State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Miss. Sharma, vs 1.M/S.Tulsi Enterprises, on 17 November, 2022
DISPUTES
STATE CONSUMER
BEFORE THE TELANGANA
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.08 OF 2018
Between:
rao
Miss Shama, d/o. V. Hanumantha
Hindu, aged about 36 years,
Occ: Private job, Rsident of
Flat No.505, 5th Floor,
Ramachandra Residency,
Om Nagar Colony, Guddimalkapur,
Hyderabad. ..Complainant
And
its
1. M/s. Tulsi Enterprises, rep. by
Managing Partner, N.Mani Prakash,
Major, resident of H.No.15,
Castle Hills Colony, road no.2,
Masab Tank, Hyderabad-057.
2. N.Mani Prakash, S/o not known,
Major, resident of H.No.15,
Castle Hills Colony, road no.2,
Masab Tank, Hyderabad-057.
Opposite Parties
M/s. G.ChandraSekhara Rao
Counsel for the Complainant
Smt.D.Vathsalendra-OP1&2
Counsel Opposite Parties
for the
MEMBER
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.v.SESHUBABU, HON BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER OF NOVEMBER THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY TWO THoUSAND TWENTY Trwo Member-Non -Judicial) (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Order
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
T o direct the opposite party to pay sum of Rs.5,15,000/- towards damages for the defective structures caused by the opposite party and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony sustained by the complainant and her family to undergo mental agony.2
T o award costs of this complaint.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
with an The case of the complainant is that, complainant the opposite party and intention to purchase a flat has approached having satisfied all the papers and the approved plan, by seeing who is into had agreed to purchase a flat from the opposite party, construction business and running the firm in the name and style of M/s. Tulsi Enterprises, and in the said course of business the Cum opposite party No.1 had entered into Development Agreement General Power of Attorney with one Smt.Anjana Devi who is the owner and possessor of Plot.No.43 of ward No.13-2 admeasuring8 844 sq.yds at Om Nagar Colony, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad and the opposite party had constructed the flats in the said property under the name and style of "Ramachandra Residency". And that as per the Development Agreement the owner of the flat was entitled to 40% share and opposite party being the builder was entitled to 60 % of the constructed flats and the complainant had purchased flat No.501 which fell to the share of the builder for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and sale deed was executed to that effect on 28.01.2015 and the opposite party promised to provide super structure building with RCC Cement, columns and beams, anti termite treatment for the structure and foundation, table moulded light weight brick walls with cement motor and two coats of plastering inside and outside with sponge finish.
3. But the opposite party had failed to complete the super built up area and failed to construct the stair case, leading to stilt, compound wall to the entire structure, leveling of ground and without completing these works had sold the flat there by subjecting the inhabitants to risk. And the bore well dug by the opposite party had dried up within one year due to which all the flat owners were compelled to contribute Rs.15,000/- each to dug the bore well deeper, this has not only caused monetary loss but had also caused hardship to the complainant.3
constructed with
was
And that the flat of the
complainant
which 1s
in the walls
structural defects which has led to cracks substandard party had used the opposite visible to naked eye, and lack of resulted in which has material in the wash r o o m s purchase of one year of period with in a functional u s e of the same defects all these done is also of inferior quality and the false ceiling party, and done by the opposite in the flat shows the deficient work the failed to rectify remainders the opposite party inspite of several structural engineer had called a same as such the complainant incurred for that would be estimation done and got the probable comes up to estimate and the said defects rectifying the Rs.50,00,000/-
for the apartment and Rs.2,50,000/- for her common said area and if the work of the common rectification to it c o m e s up contribution done by flat owners, work is done by from complainant apart be contributed by this Rs.2,50,000/- to party well. As the opposite the Rs.15,000/- already paid for bore got remainders the complainant to any of the failed to respond replied by the 23.07.2016 which was on issued a legal notice defects.
admitting the opposite party by on had initially filed CC No.442/2016
4.
4. That the complainant the District Consumer Forum, Hyderabad. And District the file of complaint had dismissed the Commission vide order d t . 3 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 7 with a liberty to the jurisdiction on the ground of pecuniary As such the present the competent court.
complainant to approach structure and defective seeking damages for the complaint compensation and deficient acts of opposite party, along with costs.
parties
5. Written version of opposite their written version while admitting The Opposite party filed execution of sale deed and development the sale of flat and that the flat w a s sold to the complainant agreement, had pleaded for full structure and that w a s ready after completion of the the occupation. And that the complainant herself has approached and being fully satisfied with opposite party and after inspection In fact this opposite party had the flat had purchased the same.
4provided extra comfort of invertors worth Rs.22,000/- to each flat though the same is not mentioned in the specifications. That apart the GHMC Authority has issued an occupancy certificate and itself building completion certificate after thorough verification this implies that the structure was completed as per the specifications plan and norms. The opposite party further pleads that the total sale consideration was Rs.17,76,500/- but not Rs.25,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant and with regard to the bore well the opposite party had pleaded that the same has been dried up as the summer was terrible in Telangana and the government has also had declared as "drought hit area". Due to which all the apartment Owners have jointly agreed to contribute Rs. 15,000/- and dig the bore well deeper, and this opposite party being one of the flat owner had also contributed the said Rs.
