State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kondapur Lahari Homes vs M/S Lahari Impex (P) Ltd., on 19 December, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD. C.C.No.52 OF 2008 Between: M/s Kondapur Lahari Homes Owners Association Rep. by its President, Sri Ravi Kumar Miriyala regd. Off:Plot No.3, Lahari Homes, Masjid Banda Kondapur, Hyderabad-032 Complainant AND 1. M/s Lahari Impex (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director Smt G.Venkata Lakshmi W/o Sri G.Hari Babu R/o 1-3-8/2/A, Kondapur Village R.R.Dist. presently R/o Plot No.35A Road No.6, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-033 2. Sri Alapati Venkateshwar Rao, Managing Partner, M/s Lahari Homes R/o 1-3-8/2/A Kondapur Village, R.R.Dist. presently R/o Flat No.303 Krish Meadows, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-072 3. M/s Lahari Groups, rep. by its Managing Partner Smt G.Venkata Lakshmi W/o G.Hari Babu, Regd. Off: Lahari Group, Rd.No.37 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-033 Opposite parties Counsel for the complainant Sri Y.V.Narasimha Charyulu Counsel for the opposite parties Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE NINETEETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral Order:(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Honble Member.)
1. The Complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of `83,50,000/- towards incomplete work of common amenities and to pay compensation of `10 lakh along with costs of `5 lakh.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the opposite parties who are the Builders and Developers of House Sites and engaged in construction of independent houses floated a venture by name Lahari Homes at Kondapur Village R.R.Dist to construct with gated enclosure 30 duplex houses in Sy.Nos.165 and 167. The opposite parties have also promised to provide common amenities such as club house, park, foot paths, grand main entrance with security room and gate, street lighting, re-pavement of roads, separate septic tank, pump room, intercom facility, gymnasium, meditation hall and children play area etc. The members of complainant association entered into construction agreements individually and paid the sale consideration of plot and construction cost of houses. The complainant association paid society formation and registration charges, security deposit equivalent to six months maintenance charges, society membership fees to the opposite parties towards fund as agreed under clause no.12 of Construction Agreement. The opposite parties did not complete the common amenities even after several visits to them.
3. The association passed a resolution on 26.9.2008 authorizing Ravi Kumar Miriyala to attend and sign on papers related to the dispute of common amenities and to obtain value assessment report from the engineer/valuer. The opposite parties gave reply dated10.4.2008 to the letter of the complainant association wherein the opposite parties promised to complete the common amenities by 15.5.2008 but failed to do so. On 26.7.2008 the complainant association wrote letter demanding the opposite parties to complete the common amenities but the opposite parties failed to respond to the letter. There is no proper drain out system to septic tank provided by the opposite parties due to which the members of the complainant association have been facing inconvenience.
4. The opposite party no.1 filed counter contending that the signatory of the complaint has no locus or right to file the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party no.1 is one of the co-vendors of the plots in Sy.No.165, 166 and 167 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.Dist. On completion of the sale the opposite party no.1 company has severed its relationship with the members of the complainant association. The dispute is with regard to not providing common amenities by the builder i.e., opposite party no.2 as such the opposite party no.1 has no privity of contract with the complainant association.
5. The opposite party no.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the complainant association has shown 20 members as its members out of totally 30 house owners in the layout. Out of 20 members 19 members signed construction agreement out of whom 5 members are not having any privity of contract with M/s Lahari Homes. Fourteen members of complainant association already signed handing over letters expressing their full satisfaction on the construction and also stated that they have no claims against M/s Lahari Homes. Five members on their own volition cancelled their agreements. The remaining 5 members have no construction agreement with M/s Lahari Homes. The opposite parties have no privity of contract for executing construction agreements with the members of the complainant association. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are owners of land and the opposite party no.3 is a non entity. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 along with six others jointly sold the individual plots to different purchasers who include the members of the complainant association.
6. The opposite parties have nothing to do with the construction of duplex houses in the venture. M/s Lahari Homes is a partnership firm represented by the opposite party no.2 entered into individual construction agreements with some of the members of the complainant association. M/s Lahari Homes constructed houses strictly according to the terms of the agreements. The common amenities are not promised by M/s Lahari Homes. Some of the purchasers to whom club house promise was made received back `1,00,000/- each from M/s Lahari Homes and the remaining 6 members of complainant association do not have any privity of contract with M/s Lahari Homes. Some of the members of the complainant association did not pay the total construction cost. M/s Lahari Homes had accomplished all the common amenities mentioned in special feature clause in the construction agreement.
7. The parks and roads are registered in the name of Serlilingampally Municipality, Lahari Homes has no right to interfere with those common areas. Clause 12 of the Construction Agreement is not invoked or implemented. None of the members of the complainant association paid the amount mentioned under clause
12. The complainant society is registered on 5.2.2008 and the MOA and other papers signed by the husband of one Padma Miriyala. The authorization dated 26.9.2008 authorizing Ravi Kumar Miriyala to obtain value assessment report from the Engineer/valuer but the report is dated 25.9.2008 which is prior to the authorization. The construction of some of the houses in the project are taken up by the plot owners themselves at their own taste. The construction of the club house as such could not be taken up.
M/s Lahari Homes had completed all the minor pending works. There are no pending common amenities to be completed.
8. The complainant is not the representative of all the residents of Lahari Homes. Hence, it has no locus standi to seek the relief. Out of 20 members of the complainant association 13 members had given in writing that they do not have any claim against M/s Lahari Homes.
The thirteen members of the complainant association are estopped from making any claim. Four members, S.Venkataramana Reddy, Hari Anumolu, Sunil Thummala and Vidyadar Buddhi Raju have not entered into construction agreement with M/s Lahari Homes. The other two members T.Ramesh Babu and Vikas Singh have cancelled their construction agreements. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
9. The opposite party no.2 has filed additional counter affidavit stating that the development agreements with the opposite party no.2 firm were entered on 24.12.2005, 5.1.2006, 5.2.2006, 14.2.2006, 15.2.2006, 20.2.2006, 25.2.2006, 27.2.2006, 5.3.2006, 25.3.2006, 29.3.2006 and 20.5.2006. Therefore, the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation. It is stated that as per condition no.18 of the Construction Agreement in case of any differences between the parties, the same has to be referred to arbitration. Thirteen members of the complainant association issued letters expressing their satisfaction over the construction and they have waived their right. The documents filed through I.A.No.2210 of 2010 are fabricated for the purpose of the case and they do not contain the signature of the payee. Some of them are not valid and legal documents. The complainant association has not approached this Commission with clean hands. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. The opposite party no.3 has filed counter affidavit stating that M/s Lahari Groups shown in the cause title is a non-entity.
The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. M/s Lahari Homes is unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. The opposite party no.3 has no concern with the affairs of the complainant association. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. The President of the complainant association, Ravi Kumar Miryala has filed his affidavit and the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A15 and the affidavits of Padma Miryala, Laxmipratap Varadarajan, Katragadda Satya Prasad, Venkat Chenna Pragada, Vidyadhara Bujji Raju, Nageswara Rao Veera Venkata Marellapuri, Palla Satish Kumar, Mogilishetty Goutham, Kamalakar Karla Palli, Satennapally Ravi Venkatesh, Satyendra Kumar Sinha, Sunil Tumma, Venkataramana Reddy, Banu Anumolu, Vikas Singh, Somendra Jayaram, Vasundara Sripati, Byapu Pawan Reddy, Patukuchi Venkateswara Prasad and Yarlagadda Sudhir.
12. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Director of the opposite party no.1, G.Venkata Lakshmi, the opposite party no.2 Alapati Venkateswara Rao and the Managing Partner of the opposite party no.3, G.Venkata lashmi have filed their affidavits and the douments EXs.B1 to B96.
13. The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in providing the amenities to the building?
iii) To what relief?
14. POINT NO1: The complaint is filed by M/s Kondapur Lahari Homes Owners Association. The first opposite party has raised objection that the president of the complainant association cannot maintain the complaint. The second opposite party pleaded that the complaint in the form of representative nature is not maintainable in the eye of law since 14 purchasers of flats of which 13 members belong to the complainant association admitted that they are satisfied with the nature of the construction of the building and they had no claim against M/s Lahari Homes. It is stated that the complainant association representing 20 out of 30 members in the venture has no locus or legal right to file the present complaint on behalf of the entire project.
15. In third paragraph of the compliant it is averred that the Complaint Association is registered with the Registrar of Societies, R.R. Distirct on 5-02-2008 and submitted its Memorandum of Association to the Registrar. The president of the complainant association stated in his affidavit that the Complainant Association passed resolution on 26-09-2008 wherein 20 members who were present on that day signed and those members of the Complainant Association who had not entered into construction agreement with the opposite parties signed the resolution as the opposite parties promised to provide Club House as also on account of the problem posed by the Drainage Septic Tank which is a common facility to each and every individual flat owner.
16. The Registrar of societies, Ranga Reddy District has issued the Certificate of Registration showing the Complainant Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Memorandum of Association submitted before the Registrar goes to show that the Complainant Association was formed with no profit motive and no commercial activity is involved in its working and the aims and objectives of the Complainant Association is to to protect the interests and rights of the members of the Association and to provide amenities to the owners /occupants Enclosed to the Memorandum of Association is the particulars of the Executive Committee of which the president is the same person who has filed the present complaint in the capacity of the president of the Complainant Association. 20 members of the M/s Kondapur Lahari Homes Owners Association has signed the resolution authorizing the president of the Association to file the complaint. 17 flat owners have filed their affidavits before this Commission stating that they had authorized the president of the Association to file and prosecute the complaint. As such it cannot be said that the Complainant Association does not represent the entire members and that the complaint is not maintainable.
