w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dr. Vasu Kumar Gajula v/s M/s. Vaishnavi Constructions Rep. by Sri V. Srinivasa Sai Managing partner & Others

    C.C. 74 of 2013

    Decided On, 08 July 2014

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO
    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainant: M/s. K. Bikshpathy, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: M/s. P. Nagaraju, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral Order : (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member)

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to complete the pending works, to pay interest of Rs.30,75,000/- @ 18% pa for the period from 02.02.2009 to 01.04.2013 on the amount of Rs.41,00,000/- and future interest till the date of realization, Rs.5 lakhs towards harassment and mental agony, Rs.15,000/- towards contribution for watchman room, greenery at ground floor and costs

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of this complaint are that the owner of the Plot bearing number 307 and 308 admeasuring 577.78 sq. yards situate at Karthikeyanagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtopposite party no.1 entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant on 05.01.2009 to purchase Flat no. 201 in ‘ UMA KUTEER’ situated at Karthikeyanagar, Nacharam village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District consisting of three bedrooms, hall, kitchen with a plinth area of 1690 sft for a total sale consideration of Rs.41,00,000/- and to hand over after completion of the same in all respects within 10 months and paid an advance amount of Rs.31,00,000/- on 05.01.2009 and to be paid the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 02.02.2009. Though the flat was registered in his name in semi-finished stage, possession was not given despite undertakings to be handed over the same by 31.08.2010 for the first time and later on 31.07.2011. The opposite parties have to comply with the following : to provide drinking water supply connection, generator, repairing of lift, Rs.5,956/- towards property tax arrears, door at Electrical Lift room, two iron ladders for the overhead water tank, eight cement sajjas to the windows, individual water meter, electrical board cover near electrical lift, cover to the overhead water tank, cover to the water sump, wooden board contains occupants particulars, eight boxes for the postal letters, painting of car parking numbers, tiles above the wash basin before common toilets, hole for gas pipe connection, covers o the electric wires covered by PVC pipes at car parking area, fire extinguishers, left over civil works, conversion of three phase electric connection from commercial category into residential category and conversion of electric meter service connection no. 120117156 from the name of first opposite party to the name of the complainant converting it as residential category. As per clause 5 of the agreement, the opposite parties paid rent @ Rs.15,000/- only for seven months. On 30.09.2012 the opposite parties demanded @ Rs.100/- per sq.ft in addition to complete the pending works. Despite many meetings and requests, since the opposite parties did not hand over possession, he got issued notice on 18.02.20013 though received but they kept quite. The acts of opposite parties amount to, breach of contract, negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.

3. The second opposite party filed his counter, which was adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3, and mainly contended that possession of the flat in all respects was already delivered to the complainant in the year 2009. The story of undertaking is not correct. Once the execution of registered sale deed is completed and delivery of flat was given to complainant, the question of incompletion of works does not arise. As per the superseding decisions and approvals of the father of the complainant in each and every aspect right from the date of development agreement till execution of registered sale deed, the opposite parties handed over the complete construction in all respects as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. The second opposite party had signed on 10 blank stamp papers and 10 white and ledger papers on 26.01.2013 at around 7.30 PM as demanded by the complaint and his henchmen under duress for demanding repayment of entire sale consideration. It is not true to say demanding of any further amount from the complainant. There is no subsisting agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant No.2 filed his affidavit and relied on the documents, Exs.A1 to A-18.Mr. V. Srinivasa Sai, Managing Partner of the opposite parties filed his affidavit and no documents were marked on their behalf.

5. The learned counsels for the complainant filed written arguments.

6. The point that arises for consideration is :

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

7. POINTS NO.1&2: The admitted facts of the case are that the owner of the Plot bearing number 307 and 308 admeasuring 577.78 sq. yards situate at Karthikeyanagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite parties had entered into Development Agreement with the complainant on 05.01.2009 for development of the plot and raising construction thereon. The opposite parties as the power of attorney holders of the owners of the property, entered into agreement of sale dated 05.01.2009 with the complainant to sell Flat no.201 consisting of three bed rooms , hall, kitchen with a plinth area of 1690 sq ft for consideration of Rs.41,00,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- on the day agreement of sale was entered into with the opposite parties, i.e., on 05.01.2009 and he paid the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 02.02.2009 to the opposite parties.

8. The consideration of Rs.41,00,000/- included in its ambit the cost of providing amenities to the Flat purchased by the complainant. The opposite parties executed sale deed and delivered possession of the Flat to the complainant on in the year 2009. The complainant complains of the opposite parties not providing amenities such as drinking water supply pipeline, generator, transformer and elevator etc., and he sought for completion of the amenities and payment of compensation.

9. This Commission appointed advocate-commissioner who visited the premises and filed his report stating that the elevator is installed and it has been functioning. His report reads :

' I have personally scrutinized the working of the lift along with the complainant and his counsel. The lift is in working condition with proper grill and the lift is maintained also by the occupants of the complex every month. This is the information given by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no. 2 clearly stated that document no. 2,3 & 4 of the work memo of complainant will be furnished shortly him by as the same is not there now with him. The warranty period is over, as informed by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no. 2 also informs that the association as soon as it is formed will enter into annual maintenance contract with the lift company.

The lift condition is that there is a minute gap i.e, 2 mm between the floor and lift in 2nd and 3rd floor. The glass of the light in the lift is missing '

The opposite parties have filed photographs of stair case with ss. railing, gardening around the building, the elevator inspected by the commissioner, ladder to reach the overhead tank, safety grill door to the terrace, door to the elevator room, cover with PVC pipes for open electric wires, watchman room, cover to the water sump at ground floor, cover to over head tanks, insulating cover to the main fuse before the flats, numbering the car parking slots, name plate to the building, safety grill to electric meter, etc.,. which show completion of providing the amenities which the complainant has stated to have been completed. Thus, the only amenities to be provided for are the elevator and drinking water supply line to the building.

10. As said earlier, elevator is provided to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the building. However, the opposite parties have to hand over installation report and safety certificate of the elevator to the association as and when it is formed. The opposite parties have to take steps for laying drinking water pipe line to the building. The opposite parties delivered possession of the Flat to the complainant and they had also executed sale deed in favour of the complainant. 11. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to provide drinking water pipe line to theFlat no. 201 in UMAKUTEER situated at Karthikeyanagar, Nacharam village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and hand over installation certificate and safety certificate to the Flat Owners Association as soon as it is constituted. Costs of the proceeding quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Time for providing drinking water pipe line to the building four weeks.
O R