State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pradeep.G.Nemadi vs R.Suresh Babu on 17 August, 2022
1
Appeal No.1757/2018
Date of filing: 27.10.2018
Date of disposal: 17.08.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:17.08.2022
PRESENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1757/2018
Sri.Pradeep G Nemadi,
S/o Ganapathi Nemadi,
R/at Flat No.S-2, SS Enclave,
No.17, Old Ward No.37,
New Ward No.103, Cauveripura,
4th Main, SBG Nagar, Malagalu,
Bangalore. .....Appellant/s
(Advocate - Sri.Vinod Kumar B.N)
V/s
Sri.R Suresh Babu,
No.303, 3rd Cross, 4th Main,
Vidyagiri Layout,
Bangalore - 560 040. .....Respondent/s
Advocate - Sri.P Udayashankar Rai
2
Appeal No.1757/2018
ORDER
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an Appeal filed U/s.15 of C.P Act, 1986 by the complainant in CC No.323/2015 on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 04th July 2018.
2. Commission examined the grounds of Appeal, impugned order and heard.
3. The Appellant raised consumer complaint before the Forum below to direct OP to rectify the water seepage problem in the kitchen, toilet and bathroom areas in his apartment bearing No.S-2 and to earmark car parking facility, to install generator in the apartment complex, to provide 24 hour power back up facility as promised, to obtain 'c' certificate from BBMP and the Commission below held a enquiry, allowed the complaint in part and advised OP to get occupancy certificate and building completion certificate under KMC Act at the earliest point of time by collecting the admitted fees from the complainant. Further negated remaining reliefs, however directed OP to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.
4. It is an undisputed fact that a sale agreement was entered between parties to the complaint on 02.03.2010 in respect of flat 3 Appeal No.1757/2018 No.S-2 for a sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-. It is also not in dispute that, entire consideration amount was paid by complainant to OP and complainant had purchased the said flat under registered sale deed dated 20th May 2010. This complaint is raised on 16.02.2015 and the Forum below found with regard to obtaining occupancy certificate and building completion certificate under KMC Act in view of impeding legislation of amendment to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act to regularize deviations in the construction (Akrama and Sakrama) no occupancy certificate is issued by BBMP. As such rightly advised to get occupancy certificate and building completion certificate under KMC Act for the said flat purchased by complainant at an earliest point of time and to that effect rightly held by collecting admitted fees from complainant. The contention of Appellant that he did not pay such fee is unacceptable, even the Commission cannot direct OP or any Authority to regularize the deviations and the legal effect has to be suffered by both, since complainant had purchased this property under a registered sale deed dated 20th May 2010. In order to regularize the deviation if any or to get certificate as well as building completion certificate under KMC Act, OP as well as complainant are bound to suffer the legal consequences. In such circumstances, in our view, Forum below is right in advising OP to get occupancy certificate and rightly held grievances of the complainant to rectify the water seepage problem in the kitchen, toilet and bathroom areas in his apartment, to earmark car parking facility, to install generator in the apartment complex, to provide 24 hour power back up facility would not be from this complaint 4 Appeal No.1757/2018 complainant alone as they are the subject of whole building considering of number of apartments in order to rectify such deficiencies their association if any formed alone has to seek relief and not the complainant alone in this complaint, in view of the circumstances which he has averred in his complaint. In such conclusion the contention of Appellant that the Forum below has failed to appreciate the materials placed on record could not be acceptable. Further the contention that the deviations could be regularized by paying fees, is again unacceptable, because as on the date, illegally, 4 additional flats were constructed in the 3rd floor in utter violation of the building bye-laws and that was the reason for the BBMP to deny the occupancy certificate, is properly examined by Forum below, since complainant had purchased the flat knowing full well that such 4 additional flats in 3rd floor were already inexistence, yet purchased the property in question. The complainant being the buyer has also to be aware of all these aspects of the builder and developers business tactics and if in spite of such notice buy the flat is bound to suffer along with the OP. Thus, with such conclusion, Commission did not find any error committed by Forum below in passing the impugned order. Accordingly Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as parties to the appeal.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER vln*