17. POINT NO 2: Each of the members of the Complainant Association entered into construction agreements with the opposite parties. The present complaint is filed seeking for providing of the amenities categorized as Special Features in the Construction Agreement. The special features or rather the special ammonites agreed to be provided under schedule-II annexed to the agreement of the Construction Agreement are :
1.Central street lighting system for main roads,
2.Fully secured compound wall,
3.Intercom facility to all the units connecting security. 4.Centrally located landscaped garden connected to club. 5.Club facilities consisting provision of multipurpose hall with attached toilets.
6.Meditation Hall etc.,
7.Parks with play ground equipments.
8. Loft tank for each unit.
9.Provision for lighting arrester,
10.Providing Avenue plantation on either side of the road 12.Park development with designer landscaping 13.Construction of grand maintenance structure, gate 14.security room .
18. The complainant association addressed letter complaining of not providing of certain amenities and the second opposite party in his reply dated 10.11.2008 stated that there was delay in responding to the letter of the complainant association and the amenities such as providing the water motors were made belatedly and the opposite parties would complete the construction of entrance gate and communications and intercom by 15.5.2008. The club house would be completed at the earliest. The reply indicates the second opposite partys readiness to complete the pending work relating to the special features agreed to be provided in terms of the agreement. The plea of the opposite parties is that some of the purchasers to whom club house promise was made received back `1,00,000/- from M/s Lahari Homes represented by A.Venkateswara Rao The taking back of the amount of `1,00,000/- by some of the members of the complainant association and the endorsement in the handing over letters that they were satisfied by the construction work and they would have no claim against the opposite parties lost its validity and effect in the light of the contents of the letter addressed by the second opposite party that the club house would be constructed and handed over to the Complainant Association. As also they have filed affidavits in support of the claim of the complainant association. The letter would prove that the amenities agreed to be provided were not provided as per the terms of the Construction Agreement.
19. The clause in agreement that in case of any dispute between the individual flat owner and the opposite part no.3 provides for settlement by arbitrator. The plea of the opposite parties that in view of the arbitration clause in the construction agreement, this Commission cannot entertain the complaint is untenable as in the catena of decisions the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Honble Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
20. In Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385 rejecting the contentions of the opposite party that the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could not continue in view of the Arbitration Clause in the agreement entered into between the parties, Supreme Court observed as under:
It must be held that the provisions of the Act are to be construed widely to give effect to the object and purpose of the Act. It is seen that Section 3 envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law in force. It is true, as rightly contended by Shri Suri, that the words in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force would be given proper meaning and effect and if the complaint is not stayed and the parties are not relegated to the arbitration, the Act purports to operate in derogation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Prima facie, the contention appears to be plausible but on construction and conspectus of the provisions of the Act we think that the contention is not well founded. Parliament is aware of the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Contract Act, 1872 and the consequential remedy available under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., to avail of right of civil action in a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Act provides the additional remedy.
21. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed in a number of subsequent cases. Similarly, Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic and Another Vs. Additional Collector of Customs, A.P. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 721 , Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society reported in (2004) 1 SCC 305, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. reported in (2003) 7 SCC 233 and State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharthi House Building Coop. Society and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 412, has held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeks to provide remedy in addition to the remedy provided under other Acts.
22. In fact in W.P. No. 4205/2008 of the High Court of A.P. wherein his Lordship has considered all these decisions and opined that :
Having regard to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD with regard to Section 3 of the 1986 Act and the ratio in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, I am of the view that the 1986 Act, being a special enactment, which created an additional remedy in favour of the consumers by raising consumer disputes before the Fora constituted under the said Act, Section 8 of the 1996 Act does not have the effect of taking away such a remedy from the consumers as in the case of civil suits, which are in the nature of common law remedies. To my mind, the true purport of Section 3 of the 1986 Act is that if a party chooses to avail a remedy other than the consumer dispute, he shall be free to do so because the remedy under the 1986 Act is not in derogation of the other remedies available to such a party. But, conversely if he chooses to avail the remedy before the Consumer Fora, such a right cannot be denied to him on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, such as arbitration. Put it briefly, Section 3 of the 1986 Act is intended to provide an additional remedy to a party and the same is not meant to deny such a remedy to him. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any legal infirmity and it cannot be said that the District Forum has inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint.
23. In the light of the aforementioned decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is not ousted despite an arbitration clause incorporated in the agreement entered into, between the parties.
24. The opposite party no.2 has stated that the parks and roads are registered in the name of Serlingampally Municipality, once they are registered, Lahari Homes has no right to interfere with those common areas. We do not accept the plea as the opposite parties obligation to provide the parks and roads was not performed in terms of the construction agreement. The question of the rights of the opposite parties and the Municipality comes into picture only when they had been constructed. The Complainant Association addressed letter on 26.7.2008 requesting the opposite parties to complete the following amenities appearing under the head special features of the Construction Agreement.
1. Club House, 2. Park, 3. Foot Paths, 4. Grand Main Entrance with Security room and gate, 5.
Street Lighting, 6. Repavement of roads, 7. Septic Tanks, 8. Water Supply, 9. Intercom, 10. Gated community
25. The complainant association has referred to repavement of the roads in the letter dated 26.7.2008 and these amenities are not found under the head of special features mentioned in the construction agreement. Likewise, the complainant association has not sought for the amenities mentioned in the construction agreement such as, provision of lighting arrestor, avenue plantation with designer landscaping, centrally located landscaped garden. The complainant association not seeking for these amenities would show that they have been already been provided by the opposite parties.
26. Insofar as the amenities mentioned in the letter dated 26.7.2008 addressed to the opposite party no.2, the opposite parties failed to establish that the aforementioned amenities have been provided to the building in terms of the construction agreement.
27. K.V.Suresh licensed Civil Engineer visited M/s Lahari Homes site at Kondapur. According to the engineer, there were defects in the drainage system and there was no provision for sewerage treatment plant. The club house was not constructed. So is the case with landscaping, security compound wall, consolidation of ground. In regard to the club house he has stated that the area is available for construction of the club house. The landscape garden is not provided by the opposite parties in the gated community though the area earmarked is available at the site and the so is the matter with the park which has not been provided along with play ground, equipments.
28. The opposite parties have filed voluminous documents amounting to 96 in number and marked as Exs.B1 to B96. Ex.B1 is the copy of layout no.871/MP2/H/2004 dated 21.12.2005 issued by the HUDA. There is no dispute in regard to the layout sanctioned by the HUDA. Ex.B2 is the agreement and deed of mortgage executed by the opposite parties in favour of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority wherein it is stated that the layout was sanctioned subject to the conditions mentioned therein which include laying of underground sewers along with the roads of the layout and also construction of septic tanks as per ISI standards. Ex.B3 is the relinquishment deed dated 14.12.2005 executed by HUDA in favour of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had executed deed of gift settlement for charitable purpose and general purpose. These documents are not of any help to the case of the opposite parties.
The proceedings of the Commissioner Serlingampally, Municipality Ex.B5 would show that the opposite parties have to obtain approval of HUDA for the amenities to be provided, before undertaking development building activity and the builder is required to ensure that the roads and open spaces shown in the layout have to be developed with necessary plantation and greenery.
29. The opposite parties have to establish their obligation of performance of the contents of the proceedings issued by the Commissioner Municipality Serlingampally. Exs.B7 to B14 are the registered agreement of sale executed by the members of the complainant association in favour of opposite party no.3 and Exs.B15 to B48 are the registered sale deeds executed by the opposite party no.2 in favour of the members of the complainant association. The sale of the flats and also construction of the flats is not disputed. As such these documents are of least relevance for the determination of the core issue of the subject matter.
30. Exs.B49 to B68 are the agreements for construction/development entered into between some of the members of the association and the opposite parties. The parties are not at dispute in regard to the execution of the construction agreement or in relation to the contents of the construction agreement as to the common amenities as also the other amenities mentioned under the head special features stated therein. As such these documents invite least consideration.
31. The documents exhibited as Ex.B69 to B82 are the copies of handing over and possession letters issued by the opposite party no.3 in favour of the some of the members of the complainant association with whom the construction agreement was entered into and the opposite parties based their defence on these documents stating that those members of the complainant association stating that they had taken possession of the houses and from that day there would be no claim on either side as also the opposite party no.3 acknowledged receipt of the entire amount from the purchaser of the flat. Stating that the purchaser of the flat who is the member of the complainant association has signed the possession letter expressing his/her satisfaction and as on the date there were claims on either side, the opposite parties contend that having signed the possession letter the member of the complainant association cannot contend that amenities sought for under the construction agreement have not been provided so far. At the cost of repetition we may say that the opposite party no.2 addressed letter dated 10.4.2008 assuring all the members of the complainant association that they would resolve the technical problem in fitting the water motors and provide the amenities such as main entrance gate and communications and intercom etc., as also they would commence the construction of the club house in the month of April 2008 and complete it within a short span of time. In the backdrop of the assurance extended by the opposite parties through the letter dated 10.4.2008, the opposite parties cannot take shelter under the possession letters issued by them to some of the flat purchasers.
32. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complaint is not maintainable in view of some of the members of the complainant association approaching the District Forum and courting adverse orders in respect of the amenities sought for herein. The plea is not tenable on the count that the opposite parties have not pleaded the same in their written version. Unless and until the issue involved in both the case is the same and has been decided the principle of resjudicata cannot be invoked by the opposite parties. In C.C.No.171 of 2008 filed before the District Forum Ranga Reddy by Buyyapu Pawan Reddy against the opposite parties herein, the relief sought for is for refund of the amount of `68,000/- stated to have been collected by the opposite parties towards tax and cost of incomplete work. C.C.No.172 of 2008 and C.C.No.205 of 2008 also had been filed for the same relief as sought for in C.C.No.171 of 2008. For the aforementioned reasons, the principle of resjudicata is not applicable as also for the reason that the members in individual capacity had filed the complaint seeking different reliefs than the relief sought for by the complainant association herein.
33. A perusal of the documents filed by the parties to the proceedings particularly the correspondence made between them and the report of the Civil Engineer would establish that the opposite parties had promised to provide the amenities under the head Special Features in the construction agreement executed by them in favour of the members of the complainant association and the opposite parties failed to provide those amenities such as providing of intercom, security gate, park and footpath and this lapse on the part of the opposite parties constitute deficiency in service.
34. Coming to the question of quantum of amount to be awarded in favour of the complainant association, the complainant association submitted that it had incurred expenditure of `7,97,266/- for completing four items, 1) Security and main gate work, 2) Laying of tiles on the footpath, 3) park and 4) intercom.
The opposite parties contend that under Exs.B85 to B95 they had incurred expenditure for purchase of electrical items from Sumeet Electricals and Sri Srinivasa Electricals as also from Radhika Electrical and Engineering works Hyderabad. It is contended on behalf of the complainant association that Exs.B85 to B95 do not relate to the completion of the work pertaining to the common amenities and the material purchased under these bills was utilized for the construction of the individual houses but not for the purpose of providing the common amenities. The complainant has filed Exs.A11 to A15 stating that they are the bills related the expenditure incurred by the complainant association for the purpose of completion of the incomplete common amenities. Ex.A10 is the valuation of the incomplete work by the registered engineer and Exs.A12 to A15 are the bills showing the amount stated to have been paid by the complainant association for completion of security and main gate work, for laying of tiles on the footpath, park etc.
35. The complainant association has filed documents, bills for an amount of `8 lakh stating that the complainant association has spent the amount for carrying out the left out work. The opposite parties contended that most of those documents are issued by the complainant association of which some of them are quotations and some other bills are in the name of the third parties. It is true a perusal of the documents filed along with the petition would show that most of them have been issued by the complainant association. Some of the documents do not contain the particulars of the persons who had issued them. The receipts issued by the complainant association carry little evidentiary value except the cash memo for `5,250/- issued by the Yadav Mosaic, the receipt for `5,815/- issued by Subash Traders and for the like sum the receipt issued by Saiteja Agencies etc. Jagadamba Marketing had issued invoice dated 21.7.2008 for a sum of `6,195/-. The complainant has placed purchase order for `26,000/- with Secular System, Teleray Intercom Systems Hyderabad for supply Telefpax, Tele-Security system for group housing societies (EPABX) for `26,000/-.
The opposite parties have claimed that the complainant association has filed the documents after completion of the pleadings.
36. The opposite parties have filed the documents in the form of invoice receipts issued by Bardwaj Marketing Agencies, Sumeet Electricals, Radhika Electrical and Engineering Works, Ragi and Ragi Enterprises, Sri Srinivasa Electricals etc. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that in their reply dated 15.5.2008 it was made clear that the construction of some of the houses in the project were taken up by the flat owners themselves hence the construction of the club house could not be taken up and according to them there was no pending common amenities work to be completed. A perusal of the affidavit and report of the expert would show that most of the amenities styled as special feature have not been provided by the opposite parties. Therefore, the plea that the opposite parties had completed the work in regard to the common amenities is not sustainable.
37. Coming to the question of the amount the opposite parties liable to pay to the complainant association, admittedly five members of the complainant association have taken back a sum of `1,00,000/- endorsing on the possession letter that they have received the amount paid towards the construction of the club house. Therefore, while quantifying the amount liable to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant association, the amounts received by the members of the complainant association has to be considered. The complainant association has claimed an amount of `83,50,000/- and a revised estimation under Ex.A6 has been filed by the complainant association wherein `33 lakhs has been claimed towards the club house `5 lakh each for construction of the park and footpaths, `2 lakh for main entrance and security room, `50,000/- for lighting and `5 lakh for repavement of the roads as also `20,000/- for the purpose of repairing of the septic tank and `10 lakh towards water supply and `1,00,000/- for intercom facility and `2 lakh for completion of the income work pertaining to the common amenities.
