Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 Thursday, the 8^th day of May, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 119/1996

Between:

Anurag Apartments Owners Welfare Society

Rep. B its Secretary P. Vijaya sarathi sai

S/o late Gopal Rao, Age: 31 yrs,

R/o Flat No.C-2, Anurag Apartments,

Kishnapura, Hanamkonda.

                      … Complainant

AND

1. K. Papi Reddy, S/o late Sri Krishna Reddy,

    Anurag Constructions, LIC Divisional Office Lane,

    Balasamudram, Hanamkonda.

2. Sri P.Metram Reddy, S/o late Dharma Reddy,

    Keshava Apartments, Opp: Indian Overseas Bank,

    Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda.

    J.P.Nagar, Hanamkonda.

3. Smt.Billa Hemalatha, W/o Billa Gopal Reddy,

    Hindu, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Business,

    C/o Hima Chit Fund, Ragannadarwaza, Hanamkonda.

4.  Billa Gopal Reddy, S/o Narsimha Reddy,

     Hindu, Age: 56 yrs, Occ: Business,

     C/o Hima Chit fund, Regannadarwaza, Hanamkonda.

5. Smt. Munumulapalli Padma, W/o Ramanujam,

    Hindu, Age: 43 yrs, Occ: Business, H.No.5-8-78,

    Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda.

6. Smt. Anumulapalli Rama Devi, W/o Dr.A.Krishna Murthy,

    Hindu, Age; 45 yrs, Occ: Business, H.No.2-12-18,

    Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. B.Thirupathi Reddy,  Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1&2: Sri Y.Vishweshwar Rao, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties NO.3 &4: Sri K.Narsimha Rao, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party No.6 : Sri P.Sadashiva Rao, Advocate.

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                                   ORDER

  Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.

          This is a complaint filed by Anurag Apartments Welfare Society, Rep. By its Secretary P. Vijaya Sarathi sai against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to them to rectify the defects in the construction of apartments and award compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

          The complainant’s society was entrusted the work of developing Flats to the builders i.e, M/s Anurag Builders, a Partnership Firm represented by Opposite parties being the Managing Partners.  There are three floors excluding cellar and Terrace in the Apartments. Each floor consisting of Five flats.  The cellar portion in the apartment is meant for parking and for common usage of all flat owners, but Opposite parties illegally constructed Foru shops and they are causing much inconvenience.  Besides undertaking a lot of illegal construction without proper Municipal sanction, the builders have left the scene of construction with lot of work still pending and never responded to the requests of the buyers.  There are many deficiencies noticed in the construction of flats. Such as cracks developed in walls ,  Municipal water connection is still not regularized as the builders have not taken proper interest in getting the proceedings passed by MCW.   The entire apartment was constructed by violating the approved plan of KUDA and MCW.  At last the Legal notice was also issued by one of the flat owners but returned with an endorsement as UNClAIMED.  As such the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum.

          The opposite party No.1 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:

          The C.D. is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file the C.D. The secretary of the complainant Sri P.Vijay Sarathi sai has not examined himself as witness.  Some of the flat owners have not paid the full sale consideration and theyhave not registered the sale deeds.  The allegation of illegal construction is not correct. There is no deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant in support of his claim filed the Affidavit of Sri C.Narsimha Rao, and sri G.Sambamurthy in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-23.  On behalf of  Opposite parties Sri K.Papi Reddy filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Ex.B-1

Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation.

No arguments advanced by both side Advocates since it is an old matter.  On the basis of documents and facts available in this bundle, after gone through them  we are delivering the order.

          In this case, the complainant filed this case for grant of compensation of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and 1,00,000/- for other charges and with costs.

          And further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not completed construction with lot of work and  is still pending and have never responded to the requests of the buyers.  The following are the apparent and visible physical works remain unattended to by the builders.

a)                Flooring to the extent of 25% of the Cellar is to be done and even the rest of the flooring in the cellar is already clipping out due to irregular and abnormal mixture of sand to cement.

b)                Flooring of steps on the III floor to the terrace is to be done in total.

c)                 Flooring on the terrance is very rough.

d)                A lot of wiring is left loose in the cellar and is not properly secured.

e)                The to openings to the sky are causing much inconvenience to the Two flats on the ground floor as rain water is makingits way into the minimum entrance hall.

f)                  Even water out of moderate rain is sneaking through the ventilators of the Bed rooms of Flat Nos.A-2, B-2, and C-2 making the living in those rooms miserable. 

