MANGAPATHI TOWERS FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. LAKSHMAN DAS
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-9-8
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 08,2003

MANGAPATHI TOWERS FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION Appellant
VERSUS
LAKSHMAN DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE complainant is a flat owners Association. Its members entered into agreements with the opposite party builder for purchase of flats during the year 1997 -98 as per the brochure issued by him. Accordingly the total plinth area of each flat would be either 950 sq. ft. or 900 sq. ft. But contrary to the said promise he constructed them with a shortage of 25 sq. ft. in each flat. He also collected a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - for car parking. However, the opposite party could not complete the construction work as promised but delivered possession on different dates to the members of the complainant Association commencing from April, 1998 to December, 1998. Even then facilities like drinking water, lift, car parking, etc., are not provided, but they were provided subsequently. A generator was promised collecting a sum of Rs. 1 lakh but the same was not installed. There are severe leakage of water pipes and drainage pipes causing damage to the building. The opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Though he promised distemper to the interior walls it is not done. He has to provide 8 doors for each flat but provided only six doors. Though Assam teak should be used for all the doors as promised he used inferior quality of country wood. He constructed 6" outer walls of all the flats and as such there is every possibility of walls collapsing in the near future. The lift is not working. There is no proper electrical wiring. Therefore, they filed this complaint claiming for a direction to rectify the defects and also to compensate the flat owners suitably. In all a claim is made for Rs. 18,79,750/ -.
(2.) IN the counter filed by the opposite party while admitting the construction agreements denied that there is any shortfall in the extent of 950 or 900 sq. ft. in the two categories of flats, that it is false to say that the opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - for providing water, electricity, drainage, etc., but collected only Rs. 18,000/ - and the said amount was deposited with the concerned departments. The flat owners never complained about any pending works at the time of taking possession of the flats. On the other hand they expressed their satisfaction in writing while taking possession. There is no obligation to provide car parking for the fat owners. It is false to allege that the opposite party collected Rs. 1 lakh towards generator. The unauthorised construction referred to was carried out by the opposite party at the instructions of the flat owners based on Vaasthu and as such they are alone responsible for regularisation. The opposite party fixed the doors with Assam teak -wood and main door with teakwood. Outer walls on the flats are constructed as per the specifications. He also installed the generator as promised. There are no pending works as mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE complainant filed the affidavit evidence through its Secretary and filed Exs. A -1 to A -38. The opposite party filed Exs. B -1 to B -7 besides filing his affidavit. The point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so to what extent?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.