MANGAPATHI TOWERS FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. LAKSHMAN DAS
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MANGAPATHI TOWERS FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Click here to view full 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?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.