Palace 'A' Consumer Case Judgement

BEFORE THE A.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.

C.D.No.8/2006
Between:

1.Happy Homes Housing Palace “A” Flat
Owners Welfare Association, (649/2003)

2. V.Viswanathan,
G8, Palace “A”, Happy Homes Housing ,
Near Upparpally Cross Roads, Hyderabad48.

3. TR.Madhavan,

4. P.Janaki,

5. Sissy B.Cherian
106, Palace “A”, Happy Homes Housing ,

6. M.Panduranga Pai,

7. Tajamul Hussain

8.Devanand Nagadeve,

9. Meer Mukkarram Ali,

10. Debasish Sarkar,

11.R.Talwar,

12. M. Vijay Kumar,

13. Mohd. Baquar

14. Indra Deo Sah

15.Mohd Osman,

16. D.Lalitha Dinesh,
17. P.Ravinder,

18. Arshiya Tabassum,

19. Abdul Gaffar,
114, Palace “A” Happy Homes housing ,

20. P.Vinod Kumar,

16. D.Lalitha Dinesh,
17. P.Ravinder,

18. Arshiya Tabassum,

19. Abdul Gaffar,

20. P.Vinod Kumar,

And
Rep. by
Sri Ather Khan, Secretary,
S/o.Late Sri Akber Khan , aged about 33 years,
Flat no.310, Happy Homes Housing Palace “A”
Flat Owners Welfare Association,
Near Upparpally Cross Roads, Hyderabad500048. …Complainants

Versus

M/s. Happy Homes Housing,
Rep. by its Chairman . Dr.Syed Shafiuddin Ahmed,
Having office at –Ifloor, Lake View Mansion,
Opp. Taj Banjara Road No.1, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 034. … Opp.parties

Counsel for the complainants : Mr.B.N.Swamiji

Counsel for the opp.party :Mr.M.M.Ali

CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order : (Per Smt. M.Shreesha , Hon’ble Member. )
***
1. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants are the members of Happy Homes
Housing Palace “A” Flat Owners Welfare Association and have availed housing loans to purchase flats in Happy Homes
Housing constructed by the opposite party and sold for Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3.75 lakhs depending upon the square feet
area. The complainant submits that the opposite party started giving possession of the flats to the individuals from
November, 2002 while the building works were still under progress and civil works were pending. As per the sale
agreement, brochure and Huda Permission , opposite party promised to provide in Palace “A” Block the following
features , for which the opposite party collected money from the flat owners ranging from Rs.19,000/ to Rs.95,000/
depending on the square feet area booked.
1. 61/2 bore well with submersible pump.
2. Water overhead tank.
3. Water filtrations plant.
4. Sewage disposal system along with multi stage septic tank
5. Standby generator for submersible pump.
6. Grey mosaic tiles in flats and corridors with smooth kalai finish.
7. Door frames non teak wood and all doors water proof flush shutters.
8. All window MS frame with safety bar/grill and pin head glass shutters.
9. Single phase electrical meter connection.
10.Common electrical meter with panel boards.
11.Transformer and HT line.
12. Four passenger lift (as per sale agreement) and Eight
Passenger lift (as per brochure).
13. Reserved Car/Scooter parking.
14. Fire Safety provisions as per National Building Code,1983.
15. Rain Water harvesting system as per brochure supplied
HUDA and G.O.Ms.No.423 M.A. 31/7/98 & 350 M.A. 9/6/2000.

The respondent has installed and completed the following works:

1.6” bore well with submersible pump.
2.Overhead tank.
3. Stand by Generator.
4. Sewage drainage line 6” laid and connected to adjoining
Layout drains.
5. Door non teak wood frames with ordinary flush shutters.
6. All windows – MS frames with safety bar, ordinary glass
without stoppers.
7. Single phase meter connection to all the flats.
Passenger lift (as per brochure).
13. Reserved Car/Scooter parking.
14. Fire Safety provisions as per National Building Code,1983.
15. Rain Water harvesting system as per brochure supplied
HUDA and G.O.Ms.No.423 M.A. 31/7/98 & 350 M.A. 9/6/2000.

The respondent has installed and completed the following works:

1.6” bore well with submersible pump.
2.Overhead tank.
3. Stand by Generator.
4. Sewage drainage line 6” laid and connected to adjoining
Layout drains.
5. Door non teak wood frames with ordinary flush shutters.
6. All windows – MS frames with safety bar, ordinary glass
without stoppers.
7. Single phase meter connection to all the flats.
8. Three phase common meter, panel board and HT cabling.
9. Four passenger lift.
10. Reserved car and scooter parking.

