State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sai Raghava Enclave vs 1. M/S. Maruthi Consortium ... on 10 October, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTEs
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
cc.NO.215OF2015
Between:
M/s. Sai Ragahava cnclave D-block
Flat Owners Welfare Association (Reg. No.852/2013/),
by its General Secretary,
Sanjeev Gangadhar Motagi,
Flat No.402, D-Block,
Sal Raghava Enclave,
Sy.No.208AA, Kailashnagar,
Sridevi Theater 812 Road,
Chandanagar,
Hyderabad -500050. Comnplainant
And
1. M/s Maruthi Consortium Constructions
Rep by its Managing Partner
Sri K Bala Krishna Office at
Sy.No.208/AA of
Chandanagar Village,
Scrilingampaily Mandal,
Rangareddy District.
2. P.Rama Rao, S/o. P. Narasimha Rao
Aged about 64 years,
Occ: Managing Partner of
M/s Maruthi Consortium constructions,
R/o H.No. 17-84, Sri Nagar colony,
Dilshuknagar,
Hyderabad-72
3. K.Bala Krishna, S/o. K.Mallaiah
Aged about 46 ycars,
Occ: Managing Partner of
M/s. Maruthi Consortium constructions,
R/o H.No. 15-21-35/601,
Sai Ram Enclave, Balaji Nagar,
Kukatpally,
Hyderbad-72.
4. K.Uma, W/o K.Bala Krishna(Late)
Agcd about: 53 ycars, Occ: House wife
5. K.Arun, S/o K.Bala Krishna(late)
Aged about: 29 ycars, Occ: private service
6. K.Aravind, S/o K.Bala Krishna(Late)
Aged about: 23 ycars, Occ: student
Opposite party No.4 to 6 All are R/o.H.NO.15-21-35/601,
Sai Ram Enclavc, Balajinagar, Kukatpally, Hydecrabad-72.
2
(Opposite parties No.4 to 6 added as per orders in IA No.81
12
of 2019 dated 12-02-202)
.Opposite Parties/
Proposed Respondents
Counsel for the Complainant :Mr. Sanjeev Gangadhar (PIP)
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri G.Tirupathi Reddy, Ops. 1 & 3
M/s. M.Surya Prakash O.P.No.2
Sri G.N.Satyanarayana -Ops. 4, 5 & 6
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.v.SESHUBABU, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBERR MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO ******* (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.Rajeshree, Member-Non
-Judicial) Order:
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
To award the compensation of Rs 29,13,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand Only) towards completion of the works.
.Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs 5,00,000/- to the complainant Association towards mental and physical agony.
Costs of the complaint may be awarded.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The case of the complainant/Welfare Association is that, the opposite parties have entered into a Development Agreement cum GPA wih with the Land Owners viz., Sri B.K.Rghava Reddy, G.Narasimha Reddy, G.Sudha Rani, B.Radhika, M.Vijaya Lakshmi & B. Venkat Reddy for the total extent of 3,889 Sq. yards to construct Block D and E vide Regd. Document No. 184/2007 daled 24.10.2007 and out of their share sold the Flats to the present complainants, the complainants have individually purchased the said lats from the opposite parties and Subsequently formed an Association for the D' Block viz., M/s.SAI RAGHAVA ENCLAVE by registering the same vide registration No.852/2013.
T h a t the complainant/Welfare Association had sent a letter 26.10.2013 demanding to D Speed post to the opposite parties on letter was returned complete all the pending works. But, the said as unclaimed. Then the members of complainant/Welfare the house of the Association total five members have visited and requested opposite party No.2 Dilsukhnagar personally, at to which explained the urgent need to complete the pending works, the same and also the opposite party No.2 had assured to complete acknowledged the letter given to himn. But, till date the pending all the other works are not completed. Subsequent to s a m e individual members have approached several times and requested works. The opposite the opposite parties to complete the pending to complete but had not kept their parties though promised addressed a promise. The complainanl/Welfare Association again the same w a s also letter on 01.02.2015 to the opposite party but returned as 'unclaimed.' The following works are still pending.
