S.KRISHNA Vs. S.MALLA REDDY
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J. -
(1.) THE complainant
entered into an agreement for sale with the opposite party for purchase
of Flat No. C7 in second floor admeasuring 987 sq. ft. including 213 sq.
ft. of common area together with undivided share of 22 sq. yards of land
on 15.7.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 2,65,000/ - and paid the entire
consideration including registration charges of Rs. 35,000/ -. Though the
opposite party promised to hand over the finished flat in the second
floor with all amenities including lift, marble flooring, separate
electrical transformer, 3 phase power supply, etc., in November, 1996
itself, but failed to hand over the same and started demanding escalation
charges. However, instead of entering into a quarrel and litigation with
the opposite party the complainant agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.
(2.) ,45,000/ - towards marble stone, teakwood in bed room and wardrobe, kitchen and sliding shutters to cover the loft with plywood, and granite
kitchen platform as well as drinking water. Even then the opposite party
provided only country wood and the windows without panes. Windows and
doors are left without bolts, hinges etc. Though it is promised
plastering of the wall with cement and sponge finish, the opposite party
plastered the walls with lime. The opposite party similarly provided
mosaic flooring of different shades and uneven finishing and some places
were left without flooring and sanitary fittings are broken. Even the
municipal water though promised is not provided. Lift and transformer
though promised not provided. Though sale deed was executed but it was
without the knowledge of the complainant and without giving him an
opportunity to check the building. Hence this complaint is filed claiming
a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/ - received by the opposite party, as well as Rs.
35,000/ - towards registration charges and damages of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party he denied the execution of the agreement including provision for lift, marble
flooring, electrical transformer, etc. It is further stated that he is
the owner of 444 sq. yards plot in Sy. Nos. 152 to 154 of Thokatta
Village and after obtaining necessary permission he proposed to construct
flats named as œM.R. Towers . The complainant showed interest to
purchase Flat No. C -7 in second floor comprising of 774 sq. ft. with 213
sq. ft. common area and accordingly an agreement was entered into on
15.7.1996. The complainant agreed to pay the balance and get the registration done. The complainant paid the balance only on 13.3.1997 and
got the sale deed registered on that date. The brochure issued by the
opposite party clearly spells out the material to be used and the
facilities to be provided. There is no promise to provide lift either in
the brochure, agreement of sale or in the sale deed. It is clearly stated
that flooring will be with white mosaic and skirting. Regarding separate
electrical transformer an amount of Rs. 22,940/ - was deposited with APSEB
on 6.2.1998 being the 10 per cent of the estimated value and the opposite
party installed the transformer incurring huge expenditure of Rs.
2,65,000/ - and the complainant is drawing supply from the transformer. Though 3 phase supply was provided the complainant got fixed single phase
meter to his flat. If he wants, he can switch over to 3 phase power
supply. The allegation in para 3 of the complaint that with a view to
avoid quarrel, the complainant agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.
2,45,000/ - for certain works are false. There is no such agreement. The complainant agreed to purchase the flat for a sale consideration of Rs.
(3.) ,75,280/ - and Rs. 35,000/ - was required for stamp duty and registration and he paid the said amount only. Even the receipts filed by the
complainant disclose that the amounts were paid for providing flooring
with marble stones, wood work with teakwood and plywood, for providing
granite for kitchen platform and municipal water for drinking. As per the
promise a bore -well was dug. All other allegations that wood work was not
done, window panes not provided, bolts and hinges not fixed to the door,
etc., are not correct. There is no agreement to provide municipal water
for drinking but he promised to supply water through overhead tank. As
promised a sump was provided for storing municipal water. The purchasers
have to apply for water connection in their names. Hence, the complainant
is not entitled to any relief.
3. The complainant besides filing his affidavit filed Exs. A -1 to A -6A. The opposite party filed Exs. B -1 to B -3 besides filing his counter
affidavit and also through third party.
The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.