The flat owners found that the opposite party was delaying the other installation and civil works of the building and
wrote first letter of pending list on 10.1.2003 . On non compliance of sale agreement and HUDA permission from
10.1.2003 till 21.5.2003 several letters were written to the opposite party . The opposite party wrote a letter dt.
21.5.2003 to the association to submit full and final list of pending installations and works. Likewise the association
vide their letter dt. 26.5.2003 gave the pending works as follows.
1. Allotment of Car and Scooter parking
2. Eight passenger lift instead of four.
3. Window Stoppers .
4. Plastering of stilt roof, beams, pillars and expansion joints etc.
5. Fire safety equipments.
6. Proper drainage system as per specifications of HUDA.
7. Rain water harvesting systems.
8. Structural stability certificate of the building.
9. Construction of boundary wall around the block.
10.Rectification work near electrical panel board rooms.

The demand for parapet wall on the terrace, drinking water facility and electrical transformer was not included , thinking
it would be automatically arranged by the opposite party. Even after several requests the opposite party did not
complete the works and the association wrote to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of A.P., to the Director of Town and Country
Planning, Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality requesting necessary action in the matter.

2. The complainant further submits that fire safety norms were not met by the builder/developer and made the
complainant to fill the check list of fire safety . The building does not have mandatory fire safety provisions and the
builder should not be issued occupancy certificate. Once again on 11.2.2005 Association wrote a reminder to the Hon’ble
Chief Minister with a copy to all the concerned Departments. The Fire Service Department levied a fine of Rs.59,000/ as
fire precaution fund penalty to obtain NOC and so far no notice was received from the Fire Services Department. In the
month of June,2005 the drainage line of the building laid by the builder on the north side came under dispute and the
plot owner lodged a complaint with Rajendra Nagar Municipality for necessary action but the opposite party and the
authorities did not respond. On 30.8.2005 one of the flat owners and Vice President of the Association Sri T.R.Madhavan
lodged a complaint with the Core Centre and they were advised to file a case in State Commission. Hence the complaint
seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.45 lakhs , to provide all facilities in the building or complete the
pending works in compliance with the sale agreement, brochure and HUDA Permission. The deficiencies claimed by the
complainant in their relief portion are as follows:
2. Window stoppers.
3. Plastering of stilt roof, beams, pillars and expansion points etc.
4. Fire Safety equipments and other safety measures has to be provided.
5. Proper drainage system to be connected to the municipal main line as per specifications of HUDA.
8. Construction of boundary wall with gates around the block.
9. Rectification work near electrical panel board rooms.
10.Construction of parapet wall in the terrace.
11.Provision of electrical transformer with HT lines.
12.1” drinking water connection. For water connection Rs.5 lakhs has to be paid to the municipality for 105 flats.
13.Transfer of common electricity meter in the association’s
name
14.Water filtration plant for overhead tanks.
complainant in their relief portion are as follows:
2. Window stoppers.
3. Plastering of stilt roof, beams, pillars and expansion points etc.
4. Fire Safety equipments and other safety measures has to be provided.
5. Proper drainage system to be connected to the municipal main line as per specifications of HUDA.
9. Rectification work near electrical panel board rooms.
12.1” drinking water connection. For water connection Rs.5 lakhs has to be paid to the municipality for 105 flats.
13.Transfer of common electricity meter in the association’s
name
14.Water filtration plant for overhead tanks.

Apart from the above the opposite party has to give following documents :

1.Fit for occupancy certificate.
2.Betterment charges receipts.
3.Right of the Terrace to the Association,
4.Site plan and building plan related to Palace ‘A’
5.NOC letter from the Fire Services after paying necessary fee.
6. In case of unauthorized construction of flats the
regularization has to be done at his expense.