Sl. PENDING wORK ESTIMATED
COST
No.
Rs.
1. Generator (40 K V A) 4,50,000/-
2. Generator Cabling, Installing & 1,00,000/-
Commission
3. Lift Installat on 8 Commission 7,50,000/-
Second Coat Painting 2,50,000/-
5. Terrace Work 2,00,000/-
6. Grills to Panel room and fencing 50,000/-
around transformer
7. Towards BPS 5,73,000/-
8. Penalties to be paid by owners due 5,40,000/-
to non-availability of BPS 25%
property tax extra, Manjeera
Penalty, water purchase from outside etc.,
9. Total 29,13,000/
4. Finally, on 02.05.2014 the complainant/Weifare Association got issued a Legal Notice through their Counsel demanding the opposite parties to complete all the pending works within a month of receipt of the notice. Though the opposite parties received the said legal notice but failed to respond to the same. As such, the complainant/Weliare Association has understood that the opposite parties ith a cheating intention are not willing to complete the pending works and as this complainant/Welfare Association is a consumer, the complainant/Welfare Association is before this Commission sccking compensation for completion of works and also compensation for mental agony and costs.
5.
Written version of opposite parties 1 &3: The Opposite parties 1&3 while admitting the Development Agreement and Sale of Flats to the complainant/Welfare Association had stated that, the present complaint is not maintainable either on facts or on Law and that the complainant/Welfare Association has approached this Commission with unclean hands and the Association had not only complainant/Welfare misrepresented several material facts but also suppressed the facts.
6. The Opposite parties 1 & 3 further pleads that, the flats were delivered after completing all the works way back in June, 2009 and since then the complainant/Welfare Association are enjoying the same without any complaints it is only in 2015 the present claim is made and that they have never received any letter addressed by thc complainant/Welfare Association on 26.10.2013 or after, and as the lats completed in all aspects were handed over in 2009 the present complaint is barred by limitation. On this sole ground the complaint has to be dismissed in limini. Further, none of the members of the complainant/Welfare Association have visited the house of the opposite party No.2, more particularly a five member team.
7. The Opposite parties 1 & 3 have further denied that, they have received any letter dated 01.02.2014 and specifically pleaded that, all the works such as Generator, Generator Cabling and Terrace Works, installation, lift installation, Second coat painting, the were already completed in l s to panel rooms and fencing for Property 1ax, year 2009 itself and as lar a s BPS & Penalty concerned this Opposite parties 1 8 3 had a n j e e r a water etc., are and the said the BPS Charges in the year 2009 already paid When there is no the GHMC.
application is pending before arise of the s a m e doesn't pending works the question of completion on part of the opposite the at all and that there is no negligence with highest parties 1 & 3 had acted parties and this opposite their on there is no deficiency professional standards a s such, dismissed with costs.
part. As such, the complaint be
8. Written version of opposite party No. 2:
the execution of
had also admitted
This Opposite party
of Flats to the
Agreement and Sale
Development
flats
Association and had stated that, the
complainant/ Welfare
w a s completed
in all
total work
were registercd long back and the
and the flats
in the year 2011 itself
aspects a s per specifications Association and o n c e a r e handed over to the complainant/Welfare the liability of the the flats are handed over to the purchasers doesn't exist any relationship of builder comes to an end and there is bad in law for c o n s u m e r and builder and that the complaint the 45 flats only 27 flats fell to the non-joinder of parties a s out of the remaining share of flats share of the opposite parties and of the property, as such, the belong to owners have joined the o w n e r s complainant/Welfare Association ought to as party to this complaint.
