Decided on February 27,2003

Lakshmi Associates Appellant
Y.C.Rao Respondents


P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE opposite party, who is common in all the complaints, is the appellant in the above appeals. As the defence is common in all the appeals, we deem it appropriate to dispose of them by a common judgment as is done by the District Forum.
(2.) THE complainants purchased undivided interest in the land and entered into agreements for construction of flats with the appellant called Balaya Sastry layout. Though the entire consideration under the agreements as well as for extra works was paid, the appellant did not deliver the possession of the flats within the stipulated time as per the terms of the agreement. The appellant constructed two flats unauthorisedly and constructed in all 36 flats while the permission was obtained for 34 flats only. Though the complainants paid towards the cost of electric supply, the appellant has not given any account. The construction was defective in many respects and the quality of the construction is far below the desired standards. The door shutters are below average standard, sanitary pipes and water pipes are of PVC material and they are leaking. Cables used are 3/20 instead of 7/20 or 7/18, window grills are too weak and cannot offer any resistance. Drinking water supply from the Municipality and also supply from water sump to the flat is not provided. Compound walls are not provided. Lift is promised but not provided though the building is five storeyed building from the ground. As no chijjas (shades) over the windows are provided with the result rainwater is entering into the bedroom. Water flush out for Indian type and W.C. in the common bathroom are not provided. It has also not provided ceramic tiles skirting to kitchen platform and dadooing in bathrooms, hence the complaints.
(3.) THE opposite party filed identical counters. Construction agreements entered by the complainants as well as purchase of undivided share of land from the owners under registered sale deed are admitted. The complainants occupied the flats after satisfying with the quality of construction. It is not true that there was delay in handing over possession of the flats. It is complainants alone that were dodging to make the payments due to the opposite party. Additional construction made is permissible under law. The complainants never paid any amount to the opposite party for electricity connections except the installation deposit to the APSEB. Regarding the door shutters, no complaint about the quality was made till date. Further the allegation that sanitary and water pipes of PVC material are leaking is not supported by any evidence. The allegations regarding inferior quality cables/wires are denied. Grills of proper gauge were provided. There is no obligation on the part of the opposite party to provide pipelines from the drinking water sump to the flat. The opposite party has got 400 sq. yds. of undivided share of land and hence it has got every right to construct some more flats in the ground floor. The opposite party never promised lift to the building. The apartment constructed at a height of more than 17.5 mts. Only attract multi -storeyed building and this building is less than 17.5 mts. height, as such the erection of lift des not arise. As per the agreement cermaic tiles were agreed to be provided in the areas of dadooing in both the toilets and kitchen platforms. All the claims are imaginary and hence not tenable. On the basis of the material placed before the District Forum, it found that there is deficiency in service and accordingly issued directions to the opposite party as follows : (1) He should construct the northern side compound wall and provide two boundary wall gates to the compound wall. (2) He should plaster the cellar floor left unfinished without plastering. (3) He should provide lift. (4) He should provide sump as per standard specification for drinking water to the flats with necessary pipelines. (5) He should replace the defective electrical fittings and wirings in external side. (6) He should replace the sanitary pipelines with good material. In default of the above directions, the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,760/ - to each of the complainants towards the above deficiencies 1 to 6. It is also further directed to pay Rs. 10,240/ - in C.C. Nos. 163/1994, 164/1994, 165/1994, 166/1994, 206/1994, 210/1994, 211/1994, 353/1994, 354/1994 and 355/1994, Rs. 8,360/ - in C.C. No. 183/1994, Rs. 8,800/ - in C.C. No. 352/1994 and Rs. 9,800/ -in C.C. No. 404/1994 respectively towards deficiency found in their individual flats, together with compensation of Rs. 3,000/ - and cost of Rs. 1,000/ - to each of the complainants, hence these appeals. ;

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