RIVIERA APARTMENTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. BHAVANAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties 1 to 3, i.e. the builder-cum-the developers, this complaint is filed seeking directions to renovate the defects in the construction made in their flats, also to pay compensation of Rs.26,60,000/- to make good the deficiencies, so also, to pay costs of Rs.20,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that all the 27 Flat owners have formed themselves as an Association in respect of flats of developed by M/s. Bhavanam Estates Private Limited (OP 1). All the owners have undivided share of land of 50 sq. yds each. All the owners after forming as registered association, they elected the second opposite party as its President in the year 2000 who continued up to 2005. That on 19.02.2005, one P. M. Nair was elected as President of the association. In the meeting held on 30.12.002, the executive body had discussed about the inconvenience faced by them in respect of basic amenities such as drinking water connection, drainage facility, overhead water tank facility etc. The first opposite party had agreed to provide the main lift and also agreed to clear drainage facility by 31.03.2003. The second opposite party while he was the President of the Association had promised that he would get the erection of elevator but he failed to do so. The meeting held on 30.12.2002 was presided over by Mr. B. Govinda Reddy as Builder-cum-President of the Association and in the minutes it is noted that on making enquiries from the elevator companies and after going through the quotations for erection of a new elevator the quotation given by M/s. KONE Elevator Company was approved. As per the quotations, the total cost of new elevator comes to Rs.5,25,000/- which is to be necessarily collected from the builder. The first opposite party failed to install the lift as promised. So all the members of the association have taken steps to install OTIS Elevator by incurring expenditure for an amount of Rs.6,70,000/- and initially an advance amount of Rs.67,000/- was paid to the said company. A small elevator is erected in the complex which was installed by M/s. Ion Exchange (India) Limited and the said company which installed it has permitted the members to use it at Mercy. The said company informed the members of the association not to use the said elevator as it is not possible to extend facility since other tenants who are residing in four other flats situate on the fourth floor have to use the same. Till date, the first opposite party failed to provide drinking water facility. On enquiry from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, it is informed that the cost of it will be at Rs.15 lakhs. The builder had constructed two over head tanks, one for storage of drinking water and another for bore well water. After a few years, the first opposite party without consulting the association had completely occupied one of the water tanks intended for drinking water and he extensively used it for his family and also made unauthorized construction for it and collected charges from the flat owners of 601, 602 and 700. At the time of construction the builder (OP 1) had taken illegal connection of water and later when the Sewerage Board came to know of it had fined him to pay Rs. 3.50 lakhs penalty which he failed to pay so far. Further the first opposite party failed to provide separate control points and sanitary and drainage connections which he has to provide it whose cost approximately would be Rs. 5 lakhs. The toal cost of the amenities which are to be provided comes to Rs.26,70,000/-. The first opposite party is liable to make good all the above unfinished amenities. Even though the members of the Association which continuously persuading the opposite parties 1 and 2 but they failed to fulfill their obligations which amounts to deficiency in service.

(3.) The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their common version denying the allegations. It is further stated that there is no relationship of contractual, jural or otherwise with the complainant and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the case. As per the development agreements entered into, the individuals units were sold away by executing a sale deed and also delivered possession way back in the year 2000 by obtaining their acknowledgements. Most of the purchasers after taking possession of the flats have in turn sold away their flats and went away. One of the purchasers M/s. Ion Exchange Limited had purchased some flats in the fourth floor but he owed payment of the balance of consideration and without payment of the same he tried to take forcible possession and at that stage the opposite parties have filed O.S. 39/2000 in the Civil Court for adjudication which is pending. The said company also filed CMA 1317/2000 on the file of the Honble High Court and also filed a suit in OS.no. 173/2000 on the file of XII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,. During the pendency of CMA 1317/2000 the opposite parties have registered four sale deeds on deposit of the balance of sale price. Some of the other persons tried to create some litigation by formation and registration of the association. The builder has no further role to play in its administration and maintenance of the entire premises since it was handed over. The second opposite party has acted as its President till 2004. Due to differences in between the family members of the second opposite party and other tenants some civil cases were filed which is in respect of recovery of maintenance charges. Suits OS 1722/2005 and OS No. 6968/2007 are still pending. Lift was also installed by the year 1999-2000 and the balance of the amount payable to the Elevator Company was paid by M/s. Ion Exchange (India) Limited which was deducted from out of the amount payable to the builder (OP 2). The said lift is in operation till date.