15,000/-.
The opposite party further pleads that, the complainant never made any complaints with regard to the construction but only after a lapse of 11 months had approached this commission with all false photographs and had wilfully not taken the photographs when the flat was handed over to her, and actually the complainant has some issues with the watchman, with regard to the same she has requested this opposite party to look into the same but as this opposite party had handed over the building to the society is no way concerned with regard to the security or any other maintenance issues. And the mails sent by the complainant reveal the same.
The opposite party further pleads that at page 5 of sale deed it has been clearly mentioned that "anything pertaining to drain, bore well etc., is collective decision of society." And that this opposite party had completed the building in all respects and was never deficient in any of the services, and the present complaint has been filed only to harass the opposite party and extract money and does not bear any merits. Hence, the same be dismissed.
6. The complainant has filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.Al to Al1 and on behalf of the Opposite parties. Sri.N.Maniprakash, Managing Partner of M/s. Tulsi Enterprises filed evidence affidavit, and got marked Ex.B1 & B3.
that arise for Heard both sides perused the record, the points consideration are:
7. Points for consideration:
of opposite . Whether there is any deficiency on the part parties?
entitled for the reliefs
2. Whether the complainant is sought in the complaint ?
3. If yes, to what extent?
8. Point No.1 &2:
had is that, the opposite party The grievance of the complainant and the without completing the construction sold the flat defective and done with inferior Construction of flat was also and to the pending works quality work and in order to complete total sum of she would incur a defective works rectify the and of Rs.5,15,000/-
such seeking the said
sum
Rs.5,15,000/-, as
and costs. In
and mental agony
compensation for hardship case she filed Ex.Al to A11.
support of her complaint on On the other hand the opposite party opposed the construction in all aspects had completed the the ground that he the flat & n o r m s and having inspected as per the specifications the same.
the complainant had purchased and building thoroughly certificate And that the GHMC had already issued the occupancy and having found the same completed after verifying the structure and ready for occupation had rightly as per the sanction plan certificate. And with regard to Ex.A10 issued the occupancy had contended that the said photographs the opposite party the complainant's flat but are of the photographs do not belong to of the members use and is underground sump area which none the material is left after the used for storage purpose and all work.
completion of construction
9. Ex.A1 to A4, Development Agreement, Supplementary sale deed are not in Agreement, Agreement of sale deed, Registered is with regard to dispute. The complainant has two grievances one incomplete works of common areas. Such as
a) Incomplete stair case that leads to stilt.
b) Incomplete compound wall to building.
c) Not leveling of ground arca and
d) The bore well dug is insuficient for future nceds.
10. The other grievance is with regard to her flat No.501 i.c., (1) the flat is constructed with structural defects. (2) substandard material is used in the wash room which has resulted in lack of Tunctional use with in a period of one year of purchase. (3) and the false ceiling done is of inferior quality.
Citing all the above deficiencies the complainant sought for damages of Rs.5,15,000/- for defective structures and incomplete work to substantiate the same the complainant had filed Ex.A10 photographs. All the photographs though reveal incomplete work but however the same do not bear any date in the absence of date on the photographs it cannot be ascertained as to when the said photographs were taken it is for the complainant to prove that the same were taken after the purchase and more particularly when the opposite party is denying the same, that apart all the incomplete works are with regard to common areas to be provided for all the apartments the complainant as an individual owner cannot make a claim on behalf of all the apartment owners as such the first grievance of the complainant with regard to the incomplete works of common areas cannot be considered it is not the case of the complainant that she is representing all the apartment owners.
11. Coming to the grievance with regard to complainants flat under Ex.A10 (F,G,H) though the cracks are visible but it is for the complainant to prove that the said cracks are on the walls of flat No.501 that too when the opposite party had specifically denied in his evidence affidavit by stating that the said photographs belong to underground sump area which none of the inmates use for routine purpose and is used as a storage area. In case of such specific denial the burden is on the complainant to prove that the photographs belong to flat No.501, but there is no effort put by the complainant prove the same, that apart we fail to understand as to to what prevented the complainant from getting an advocate commissioner appointed to get the flat inspected.
1And it is pertinent to note here that the complainant had not sought any relief for completion of unfinished work nor any rectification of poor quality work, but had sought for Rs.5,15,000/-
how the as damages for defective structures we fail to understand Complainant has arrived to this specific figure. Since in the the structural complaint though the complainant had pleaded that no engineer has assessed and estimated the probable expenditure, that such document is filed nor it is the case of the complainant In she had got the work done and had incurred such expenditure.
to ascertain the absence of any such document it is difficult That apart damages and fix any liability on the opposite parties. the Ex.A9, conversation does not reveal any complaint/grievance with regard to defective construction or the mail filed by opposite communication or complaint party. Ex.B1, in the absence of any it cannot be from the complainant from the date of purchase, concluded that the construction done by opposite party is is defective.
view In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the emphatic that the complainant had utterly failed to prove that the opposite inferior party had constructed her flat in defective manner or used quality material.
12. Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to steno; transcribed and typed by him; corrected and pronounced by us in the open court on this 17th day of November 2022.