State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Y.Samasiva Rao, ... vs 1.M/S. Sri Dharani Constructions, Rep. ... on 29 December, 2010
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.725/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.84/2001, DISTRICT FORUM,Rangareddy Dist. Between: Sri Y.Samasiva Rao, S/o.Y.Venkataramaiah, Aged about 44 years, Occ:Service, R/o.Flat No.305, Prashanth Heights, Prashanthnagar, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. Appellant/ Complainant And 1.M/s. Sri Dharani Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Smt K.Gowri Kumari, W/o.K.Siva Sankara Rao, aged :Major, R/o.25 & 26, Shank Colony, Opp:Dr. A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500 062. 2. Monteiro T.Benjamin, S/o.Lawrence Monteiro, aged 57 years, Occ: Retired Employee , R/o.H.No.11-2-459/8, Namalagundu, Secunderabad 500 361. 3. Smt.Ch.Surya Kumari, W/o.Sri Ch.Sree Rama Murthy Raju, Aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Flat No.206, Prashanth Heights, Prashanthnagar, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. Respondents/ Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.A.Raghavaiah Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. S.Rama Sarma R1 QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI SYED ABDULAAH ,HONBLE MEMBER WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) ***** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.84/2001 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist., the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the opposite party no.1 is a builder and developed Prashant Heights situated at Prashant Nagar, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and advertised the sale of apartments by way of brochures showing the typical floor plant, location plan, salient features and specifications of construction and on seeing the brochures the complainant approached the opp.parties for purchase of flat in terms of specifications mentioned in the brochure and booked flat no.305 in III rd floor admeasuring 913 sq. ft and undivided share of land admeasuring 23 sq.yards in the said scheme and entered into agreement of sale with opp.party. The total sale consideration is Rs.4 lakhs and the agreement of sale was executed on 19.8.1999 in this regard and the complainant paid Rs.1,49,000/- in cash for which receipts were issued and Rs.3 lakhs by way of two cheques drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.2 lakhs by obtaining housing loan from the said bank and another Rs.1 lakh drawn on Andhra Bank and in total Rs.4,49,000/- was paid by the complainant. The opposite party had collected Rs.41,000/- excessively. The complainant was forced to enter into another agreement with opp.party no.1 for completion of unfinished flat by an agreement dt.13.10.1999 and demanded again Rs.91,500/-.
The opposite party illegally again collected Rs.50,500/- for which no receipt was issued at the time of agreement for completion of the flat apart from Rs.41,000/- excess amount collected by the opp.party which was adjusted by opp.party in Rs.91,500/-. Opp.party no.1 along with opp.parties 2 and 3 executed the sale deed on 13.10.99 in favour of the complainant and at the time of registration of the said flat the opposite party collected an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards registration fee and expenses whereas the registration fee and expenses were Rs.27,000/- only. The opposite parties failed to construct the flat as per their promises made in the brochure and the terms of the agreement. The opp.party failed to take Manjeera water connection i.e. drinking water connection from Hyderabad Metro Water and Sewerage Board for drinking purpose. The construction material and wood used by the opp.parties are sub-standard as a result of which there is leakage/seepage from the waste water pipes and from roof as well as walls from bath rooms and also from pipes. The complainant submits that the cracks developed in the walls and there are water leakages from bed room walls, kitchen walls and the bathroom walls which are because of substandard material used for construction by the opp.party. The cracks are developed in the frames of the doors and also in the doors because the opp.party used low quality wood. The complainant submits that common areas and terrace rights are also not handed over to the flat owners association. The complainant submits that in actual the area is less than 913 sq.ft. and the actual area which was given possession to him is only 795.91 sq.f.t including common areas . The complainant got the said flat measured with qualified engineer and the copy of the plan reveals that the actual flat area is less than the mentioned area in the sale deed. As per the plan, the actual flat area is 795.91 sq.ft. which is 117 sq. ft. less than the mentioned area in sale deed but the complainant paid the amount for 913 sq.ft. as per the registered sale deed and hence the complainant paid excess amount of Rs.52,299/- for 117 sq. ft. @ Rs.447/- per sq.ft. and he is entitled for refund of the same. The complainant submits that the opp.parties also failed to provide the following amenities as per the brochure and agreement:
(a).
No provision was made for the Association office.
(b).