further pleads that, he has no
9. The Opposite parties the registration of the M/s. SAI knowledge with regard to RAGHAVA ENCLAVE, D-Block, Welfare Association and had denied the letters addressed by the complainant/Welfare Association and that all these are only cock & bull stories only to file the present complaint and neither of the Association Members have met him at his residence nor he has made any promises to them and that this opposite parties have completed all works such as, Generator, Generator Cabling and installation, lift installation, Second quote painting, Terrace Works. And Grills to panel rooms and fencing around is not duty of the opposite parties the required works has been done as per the norms and it is for the complainants to maintain the same. As lar as the regularization of the deviation of is concerned it is the duty of the complainants to get it done at their COst and the complainant/Welfare Association have purchased the flats after being fully satisficd the title, plan of construction and also after verilying the Brochure and sanction plan etc., as such, any regularizations required shall be borne by the complainant/Welfare Association as per the scheme of the Government. The present complaint is filed with an illegal motive only to extract money and to defame this opposite parties in the business field. This is nothing but a harassment to the opposite parties who are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and only to avoid the balance payments the present complaint is filecd on false and frivolous grounds. As such, the same is not maintainable and be dismissed with costs.
10. Written version of opposite parties 4, 5 &6:
These opposite parties slate that, they are no way concerned with the partnership firm, M/s. MARUTHI CONSTRUCTIONS and as the said partnership firm consisted of only two partners and as one of the partner had died the partnership firm automatically stands dissolved in view of Section -42 C of In such case the legal hcirs Partnership Act, 1932.
presuming the partnership doesn't arise and any decrce cannot be passed against them.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.B. Mishra & others Vs. Md. Laiquiddin Khan another in Civil Appeal No.3311/2015 vide Judgment dated 18.10.2019 had held that, "a decree which obtain against a deceased partner of a Partnership Firm is not executable against his/her legal heirs"
12. The Opposite parlies further pleads that, they are no way concerned with regard to cither the letters and notice issued by the complainant/Wellare AssOciation nor with any of the pending works or any other allegations against the opposite parties. As Such, they are not liable for any of the acts of either the Company or their Partners. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed against them.
marked
13. The complainant has filed evidence affidavit and got X.AT tO A24 and on behalf of the Opposite party No.2 P.Rama Rao, S/o. P.Narasimha Rao iled his cvidence aflidavit and got filed Ex.B1 & B2 were marked on his behalf. No evidence affidavit on behalf of other opposite parties.
14. Hcard both sides perused the material on record.
15. Points for consideration:
1. Whether the Opposite Parties have been deficient/unfair in their scrvices?
2. Whether the complainant/Welfare Association is entitled for the relicfs sought in the complaint ?
3. If yes, to what extent?
16. Point No.1 &2:
The grievance of the complainant/Welfare Association is that the Opposite party/ Construction Company had promised to provide certain common amenities but had failed to provide the same, as such the present complaint seeking compensation for completion of the said works and compensation for mental agony and costs. In support of their case the complainant/Welfare Association has got marked Exs.Al to A24.
The preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 is that since the possession was handed over in 2009 and the present complaint is filed in 2015 the same is barred by limitation, the sale deeds filed under Ex.A1 to A5 perlain lo period betwecn 2008 to 2010 and admittedly the sale deeds are for semi-finished lats and the opposite parties have aclmilted having executed a development agreement and under Ex.A24 & B2 1Broacher is filed wherein the proposed amenities and specifications have been mentioned. And under Ex.A14 and A15 i.e., 8 copy of proforma allidavit submitted by Opposite Party No.1, letter addresscd by opjposite parties company requesting the HMWS & SB to releasc the drinking water which are of the year December, 2012 and April-2013 respectively which is sufficient proof to conclude that though the lats were registered in between 2008 to 2010 and as per opposite parties possession was handed over in the year 2009, but the basic amenilies such as drinking water was not provided. Even if one of the amenity promiscd had not been provided certainly gives a continuous cause of action. As such, it can be safely concluded that the complaint is well within the limitation period.
