has paid a sum of Rs.68,000/- to the Nelamangala Town Planning Authority and receipt also issued by the said authority. This OP is waiting for orders to be passed by the said Planning Authority for regularization of minor deviation, but, at no point of time the officials of the Nelamangala Planning Authority had visited the spot nor did they issue any kind of notice seeking demolition of any portion of the construction put up within the schedule property. Hence, there is no deficiency in service/ violation of the sanctioned plan.
This OP further contended that they have installed STP plant within the north east corner of the schedule property and said STP plant has been installed within the designated place and even at the time of installation, the officials of Pollution Control Board have inspected the spot and they have also given permission to run the STP Plant and there has been no violation as alleged by the complainant. They have installed the STP as per the norms given by Pollution Control Board. The allegation made is baseless. The installed STP plant is almost 20 ft. away from the complainant's flat. There is no noise or sound pollution caused in the residence of Block A or residence of other blocks. They have installed STP only after obtaining all necessary permissions and sanctions from the Pollution Control Board.
OP further contended that the demolition drive which was published in news paper on 11.11.2010 by BDA is not within the knowledge of this OP and at no point of time the BDA has issued any notice to this OP with respect to demolition and the question of replying to the said paper publication does not arise at all. It is only a baseless allegation in order to gain sympathy.
It is true that Rs.1,38,000/- was collected by one of the Marketing Manager of OP No.1 and same was utilized for the purpose of service tax, parking, STP and other charges and it is within the knowledge of complainant himself. Hence, allegation made by complainant is baseless. The OP further contended that it is false to state that due to sound pollution and disturbance, complainant and his wife suffered ill health. The complainant claimed huge compensation without any basis. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has taken possession of the flat. After taking possession of the flat he alleged falsely with respect to quality of construction. They have constructed the apartment with good quality materials and sold the same to the complainant which is much lesser than market value. The complainant has filed this complaint in order to gain wrongfully. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP and hence, prays dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked Ex.C1 to C64. On behalf of OPs Sri. K. Ravindra Reddy, Managing Director of OP No.1 company filed affidavit evidence and marked Ex.R1 to R4.
Now the points for consideration are:
Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought ?
What is the order?
The findings to the above points are:
Negative Negative As per final order.
Heard.
On going through the pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents produced by both parties there is no dispute that complainant entered into agreement of sale dated 14.12.2007 and subsequently, on payment of consideration amount have executed sale deed in favour of complainant and handed over possession of the Flat No. A 8-304 measuring 790 sq.ft. in 3rd floor of Block No.A situated in Sy.No.124/1B (Old Sy.No.124) at Arasinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District. After receiving possession and occupancy certificate, complainant alleged the following irregularities:
Executed a sale deed in respect of a portion of the building which is not existing in the approved plan by making false statement and broachers The OP had charged and collected higher and excess amount of Rs.3,25,400/- from the complainant The OP had delivered the building iwht poor quality of construction and already spent Rs.30,000/-
The parking space sold in favour of the complainant is open parking even though assured about covered parking by receiving huge amount as sale consideration and construction cost The OP did not form Association or society of the flat owners and failed to handover the original documents and details for maintenance account and other deposits The OP did not provide Rain Water Harvest and provided defective water storage tank and other basic amenities.
The OP did not account for the maintenance charge, electrical transformer installation and other expenses The OP had installed STP plant near the dwelling flat which caused bad smell and huge noise out of STP motors and shifted/ changed its place to accommodate more parking space and caused noise pollution and vibration to the residential flats in A-8 Block Collected service tax and other charges in contrary to the settled law and liable to refund to the complainant.
There is a threat of demolition of the flat occupied by the complainant and due to continuous noise pollution, the wife of the complainant had taking treatment for hearing problem.
As per the marketing brochure had failed to provide Teak wood main door and not provided the specifications as per the assurance.
We noticed here that the complainant after alleging above said irregularities had not produced any materials before this Commission to show that the STP plant which is installed is against the guidelines and permission given by Pollution Control Board. No evidence was produced by complainant to show that wife of the complainant suffered ill health due to sound pollution caused by STP plant, in the absence of which huge claim cannot be justified. Furthermore, noticing version and other documents there is no violation rendered by OP at the time of construction. The OP had paid an amount of Rs.68,000/- to the Nelamangala Town Planning Authority for compounding the minor deviations and also applied for regularization under Akrama and Sakrama. We have not noticed any threat or notice issued to OP for the purpose of demolition of the entire construction for violation. Further complainant cannot claim refund of the amount paid towards purchase of the flat after execution of sale deed. Once the sale deed executed in favour of complainant he ceases to be 'Consumer'. Whereas he alleges facilities are not provided. Therefore, the complaint is admitted, but, cancellation of sale deed is not within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant sought for compensation as stated above without any basis and he has failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 7. We find mere allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 to 7 without producing any required materials to establish / substantiate the allegation claim of the complainant cannot be entertained. The complainant utterly failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On perusal of the entire documents produced by complainant we do not find any irregularity or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Such claim is not justifiable. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CV*