38. The opposite parties have filed the receipt dated 22-02-2005 for `32,160/- issued by Bharadwaj Manufacturing Agencies, Vijayawada, receipt dated 18-02-2005 for `38,230/-, receipt dated 12-03-2005 for `1140/-, receipt dated 18-02-2005 for `4,435/-, receipt dated 18-02-2005 for `51,559/-, receipt dated 18-02-2005 for `42,517/-, receipt dated 2-03-2005 for `1500/-, receipt dated 18-03-2005 for `1,15,824/-, issued by Sumeet Electricals, Vijayawada, receipt dated 27-11-2005 for `87,000/-issued by Radiant Electricals, Secunderabad, receipt dated 5-03-2005 for `1,35,596/- issued by Ragi & Ragi Enterprises, Secunderabad, receipt dated 30-10-2004 for `27,915/- issued by Sri Srinivasa Electricals, Tadepalli Gudem , receipt dated 28-10-2004 for `1,58,079/- issued by Sri Srinivasa Electricals, Tadepalli Gudem, receipt dated 1-12-2004 for `19,391/- issued by Aira & Hawa Engineers, receipt dated 18-02-3-12-2004 issued by Aira & Hawa for `24,055/-, receipt dated 3-12-2004 for `16,280/-, receipt dated 1-12-2004 for `5,300/-
issued by Nayeem Enterprises, Secunderabad, totaling `7,60,981/-
39. Of the `33 lakh claimed for construction of the club house the complainant has not substantiated the claim for such an amount. The amounts refunded to the some of the members of the complainant association should be deducted from the amount to be paid to the complainant association. We award a sum of `10 lakh on all counts for construction of the club house. Insofar as the parks and footpaths are concerned, the reasonable amount would be `5 lakh and for the intercom facility as shown in the invoice issued by Secular System, Teleray Intercom Systems Hyderabad for supply Telefpax, Tele-Security system for group housing societies (EPABX) for `26,000/-. The complaint has been filed claiming for provision of common amenities included under special features clause in the construction agreement whereunder septic tank has not been included. For water supply, lighting and repavement of the roads and main entrance/security room etc., a sum of `5 lakh would be the reasonable amount.
Thus the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of `20,26,000/- to the complainant association. Rest of the claim is rejected. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the complainant association.
40. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to pay an amount of `20,26,000/- to the complainant association together with costs of `5,000/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.19.12.2011 KMK* APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED NIL EXHIBITS MARKED For the complainant Ex.A1 Brochure Ex.A2 Copy of sale deed dt.16.1.2006 Ex.A3 Copy of Agreement for Construction Development Dt.16.02.2006 Ex.A4 Letter dated 10.4.2008 of opposite parties to the complainant Ex.A5 Copies of acknowledgements Ex.A6 Revised Estimation dated 26.7.2008 Ex.A7 Copy of Certificate of Registration of Association dt.5.2.2008 Ex.A8 Copy of Memorandum of Association Ex.A9 Copy of resolution dt.26.9.2008 Ex.A10 Approved Estimation dt.25.9.2008 Ex.A11 Index of total expenditure of `79,226/- incurred By the complainant association Ex.A12 Bills pertaining to security and main gate work Ex.A13 Bills pertaining to footpath tiles work Ex.A14 Bills pertaining to park work Ex.A15 Letter dt.12.8.2008 of Secular system Ex.A16 Proposed Estimation for sewerage line Ex.A17 Advocate report Ex.A18 Photographs For the opposite parties Ex.B1 Copy of Huda Lay-out No. 871/mp2/H/2004 dt.21-12-2005.
Ex.B2 Copy of Registered Agreement& Deed of Mortgage document No. 3284 /2004, executed by M/s. Lahari Homes & 2 others in favour of HUDA dt.22-03-2004.
Ex.B3 Copy of Registered Deed of Relinquishment document No. 19754 /2005, executed by HUDA in favour of M/s. Lahari Homes and 2 others dt.14-12-2005.
Ex.B4 Copy of Registered Deed of Gift Settlement for Charitable purposes and General purpose use document No. 18105 /2005, executed by M/s. Lahari Homes & 2 others In favour of The Commissioner Serilingampally Municipality R.R. Dist, dt.22-11-2005.
Ex.B5 Copy of Proceedings No. G/263/L.P/1493/06 issued by the Commissioner Serilingampally Municipality R.R. Dist, 8-01-2006.