These are only an indicator of the callous and indifference of the Opposite parties towards the poor and innocent buyers some of whom have even done away with whatever little of gold they possessed with the strongest desire to acquire a shelter over their heads and further the following deficiencies/shortcomings noticed in the construction of flats in general.

a)                Severe cracks have developed on the walls in most of the flats and this feature can be noticed with higher gravity in the flats constructed on 3^rd floor.  The official parlance of MCW-2 we are afraid either the mixture of sand and cement was not in desired proportion or highly improper curing during construction.

b)                In some of the flats even tiles laid to the wall or to be more specific, the Doddering portion in the kitchen, have broken or cracked even due to moderate heat.

c)                 A couple of flat owners had to dig the WC by removing the tiles to plug a lot of water leakage and relay the tiles incurring an average cost of Rs.2,000/- per flat.

d)                Municipal Water connection is till not regularized as the builders have not taken interest in getting the proceedings passed b the MCW.

e)                 Even though the builders have charged the buyers over the above the agreed purchase consideration to get the schedule specified property recorded in the name of the buyers they took no steps till today to achieve this and all the assessments continue to be in the name of Anurag Builders in the records MCW and all the meters continue to be in the name of Opposite party N.1. The most ridiculous of all is that they  obtained assessment order for taxation by  MCW entire floor wise in respect of first and second floors against the normal requirement of assessment being done flat wise.

f)                  Very inferior quality of tower bolls were used by the builders as the bolls in majority of the window and doors have already disjoined. Even the panel boards for power connections were of poor and inferior quality and one needs special skill to make a switch function.

So for the above deficiencies only the builders has to complete the same. It is true that the complainant has issued legal notices to the Opposite parties i.e, Ex.A-5 and A-7 even though legal notices issued by the complainant to the Opposite parties, Opposite parties have not responded.  Later then filed the complaint.

          In this case this case is filed in the year 1996.  Almost all 11 years completed, 12^th year running.  Almost all, the Opposite parties might have been completed the entire work of the amenities raised by the complainants and further with regard to cited judgement i.e., 1996 (2) CPR 135 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Comission, New Delhi in  Gujarath Housing Board and another – Petitioners Vs Thakkar Somalal  - Respondent decided on 6-5-96 held  a Consumer Protection Act, 1986 sections 2 and 14 – complainant took possesstion of flat allotted – Housing Board revised cost price from 1,80,000/- to Rs.1,86,000/- - Claim for refund of Rs.6,000/- and Compensation – District Forum directed refund of Rs.6,000/- with interest and granted Rs.3,000/- towards compensation – Order upheld in appeal – Revision – Pricing policy cannot be challenged after allottee took possession of the house – Impugned order suffers from illegalities in exercise of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

          In the present case, all the members of the complainant i.e., the flat owners they have taken the possession of their flats and now they are living.  Because this case is filed almost all 11 years completed, and 12^th year running.  As per the Commissioner’s report, it is clear that all the flat owners took their possession and they have residing in their flats.  Since they have been residing in their flats they have no manner and they have no right to question about the compensation against the Opposite parties. The above cited judgment clearly goes to show that pricing policy cannot be challenged if allottee took possession of the house.  So the flat owners have no right to ask the compensation.  Already they have took the possession of the flats.  On the basis of the above judgment, the complainant has no locusstandi and no right to ask about the compensation against the Opposite parties. PW-1 admitted in his chief examination that some of the points i.e, amenities in the complaint not covered under the agreement.  Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.

Point No.2 : To what relief:- The point NO.1 is decided in favour of the Opposite parties, against the complainant this point also decided in favour of the opposite parties against complainant.

          In the result there are no merits in the complaint field by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed but without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 8^th May, 2008).

                                                  Sd/-                               Sd/-                Sd/-

       Member                        Member            President

          District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of Sheshasai filed                             Affidavit on behalf of O.P. filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Minutes Meeting of society.
2. Ex.A-2 Agreement of Sale.
3. Ex.A-3 Agreement of Deed.
4. Ex.A-4 RPAD Receipt.
5. Ex.A-5 O/copy of Legal notice issued to Opposite parties.
6. Ex.A-6 Returned cover of Opposite parties.
7. Ex.A-7 Office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties.
8. Ex.A-8 and A-9 – Returned covers.
9. Ex.A-10 Registered post Ack Due.
10.  Ex.A-11 Permission of Municipal Corporation
11. Ex-12 Letter of APSEB by one of the flat owner.
12. Ex.A-13 Permission of Municipal Corporation.
13. Ex.A-14 Permission of Municipal Corporation.
14.  Ex.A-15 Permission of Municipal Corporation.
15.  Ex.A-16 Xerox copy of Challan to Municipal Corporation.
16. Ex.A-17 Letter of APSEB to builder.
17.  Ex.A-18 Permission of Municipal Corporation.
18.  Ex.A-19 xerox copy of bank slip.
19.  Ex.A-20 xerox copy of bank slip.
20.   Ex.A-21 Letter by APSEB to Builder.
21.  Ex.A-22 Sale deed dt.19-3-94.
22.  Ex.A-23 Sale deed dt.22-8-94.

 On behalf of Opposite party

1. Ex.B-1 Decree in O.S.No.564/92.

                                                                                        Sd/-

President.