National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Maheshwari Residency Flat Owners' ... vs M/S. Maheshwari Builders on 4 October, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 29/06/2012 in Complaint No. 34/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. M/S. MAHESHWARI RESIDENCY FLAT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI A.B. KRISHNA REDDY, R/O. FLAT NO. 43, MAHESHWARI RESIDENCY, ADARSHNAGAR, HYDERABAD A.P ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS REP. BY ITS MG. PARTNER SRI RAJ KUMAR MALPANI, 4TH FLOOR, MPM MALL, ABIDS, HYDERABAD-500001 A.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 04 Oct 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Appellant
:
Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th October 2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 29.06.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 5/2004, filed by the present appellants.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. Maheshwari Residency Flat Owners' Association, Hyderabad filed consumer complaint no. 5/2004 before the State Commission, seeking directions to the opposite party (OP) builders, Maheshwari Builders, Hyderabad to provide amenities/facilities to the members of the complainant Association, including payment of compensation and refund of certain amounts to them. Vide order dated 17.01.2007, passed by the State Commission, it was directed as follows:-
"The complainant has proved with regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing fire-fighting equipment. The complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to provide fire-fighting equipment in the complainant association flats. The opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with regard to the other deficiencies and to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The order is to be complied within one month."
3. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the opposite party (OP) Maheshwari Builders challenged the said order before this Commission by way of an appeal. However, the said appeal was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 29.08.2012 on the plea that there was a delay of 305 days in filing the said appeal and the said delay had not been explained anywhere. On the other hand, the complainants filed penalty petition P.P. No. 34/2007 before the same Commission, which was decided on 14.11.2008. The State Commission ordered as follows:-
"In this result this P.P. is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/opposite party to provide fire-fighting equipment with all infrastructure as specified by the Director General of Fire Services, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. It has been stated in the explanatory memo filed by the respondent builders that in pursuance of the order of the State Commission, a Multi-storeyed Building Inspection Committee was appointed by the Director General of Fire Services. The Committee recommended on 07.04.2011 in their report that external fire staircase should be constructed from the east side i.e. towards Adarsh Nagar main road side. The Director General of Fire Services issued proceedings dated 25.04.2011, saying that "the external staircase with a width of 1.25 meters can be built on the east side i.e. front side of the building, as there is sufficient space on all floors corridors, leading outside to the landing of the proposed staircase". However, another Committee was constituted by the Director General of Fire Services, which gave a different report, saying that the staircase could not be constructed on the east side due to high-tension lines, passing on that side. As per letter issued by the Director General of State Disaster Response and Fire Services, Hyderabad, vide their letter 10503/A2/2008 dated 25.05.2012, the following was stated:-
"The Multi-storeyed Inspection Committee, Hyderabad has inspected the premises vide reference 8th cited and stated that the following conditions of agreement have been prepared during the inspection in the presence of Flat owners of Maheshwari Residency Apartment and representative of the Builder.
i. Erection of external stair case of 1.25 mts. width from terrace to ground by connection all floors OR from terrace to ground directly on the north-west side of the building without disturbing further structure.
ii. All flat owners will have free and unrestricted access to the emergency staircase in case of any emergency of calamity.
iii. It was decided that underground water storage of 25,000 litres capacity will be constructed exclusively for Fire fighting purpose by the Builder.
iv. The Builder and architect will show the drawing/plan of the staircase and obtain approval of the Flat owners before commencement of work."
5. It is made out from the above that two options had been given for the erection of the external staircase, either by connecting all floors from terrace to ground, or to connect the terrace to ground directly on the North-West side of the building, without disturbing any structure. Vide impugned order dated 29.06.2012, the State Commission directed that the staircase should be made with option no. 2 i.e. terrace should be directly connected to the floor without providing any landing at the floors in between. It is against this order that the present appeal has been made.
6. During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that option-2 was not useful to the residents of the complex, except the residents of penthouses only. It has also been stated that five flat owners, who are objecting to option-1 had encroached upon the common area and were utilising a part of that area for their personal use and hence, they were opposing the construction of the staircase at North-West side. In fact, no demolition or acquisition of any part of flats was required, if the common area encroached by the five members is utilised for erecting the structure. The appellants have also stated that the State Commission should have obtained the opinion of an expert for feasibility for erecting staircase for North-West side instead of opting for the builder's option-2. The learned counsel for the builders, however, stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld.
7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. The basic issue involved in the matter is whether the staircase should be constructed directly from terrace to floor, or by providing landings on each floor, so that it could be used by all the residents of the complex. It is evident that if the staircase is provided from terrace to floor directly, it shall give benefit to the residents of the penthouses only. In any case, it is a matter of common knowledge that the staircase has to be constructed in accordance with the requisite building plans duly approved by the competent authority i.e. the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and also keeping in view the directions given by the Director General of Fire Services.
9. In the present case, as per the record, the Director General of Fire Services stated on 25.04.2011, placing reliance on the report of some expert Committee that the staircase could be constructed on the Eastern side of the building. However, later on, vide their letter dated 25.05.2012, the Director General of Fire Services had given two options to build the staircase - one was to connect the terrace to the floor, while providing access to every floor and the other option was to connect the floor to the ground directly. It was the duty of the Director General of Fire Services to be precise and specific, while giving their opinion about the construction of the staircase. It is not desirable on their part to adopt an ambivalent attitude and provide a solution, which gives two different alternatives.
10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that the matter should be examined in detail by a high-powered Committee, consisting of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and the Director General of Fire Services, Hyderabad. The said Committee should study all aspects of the case and then take decision about the best mode of providing the staircase, with the objective of providing benefit to maximum number of residents of the area. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad should visit the building alongwith the Director General of Fire Services in the presence of both the parties and then take a decision about the location of the staircase and then ensure that the staircase is built, in accordance with the decision made by this Committee. Based on the discussion above, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. Further action shall be taken in accordance with the conclusion arrived at by the two-member Committee as directed above.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER