State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kandagatla Narasaiah vs 1.Gagganapally Sujatha on 10 May, 2022
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) of Telangana,
Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad, Hyderabad 500 004
FANO.558 OF 2018 AGAINST CC NO.61 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICTCOMMISSION, NALGONDA
Between:
Kandagatla Narasaiah S/o Ramaiah,
aged about 77 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Vallala village, Shaligouraram mandal,
Nalgonda district,
presently residing at
Kandagatla Narasaiah S/o Ramaiah,
aged about 77 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o 12-112/12, Santoshnagar,
Nakrekal village & Mandal, Nalgonda district.
Appellant/Opposite party No. 11
And
1) Gagganapally Sujatha W/o Jitender Reddy,
aged about 26 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Flat No.G-101, Kanakadurga Housing Complex,
Near AVM School, Nakrekal village & Mandal,
Nalgonda district.
.Respondent/Complainant
2) The Executive Officer,
Gram Panchayat Office,
Nakrekal village and mandal,
Nalgonda district.
.Respondent/Opposite party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Nerusu Srinivasa Rao
Counsel for the Respondents :R1-Party-in-person
Sri D.Sridhar Reddy-R2
FA NO.641 OF 2019 AGAINST CC NO.61 OF 2019
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COMMISSION, NALGONDA
Between:
Gagganapally Sujatha W/o Jitender Reddy,
aged about 26 years, Oc: Household,
R/o Flat No.G-101, Kanakadurga Housing Complex,
Near AVM School, Nakrekal village & Mandal,
Nalgonda district.
AND
...Appellant/Complainant
1) Kandagatla Narasaiah S/o Ramaiah,
aged 69 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Vallala village, Shaligouraram mandal,
Nalgonda district.
2) The Executive Officer,
Gram Panchayat Office,
Nakrekal village and manda,
Nalgonda district.
... Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for Appellant :Party-in-person
Counsel for Respondents Sri Nerusu Srinivasa Rao-R1
Sri D.Sridhar Reddy-R2
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal.. President
Smt Meena Ramanathan Member
and Sri K.Ranga Rao Member Tuesday, the Tenth day of May Two Thousand TwentydO Oral Order: (per Hon'ble Justice MSK Jaiswal) FA NO.558 OF 2019:
The Opposite party No.1 in CC No.61 of 2015 on the file of District Forum, Nalgonda preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 28.05.2019 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite party No.2 to proceed further against Opposite party No.1 as per the Gram Panchayat Act.
FA NO.641 OF 2019 The Complainant in CC No.61 of 2015 on the file of District Forum, Nalgonda preferred this appeal feeling dissatisfied by the orders dated 28.05.2019 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite party No.2 to proceed further against Opposite party No.1 as per the Gram Panchayat Act.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the Complainant, in bries, is that she purchased the flat bearing No.G-101 measuring 1080 sft with undivided share of land measuring 40 square yards, for a consideration of Rs.10,08,000/- and got registered the same in her favour vide sale deed dated 05.10.2013 registered as document No.3292/2013, from the Opposite party No.1. At the time of sale, Opposite party No.l agreed to provide parking place for two-wheeler but failed to comply with the same.
Further, the Opposite 3 party No.1 failed to follow the setbacks, drainage and furtherance, Opposite party No.1 constructed four compound wall. n place of parking area and sold commercial shops in the same to third was parties. Even the matter complained to civic authorities but of no use. Hence, the with a complaint prayer to direct the Opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for non-providing parking area, and drainage, compound wall violation of accorded permission; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.10,000/- and further to direct the Opposite party No.2 to dismantle the illegal constructions made in the cellar of the complex.
4) Opposite party No. 1 filed its written version contending that there
is no deviation stated
as
by the Complainant and that he provided sufficient parking space to the Complainant. The construction of shops was by the purchasers themselves and no amount was received for the same. The owners of the apartment and other parlies are responsible for construction of shops and sharing of sale consideration amount among them. He had executed the documents as Attorney holder, particularly, the document bearing No.3229/2013 on 05.10.2013 and document No.3290/2013 on 17.10.2013. At the outset, the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) The Opposite party No.2 filed its written version contending inter-
alia that it has no knowledge of sale and purchase of apartment constructed by Opposite party No.1. On a complaint lodged by the Complainant to the effect that there is deviation in construction, it issued notice to Opposite party No.1 and sought for explanation as against the permission bearing No.GPN/743/2015. It is not aware of any complaint lodged with Police Station, Nakrekal. Opposite party No.1 had furnished the copy of compromise letter showing that the matter is settled with the Complainant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against it.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the Complainant filed her affidavit evidence as PW1 and got marked the documents Ex.A1 to A7. Opposite party No.1 himself filed his affidavit evidence as RW1 and got marked the documents B1 to B3. No evidence is let-in on behalf of Opposite party No.2.
7) The DistrictForum, after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.61 of 2015 by orders dated 28.05.2019, as stated supra, at paragraph No.1.
8) Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appcllant/Opposite party No.1 preferred appeal bearing FA No.558/2019 contending that the forum faied to consider the documents brought on record in proper and thereby erred in allowing the perspective that ample complaint. failed to consider the fact It parking space is provided to the Hence, prayed to allow the Respondent/Complainant.
appcal by setting aside the orders impugned.