No parking place is provided for as per the Multi Storied Building Regulations ,1981, both inmates and visitors or atleast as per the agreement.
(c). The opp.party has converted and grabbed the common areas like terrace, and the parking area in stilt into six shops and sold it to third parties in violation of the Building Plan.
(d).
No provision for generator and generator room and the fire fighting system as per regulation 15 and 7 of the Multi-
Storied Building Regulations ,1981.
(e). Installation of Dish Antenna is not made as per the specifications made in the brochure.
(f). Water proof treatment for the top-roof leakages for the 5th floor was not made.
The opp.party did not complete the paiting of main door, ventilators , bathroom walls and one side wall of the hall. The opp.party collected Rs.12,000/- towards electrical connection but did not issue any receipt and instead of providing new generator , a second hand old generator was installed. Inspite of several demands made by the complainant the opp.party failed to rectify the defects and hence the complainant issued a legal notice dt.7.1.2000 demanding rectification of he defects and also refund of excess amount paid Rs.2,54,000/- collected over and above the amount mentioned in the registered sale deed for which the opp.party gave a reply dt.17.1.2000 with false allegations and failed to rectify the defects. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties to refund Rs.91,500/- along with interest which is the excess amount collected, to pay Rs.1 lakh as damages along with interest, to demolish the pent house, to refund Rs.52,299/-
along with interest @ 24% towards the cost of 117 sq.ft. of plinth area, to provide association office room, to provide dish antenna connection and intercom telephone facility as per brochure and also provide tot lot for children playing as per plan, laying of ceramic tiles in all toilets and also rectify the defects i.e. seepage and leakages from walls and pipes in the flat, to provide the fire fighting system and also provide new generator, to provide drinking water connection from Hyderabad Metro Water and Sewerage Board, to provide water proof treatment to 5th floor terrace, to rectify and replace the sub standard wood material used in doors and frames of the flat, to provide fitness certificate for occupying from the municipality and to pay costs.
Opp.party no.1 filed counter admitting the purchase of flat by the complainant which was constructed by them and denying all other allegations made in the complaint.
Opp.parties 2 and 3 did not file counter .
This complaint was disposed of by the Forum on merits on 18.2.2005 and the complainant preferred and appeal FA.784/05 before A.P.State Commission and this Commission while allowing the appeal directed the Dist Forum to dispose of the complaint by taking into consideration that the complaint was filed by the complainant in his individual capacity. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A13 and B1 and B2 dismissed the complaint without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order , the complainant preferred this appeal.
It is a case of the complainant that the opposite parties collected an excess amount of Rs.91,500/- from him and he also paid cash of Rs.1,49,000/- to opposite parties as evidenced under Ex.A2 in addition to Rs.3 lakhs paid by him by way of cheues to the opp.parties. The total sale consideration as evidenced under Ex.A1 dt.19.8.99 is Rs.4,08,000/- whereas the complainant paid totally an amount of Rs.4,49,000 and hence it is a case of the complainant that he paid an excess amount of Rs.41,000/-. It is also the case of the complainant that he was forced to enter into another agreement with opp.party no.1 for completion of unfinished flat by an agreement dt.13.10.99 and he demanded again Rs.91,500/-. A sale deed evidenced under Ex.A4 was executed on 13.10.99 for flat no. 305 for proportionate undivided share of 23 sq.yards, 2 wheeler parking and common areas. The complainant contends that the opp.party collected Rs.33,000/- towards registration fee and expenses when the registration expenses were only Rs.27,000/-. He has listed several unfinished works which are as follows:
(a).
No provision was made for the Association office.
(b).
No parking place is provided for as per the Multi Storied Building Regulations ,1981, both inmates and visitors or atleast as per the agreement.
(c).
The opp.party has converted and grabbed the common areas like terrace, and the parking area in stilt into six shops and sold it to third parties in violation of the Building Plan.
(d).
No provision for generator and generator room and the fire fighting system as per regulation 15 and 7 of the Multi-
Storied Building Regulations ,1981.
(e). Installation of Dish Antenna is not made as per the specifications made in the brochure.
(f). Water proof treatment for the top-roof leakages for the 5th floor was not made
(g). Opposite party has constructed the flat in violation of the promises made by him in the brochure. The opp.party did not complete the painting of main door, ventilators, bath-
room walls and one side wall of the hall. The opposite party left provision for refrigerator and did not provide the electric point provision even after charging Rs.350/-for each point.