Ex.B6 Copy of Final Layout permission No. 871/MP2/Plg./HUDA/2004 issued by the HUDA, dt. 21-12-2005.
Ex.B7 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 10669 /2002, executed by Smt. Chilumula Shakunthala Devi in favour of M/s. Lahari Impex (P) Ltd, 5-12-02.
Ex.B8 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 158 /2003, executed by Smt. Buyya Mallamma and 4 others in favour of M/s.
Lahari Impex (P) Ltd, dt. 4-1-2003.
Ex.B9 Copy of Registered Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A document No. 15734 /2003, Executed by Katta Sriniasa Rao in favour of M/s.
Lahari Homes, dt. 9-12-2003.
Ex.B10 Copy of Registered Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A document No. 15735/2003, executed by Borra Venkara Bhaskara Rao in favour of M/s. Lahari Homes dt.
9-12-2003 Ex.B11 Copy of Registered Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A document No. 1103 /2004, executed by Vidyadhar Sudhiraju in favour of M/s.
Lahari Homes, dt.8-1-2004.
Ex.B12 Copy of Registered Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A document No. 1102 /2004, executed by Thiyyaguru Venkata Reddy in favour of M/s.
Lahari Homes, dt.8-1-04.
Ex.B13 Copy of Registered Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A document No. 386/2004, executed by Anumolu Haribabu in favour of M/s.
Lahari Homes, dt. 8-1-2004.
Ex.B14 Copy of Registered Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A document No. 15322 /2003, executed by Vejendla Ramakrishnaiah in favour of M/s. Lahari Homes, dt. 4-12-03.
Ex.B15 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 10668 /2002, executed by Smt. Chilumurla Shakunthala Devi in favour of Alapati Venkateswara Rao, dt. 5-12-02.
Ex.B16 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 3532 /2003, executed by K. Ram Krishna Reddy in favour of Alapati Venkateswara Rao dt.24-03-2003.
Ex.B17 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 8463 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Muppa Bhaskara Rao, dt. 15-7-04.
Ex.B18 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 8462 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Muppa Venkaiah dt.28-7-04.
Ex.B19 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 3565 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Smt. Padma Miriyala dt.27-3-04.
Ex.B20 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 8805 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Lakshman Pratap Vardarajan dt. 20-8-2004 Ex.B21 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 9568 /2005, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Radheyshyam Gupta & 4 others dt.30-6-2005 Ex.B22 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 681 /2005, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Venkat Chennapragada & another dt.20-1-2005 Ex.B23 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 8461 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Vidyadhara Buddhi Raju dt. 28-7-2004 Ex.B24 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 1044 /2005, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Nageswara Rao Veera Venkata Marellapudi, dt. 29-1-2005 Ex.B25 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No.17668 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Mogilishetty Gautham dt. 30-8-2006 Ex.B26 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4396 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Palla Satheesh Kumar dt.17-4-2004 Ex.B27 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4394 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Venkateswara Prasad Pothukuchi, dt. 17-4-2004.
Ex.B28 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4395 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Palla Satheesh Kumar dt. 17-4-2004 Ex.B29 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 11793 /2004, executed by Smt Bhanu Anumolu in favour of Smt. Sathanapalli and another, dt. 25-11-04 Ex.B30 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4393 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Smt. Bhanu Anumolu dt.17-4-2004 Ex.B31 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4567 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Tatineni Ramesh Babu dt. 24-4-2004 Ex.B32 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4188 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Sunil Thumma and another dt. 13-4-2004 Ex.B33 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4790 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Yendluri Sai Bhushan and another dt. 29-4-2004 Ex.B34 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 5226 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Satyendra Kumar Sinha dt. 12-5-2004 Ex.B35 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4834 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Singireddy Venkata Ramana Reddy & another, dt. 30-4-2004 Ex.B36 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 7474 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and othersin favour of Smt. Alapati Madhavi dt. 29-3-2006 Ex.B37 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 11792 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Hari Anumolu and another dt.25-11-2004 Ex.B38 Copy of Registered Rectification Deed document No. 8132 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Hari Anumolu and anotherdt. 6-4-2006 Ex.B39 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 4187 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Babu Narayanan Koonampilli J and another, dt. 13-4-2004 Ex.B40 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 822 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Somendra Jayaram and another dt. 9-1-2006.
Ex.B41 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 152 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Vasundhara Sripathi dt. 3-01-2006.
Ex.B42 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 14364 /2005, executed by Nallam Shravan Kumar in favour of Smt Nalla Chandana and another Dt. 26-9-2005.
