Dr. Mahesh G. S. Netravalkar&
Mrs. Sidharthi M. Netravalkar,
A1, Magnivista Appts.,
Alto – St. Cruz ……………….Complainants

V

Mr. Armando Gonsalves, Prop.
M/s. Home Makers,
GonsalvesMansion,
Next to Campal Hotel,
Campal, Panaji - Goa ......………...…..Opposite Party


Date: - 26/03/2009



O R D E R

(Per Smt. Shanti Maria Fonseca, Sr. Member)

Brief facts of the case:-

1.The complainants in this case have bought a flat on payment of a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees ten lakh fifty thousand only) from the Opposite Party. It is their case that the said flat was handed over to them by a letter of delivery of possession on 24.04.2000. This fact has not been accepted by the Opposite Party.

2.The complainants have come before us to have the following grievances redressed:
(i)Formation of a Co-operative Society.
(ii)Cleaning of overhead water storage tanks.
(iii)Payment of water meter bills and transfer of water meter on respective owners’ names.
(iv)Repair of drainage.
(v)Garbage in premises to be removed and premises to be kept clean.
(vi)Maintenance of all the recreational facilities.
(vii)Regular service of the lift.
(viii)All electrical wires to be properly taken care of.
(ix)Regular plumbing and electrical maintenance of premises to be done till the Co-operative Society is formed.
(x)Compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per head from January 2005.

CASE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

1.This complaint is bound by limitation and is therefore not maintainable as the flat of the Complainant was delivered on 23.04.2000 and the complaint has been filed before us on 18.05.2005.

2.It is further their case that the building namely Magnivista Apartments has been constructed with the highest degree of profession and contains all modern amenities which is one of the technologically most advanced buildings in Goa.

3.It is also their case that the building has 3 lifts for 18 apartments and all the lifts are in working condition. This fact has not been disputed by the Complainant.

4.It is also their case that the electric installations are very advanced in the Project and that all bills till date have been paid by him.

5.As regards the formation of the Co-operative Society the Opposite Party has consistently mentioned both orally and in writing throughout these proceedings that he has no objection to the residents of Magnivista in forming a Co-operative Society. The N.O.C. Certificate from the Opposite Party dated 6.6.02 has been placed before us. It is also his case that necessary documents have been provided to the complainant No.2 Mrs. Sidharthi Mahesh Netravalkar on more than one occasion. The same has been corroborated by letter dated 7.4.05 from the Opposite Party to the Complainant No. 2.

6.It is the case of the Opposite Party that a stand by Generator has been provided for the project. It is also his case that the swimming pool is in perfect condition for use and is being properly maintained. The Opposite Party has vehemently denied that the drainage inside the complex has been dug and left open constituting great danger at night.

7.The Opposite Party has denied that there are wires hanging in the stilt parking areas which pose a threat to electric shock to the residents. It is his case that all the electric wires are properly secured. Opposite Party has also denied that the garden is not maintained and is becoming dry. It is his case that he has engaged the services of a person to attend to the garden.

8.According to the Opposite Party the overhead tanks are being regularly cleaned and the building was painted before giving possession to the complainants. The Opposite Party denies having to pay the Complainants any sum of money @ Rs.10,000- per head as compensation as he has been always willing to support in the formation of a Co-operative Society.


We have gone through all documents and evidence placed before us by both the parties and make the following

O B S E R V A T I O N S

1. This Complaint cannot stand barred by limitation even though the possession of the flat was given on 23.04.2000. This is because the Complainants have been in continuous contact with the Opposite Party in the hope of settling all their grievances. The effort of an amicable settlement reaching nowhere the Complainants have come before us to redress their grievances. It is not a case where the complainants have been sleeping over their rights.

2. The contention of the Opposite Parties that no other residents have filed an affidavit in support of the claims of the Complainants is a valid point and would certainly have helped to fortify the case of the Complainants. Nevertheless the grievance of complainants cannot be ignored because of other residents not having expressed the same view of the Complainants. If that were to be the case then the Opposite Party could have also filed an affidavit of the other residents in support of their case. After all the residents are not strangers to him.

3. The contention of the Opposite Party that no report of any technically qualified person has been filed to show that there were infact deficiencies in service is true. A report or opinion from some expert would certainly have helped fortify the case of these Complainants. Nevertheless if seeing is believing then the Complainants have partly proved their case before us by having placed photographs on record. The Opposite Party could have also placed photographs before us to prove his case.

4. We are convinced that there has been a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and hence pass the following

ORDER

1.Opposite Party is directed to form a Co-operative Society of members for the Magnavista Apartments.

2.Opposite Party to make payment of water meter bills upto the date of giving possession of the flat to the Complainant.

3.Opposite Party directed to see that all electrical wires are properly taken care of.

4.Cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Complainant.

5.Order to be carried out within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.