17. Coming to the merits of the case at the cost of like to enlist the repetition we would pending work and their estimated costs as the alleged by complainant / welfare association in their complaint.
S1 PENDING WORK
No. ESTIMATED
COST
1. Rs.
Generator (40 K VA)
2. Generalor Cabling, 4,50,000/-
Commission Installing &
1,00,000/
3. Lift Installation &
Commission
4. Sccond Coat Painting 7,50,000/
5. Terrace Work 2,50,000/
6. Grills to Pancl room and 2,00,000/-
around transformer fencing 50,000/
Towards BPS
8 Penaltics to be paid by owners due 5,73,000/-
to
non-availability of BPS 25%% 5,40,000/-
property lax extra,
Penalty, Manjeera
waler purchase from
outside ctc.,
9
Total
29,13,000/-
18. As the whole case of the
complainant/ welfare association is based the on specification provided in the brochure under Ex.A24 & B2 with regard and to the item No.1 & 2 (generator, cabling) in above list is concerncd. Though there is a mention to provide the generators there is a note stating that same shall be provided at "Extra of provision of lift, Ex.A22 Charges". In respect photograph dated 13.02.2017 is filed which clearly reveals that though there is duct open for lift but no lift is installed and the opposite parties though filed the evidence affidavit subsequent to the marking of the said document did not choose to rebut the same in his evidence alflidavit, as such it be can undisputedly held that till February, 2017 also lift has not been installed.
grills and to regard to second coat painting, terrace work With the panel room and fencing around transformer No proof is filed by was not the same COmplainant/welfare associalion to ascertain thal provided.
record all the
With regard lo BPS admittedly and as per
finished condition and knowing Complainants purchased the flats in semi that they have been fully well the structure of the building, which implies what restricted the we wonder as to witnessing the construction. Then objecting for the illegal complainant/welfare association having remained constructions being undertaken by the opposite parties violation and being part of illegal construction w a s going on Silent when now seek for association cannot of rules the complainant's/welfare that of the penalty charges amount paid for BRS or for that matter any part the connection. That they have incurred for getting the Manjeera show that file any receipts to complainant's/welfarc association failed to 1or e x c e s s penalty charges the flat owners have contributed to pay the Manjeera conncclion.
the complainant's/welfare Coming to the relief sought by had sought a compensation of association the complainant's thirteen thousands only) for Rs.29,13,000/-(Twenty nine Lakhs Para-5 of he complaint, the completing of work, though at enlisted the estimated costs for complainant's/welfare association had for the same or completion of work but had not filed either any quotation any document to substantiate as to how they have arrived to such figures. ln the absence of the same and as discussed in preceding paras on merits also as the complainant's/welfare association is not entitled for any of the expenses except for the ift and delay for basic amenities of The brochure clearly reveals that the providing the drinking water. amenities provided were undoubtedly to attract the customers and not providing the same in time gives an impression that the opposite parties have been very casual in thcir approach. Hence we are of the view that the opposite parties are certainly liable for their deficient acts. With regard to the liability of opposite party Nos.4 to 6 who are the legal heirs of Opposite Party No.3, the opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 counsel had relied on S.P.Misra & Others Vs Mohd Laiquddin Khan & another (Civil appeal No.3311/2015) CDJ 2019 S.C.1199.
In the said judgment the matter involved was with regard to the execution of an injunction Decree obtained during the lifetime of the partner Where as in the instant case the opposite party No.3 died 10 during the pendency of the complaint, and LRs., were brought on record and the liability of the legal representatives will be restricted only to the extent of assets they have inheritcd from opposite party No.3.
In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties have been deficient in thcir services as such, the complainant's/ welfare association are entitled for reasonable compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
19. Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, as the action of one partner is binding on the other and opposite party Nos.4 to 6 are liable to the extent of estate they inherited from opposite party No.3.
() To pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/. for the deficient services and thereby causing inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant / welfare Association.
(2) To pay costs of Rs.20,000/-.
Time 1or compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.