Ex.B43 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 9179 /2004, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Nallam Shravan Kumar dt. 30-8-2004 Ex.B44 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 823 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of R. Vijay Kumar and another dt. 9-1-2006 Ex.B45 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 1262 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Bayyapu Pavan Reddy dt. 16-1-2006 Ex.B46 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 7476 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Smt. M. Rajani Devi dt. 29-3-2006 Ex.B47 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 7475 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Smt. M. Jaya Sree dt. 29-3-2006 Ex.B48 Copy of Registered Sale Deed document No. 13518 /2006, executed by Alapati Venkateswara Rao and others in favour of Yarlagadda Sudheer dt. 26-6-2006 Ex.B49 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Smt. Padma Miriyala, dt. 14-2-2006 Ex.B50 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s.
Lahari Homes and Laxaman Pratap Varadarajan dt. 14.2.2006 Ex.B51 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Venkat Chennapragada, dt. 25-3-2006 Ex.B52 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s.
Lahari Homes and Nageswara Rao Veera Venkata Marellapudi dt. 25-2-2006 Ex.B53 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Mogilishetty Gautham, dt. 15-9-2006 Ex.B54 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Palla Satheesh Kumar, dt.15-2-2006 Ex.B55 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Kamalakar Karlapalem dt. 15-2-2006.
Ex.B56 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Venkatesh Sathanapalli, dt.14-2-2006 Ex.B57 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Tatineni Ramesh Babu, dt. 15-2-2006 Ex.B58 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Yendluri Sai Bhushan, dt. 20-5-2006 Ex.B59 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Satyendra Kumar Sinha, dt. 27-2-2006 Ex.B60 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s.
Lahari Homes and Muralikrishna Koganti & another, dt.2.2006 Ex.B61 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s.
Lahari Homes and M/s. Vikas Singh & another,dt. 9.10.2006.
Ex.B62 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Babu Narayanan Koonampilli. J, dt. 20.02.2006.
Ex.B63 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Somendra Jaya Ram and another Ex.B64 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Vasundhara Sripathi, dt. 29-03-2006 Ex.B65 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s.
Lahari Homes and Smt Nalla Chandana & another dt. 5.03.2006 Ex.B66 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and D. Vijay Kumar & another, dt. 5.01.2006.
Ex.B67 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Bayyapu Pavan Reddy, dt. 24-12-2005.
Ex.B68 Copy of Agreement for Construction/Development Between M/s. Lahari Homes and Yarlagadda Sudheer, dt. 9-04-2007.
Ex.B69 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Smt. Padma Miryala, dt. 25-07-2007 Ex.B70 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to V.L. Pratap, 12-01-2008 Ex.B71 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Ch. Venkat, dt. 20-08-2007 Ex.B72 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Nageswara Rao, dt. 11-06-2007 Ex.B73 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Mogilishetty Gautham, dt.17-03-2008.
Ex.B74 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Ravi Venkatesh Sathanapalli and another, dt.14-08-2008 Ex.B75 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Y. Sai Bhushan, dt.27-03-2008.
Ex.B76 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Satyendra Kumar Sinha, dt.31-08-2007.
Ex.B77 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Somendra Jayaram, dt.2-05-2008.
Ex.B78 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Sasundhara Sripathi, dt.2-05-2008.
Ex.B79 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to N. Chandana & Praveen Reddy, dt.15-12-2008.
Ex.B80 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to R. Vijay Kumar, dt.2-05-2008.
Ex.B81 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Bayyapu Pavan Reddy, dt.3-05-2008.
Ex.B82 Copy of Handing over and possession letter written by Lahari Homes to Yarlagadda Sudheer, dt.9-09-2009.
Ex.B83 Copy of Due amount not paid by M.V.V.Nageswara Rao to M/s. Lahari Homes.
Ex.B84 Copy of Due amount not paid by B. Pavan Reddy to M/s. Lahari Homes Ex.A85 Copy of Bharadwaja Marketing Agencies invoice receipt, dt.22.02.2005.
Ex.A86 Copy of Sumeet Electricals invoices (9) receipts Ex.A87 Copy of Radhika Electrical & Engg. Works invoice receipt, dt.27.01.2005.
Ex.A88 Copy of Ragi & Ragi enterprises invoices (2) receipts Ex.A89 Copy of Sri Srinivasa Electricals invoices (2) receipts Ex.B90 Copy of Aira & Hawa Engineers invoices (2) receipts Ex.A91 Copy of Naim Enterprises invoices (4) receipts Ex.B92 Copy of Uttham Fabrications invoice receipt, dt.10-03-2005.
Ex.B93 Copy of M/s. Lahari Homes 2008-09 account statement Ex.B94 Copy of Payment vouchers (4) receipts Ex.B95 Copy of Sir Tech Fabrication cash bill receipt, dt.5-05-2008. Ex.B96 Copy of M/s. Lahari Homes web domain name details.
MEMBER MEMBER