Dissatisfied by the very same orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred appeal bearing FA below failed to consider the No.641/2019 contending that the forum fact that no wheeler and thereby erred in parking space is provided for two not awarding any compensation for the same. Even though no evidence is brought on record as to the deficiencies pointed-out, the Forum completion of below failed to award compensation for the same. any It failed to consider the documents on record in proper brought perspective. Hence, prayed to allow the modify the orders impugned. appeal and
9) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order as passed by the District Forum suffers from impugned irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modifiedany error or or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
10) These two appeals are being disposed ofby common orders inasmuch as they arise out of the same judgment i.., the orders of the District Forum, Nalgonda made in CC and under which the District No.61/2019 dated 28.05.2019 by Commission directed the No.2 therein to Opposite party proceed further against Opposite party No.1 as per Gram Panchayat Act.
11) As has been noticed from the preceding pleadings, it is manifest that the Complainant has purchased the flat in question by registered sale deed as long back as on 05.10.2013. According to the and the documents that are Complainant produced, on the date when she the flat, she was put in purchased possession and as a matter of fact, she executed Ex.B1 in her own hand-writing duly attested by two witnesses and her hushand wlhleh in to the elleet that on ther date when she has taken poCAIon of the llat i.e., on 05, 10, 2013, sha in fully Hatislied therewillh nd except or tlhe lift, al hus o other Hrievanee I is further mentionel in ex.I that even with regard to the lilt, she is withholding Ra.50,000/- wlhiclh will he paid after the lilt is installed. Therefore, il is nifeat that when the posHsion wan delivered to the Complaiant on 05.10,2013, ahe wun ully utisfied with all the lacilities and amenities And ihe hud no grievance whutnoever
12) The initial objection of the Opposite party No,I is that the conmplaint un filed is burved by limitation. There is nubstance in this objection lor the reason that wlien admittedly, the possession was taken on 05, 10.2013 and nince she elaims that there are certain deficiencies in the matterH of drainage, compound wiall and purking nlol, they ought to have approached the District Porum within a period of lwo years hercfrom i.e., on or before 01.10.2015. However, udmitledly, the present complaint came to be filed on 18.12.2015 which is beyond the limitation. The Complainant hus not even made any request lor condoning the delay, hence the complaint, as liled is cleurly barred by limitation.
13) Be that as it may, the reliefs with regard to two wheeler parking slot, compound wall and drainage cannot be raised by her more than two yeurs after she was inducted in po8session, more particularly, in view of her own satisfuction memo which she executed on the date when she purchased the property. Excepting for the self-serving pleading, no satisfactory evidence has been produced by the Complainant to show that there are deficiencies in the serviccs provided by the Opposite party No.1. The District Forum has propcerly appreciated this aspoct and has held that the case of the Complainant is not proved.
14) The other contention that is raised by the Complainant is that in the cellar portion, the Opposite partics have constructed four mulgies and let-out for commercial shops which is contrary to the building permission. There is no substance in this contention also for the simple reason that even in October 2013, when the Complainant purchascd the schedulcd lat, there cxists four mulgics in the cellar portion as is evident from Ex.B2 which is the Agreement of sale-cum-Gencral Power of Attorney in favour of third parties in respect of the four shops bearing Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in stilt floor of the schedule apartment. Legalities apart, the fact remains that even on the date when she purchased the Scheduled flat, there existed four mulgies in the stilt portion. It is her specific contention that she has visited the property and was fuly satisfied and only then she purchased the property. Therefore, she cannot have grievance with regard any to the existence of four commercial mulgies in the cellar portion.
15) The other direction that is sought by the Complainant is that the civic authorities may be directed to demolish the illegal structures which are made in contravention of the building plan. The contention of the civicauthorities is that on the basis of complaint on behalf of the Complainant, they issued notice to the builder for illegal constructions but subsequently they produced evidence to show that the matter is compromised and hence no further action is taken. This contention of the Opposite party No.2 namely the Gram Panchayat cannot be sustained for the simple reason that merely because the parties entered into compromise with regard to any illegal and unauthorized constructions, the Gram Panchayat cannot refrain itself from taking any action, if any construction is found to be in violation of the building regulations or the sanctioned plan.
16) The District Forum has taken into consideration all these aspects and directed the Opposite party No.2 to proceed against the illegal constructions in accordance with the Gram Panchayat Act. This direction of the District Forum cannot be said to be in any way erroneous.
17) In view of the fore-going discussion, it is held that there is no sufficient material on record in favour of the Complainant for holding that she is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.
The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint insofar as the above said reliefs are concerned. The direction given by the District Forum to the Gram Panchayat with regard to the illegal constructions also cannot be said to be in any way erroneous since the District Forum in its impugned order has categorically directed the Gram Panchayat to proceed further with regard to the deviations as per the Gram Panchayat Act. Therefore, both the appeals can be disposed of with the following directions.
18) In the result, both the appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it is always open to thee Opposite party No.2 Gram Panchayat to take appropriate action against the illegal constructions, if any, by strictly following the due process of law. The parties to bear their own costs.