The opp.party had collected Rs.12,000/- towards Electrical connections, but did not issue any receipt. The Opp.party failed to provide dish antenna, provision for T.V.
connection, no intercom telephone facility and instead of providing new generator as per brochure, a second hand old generator was installed . The opp.party did not lay the tiles in bath rooms and dadoo upto 5 ft. height. In violation of the sanctioned plan, the opp.party has converted the stilt parking space into shopping complex and six shops were constructed and sold to third parties. The opp.party has not provided any tot lot as per plan for the children to play. The opp.party had constructed one pent house covered with synthetic sheet roofing without any permission over 5th floor. Because of that pent house roof covered with synthetic sheet, the residents of all flats of Prashanth Heights including the complainants family are suffering with so much of noise and disturbance. The opp.
party has not provided fire fighting system as per the Building Complex Code , 1983. The opp.party did not obtain Fitness Certificate for occupation from the Municipality .
It is the further case of the complainant that the opp.party did not adhere to multi storied building regulations 1981 and did not provide for minimum water supply of 200 lts. of water per day per head. Opp.party constructed 30 flats but constructed only one over head tank with capacity of 15000 lts. and provided only one borewell which is insufficient to meet the water requirements.
The Adv. Commissioner in his report observed that the plinth area is as per the brochure issued by the opp.party. We also observe from the brochure that there is no promise towards tot lot facility but stated that there would be one common telephone connection and dish antenna and intercom telephone system for all flats which were not provided by the opp.party. The Commissioner also reported that there was leakage in the bathrooms and also small cracks appearing on the walls and on the roof and there is no ceramic tiles flooring in the toilets. In the brochure it is stated that there would be ceramic tiles and dadoo upto 5 ft. height. With respect to fire fighting equipment there is no such provision in the brochure but as per Section 25 of A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership ) Act, 1987 it is mandatory that fire fighting system should be provided. The Dist. Forum has rightly observed that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opp.party with respect to non provision of dish antenna, intercom facilities, fixing of ceramic tiles and leakages in walls and roofs. But at the same time observed that Ex.B1 is a cheque for Rs.20,000/- issued to the complainant and therefore the matter is construed to be settled between the parties.
Based on the Commissioners report and the brochure filed we are of the considered view that the opp.party did not provide dish antenna and intercom facility and that the ceramic tiles were not fixed as per the specifications and that there are also leakages in the walls and the roofs. Though fire fighting system is not mentioned in the brochure it has to be provided as per Section 25 of A.P.Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act ,1987 which reads as follows:
25. Owner of apartments to provide fire preventive devices:-Every owner of an apartment in a building consisting of a Ground floor, together with three or more floors on it shall be required to provide all the fire preventive devices in consultation with the Director General of Fire Services in the manner prescribed.
The Act also envisages in Rule 15 Fire protection requirements for apartment buildings or buildings with more than 15 M. in height We set aside the order of the Dist. Forum and allow this appeal directing the opp.parties to provide the dish antenna, intercom telephone facility, fix the ceramic tiles and also rectify leakages in the walls and roofs. With respect to providing drinking water supply, the opposite parties are directed to provide the sump and overhead tank with adequate capacity of water as mentioned in the brochure.
With respect to providing drinking water connection from Hyderabad Metro Water Sewerage Board the complainant did not file any documentary evidence whether the respective amounts have been paid. The direction to demolish the pent house cannot be given by this Commission as it is beyond our jurisdiction. While the Dist. Forum has observed that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid vide Ex.B1 and B2 but there are no details with respect to the reason for payment whether it was towards excess amount or towards unfinished works. However the opposite parties are directed to complete the aforementioned unfinished works within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order together with costs of Rs.5000/-. All other prayers are being disallowed.
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the Dist.Forum is set aside directing the opp.parties to provide intercom facility, dish antenna, fix ceramic tiles and also rectify leakages in the walls as evidenced by the Commissioners report and also the brochure filed. There is also direction to provide the water supply i.e. to provide sump and overhead tank with adequate capacity through borewell as promised in the brochure. We also direct the opp.parties to provide the fire fighting system as it is mandatory under the provisions of the A.P.Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act ,1987. We also award costs of Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance 6 weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.29.12.2010