3. The opposite party filed counter and evidence affidavit. The opposite party contends that at the outset , the
parties named in the complaint as the members of the welfare society are not the members of the society and Mr. Khan
who signed the complaint as secretary is not the Secretary of the society. Though 19 persons are named in the cause
title of the complaint , only authorization letters of 10 persons have been filed. Hence the said Mr.Khan has no
authority to file the complaint on behalf of 105 flat owners of the complex. Moreover the complainant society is not a
recognized Consumer Association and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4. The opposite party submits that they have delivered possession of the flats to all the flat owners in the month
of December,2002 itself and the limitation period ends in the month of December, 2004 and this complaint is filed in the
month of January 2006 without seeking any condonation of delay.
5. They further contend in their another para that they have completed all the works and except water filtration
plant , Grey mosaic tiles in flats and corridors with smooth kalai finish , Fire Safety provisions as per national building
code and rain water harvesting system. The opposite party submits that letter dt. 26.5.2003 contains the list which is
not covered under the agreement of sale or supplementary agreement and however the list repeats with the items which
are already complied with. Moreover the demands of the complainants given under the reliefs sought for in the complaint
are entirely different from those which are mentioned in the letter dt. 26.5.2003. The opposite party submits that he is
not aware of the correspondence between the various authorities including Chief Minister, Fire Department and Director of
Town Planning . The fee collected from the members for maintenance is Rs.150/ to Rs.200/ per month is not sufficient
to maintain the building. No notice to the opposite party is issued before issuing letter dt. 8.6.2005 to the Fire Service
Department and the dispute regarding drainage line is the subject matter of O.S.No.626/2001 on the file of AJCJ , Ranga
Reddy Dist. which was decreed in favour of opp.party, hence there is no ground to raise this plea of deficiency in
service .Complaint of Sri T.R.Madhavan to Core Center was answered by the opposite party vide letter dt. 27.10.2005 and
the reliefs sought for in the complaint have mostly been completed as described below:
(1) Eight passenger lift instead of four.
It is submitted that it is agreed by the flat owners that only four passenger lift be provided and accordingly the price
of the lift was collected from the flat owner. The eight passenger lift mentioned in the brochure was changed to four
passenger lift as per the request of the flat owners themselves. The terms of the agreement only prevail over the offer in
the brochure. The opposite party had the power to change the offers given in the brochure at the time of executing the
agreement . Moreover all the flat owners while taking over the flats have certified that they are satisfied with the works
done by the opposite party. Hence the complainant cannot now seek for installation of eight passenger lift.

2. Window stoppers:

These have been installed in the months of June/July, 2005 itself.

service .Complaint of Sri T.R.Madhavan to Core Center was answered by the opposite party vide letter dt. 27.10.2005 and
the reliefs sought for in the complaint have mostly been completed as described below:
(1) Eight passenger lift instead of four.
It is submitted that it is agreed by the flat owners that only four passenger lift be provided and accordingly the price
of the lift was collected from the flat owner. The eight passenger lift mentioned in the brochure was changed to four
passenger lift as per the request of the flat owners themselves. The terms of the agreement only prevail over the offer in
the brochure. The opposite party had the power to change the offers given in the brochure at the time of executing the
agreement . Moreover all the flat owners while taking over the flats have certified that they are satisfied with the works
done by the opposite party. Hence the complainant cannot now seek for installation of eight passenger lift.

2. Window stoppers:

These have been installed in the months of June/July, 2005 itself.

3. Plastering of stilt roof, beams , pillars and expansion joints etc.

Plastering of expansion joints is not technically advisable. Hence left unplastered. Plastering of pillars, beams and stilt
roof is not taken up since the project is “low cost flats” and the price of the flat do not include the cost of the plastering
of pillars , beam and roof in the stilt. The agreement covers only plastering of flat but not stilt floor.

4. Fire safety equipments and other safety measures have to be provided.

It is submitted that the provisions of Fire safety equipment is mandatory for high rising building only but not for the
complex which is occupied by the complainants. Hence the opposite party has no obligation to provide fire safety
equipment.

5. Proper drainage system to be connected to the municipal main line as per specification of HUDA.

The proper drainage system is already constructed with sufficient septic tanks by the opposite party . In fact the opposite
party entered into an agreement with owners of neighboring land for laying a private drainage line with septic tank which
leads all the drainage to the proposed main drainage line of municipality near Moosi River and then constructed the same.


The rain water harvesting pits were already constructed twice by the opposite party but the complainant association
ignored to maintain the same. Again the same cannot be demanded from the opposite party.


All ready obtained from the structural engineer and the same was handed over to Joint Secretary of the Association long
back in the year 2003 . However the opposite party is ready to provide another copy of the same.


It is submitted that the multi storied complex called “Happy Homes Palace” comprises of three blocks i.e. A, B and C and
the complex is under one sanctioned plan. Accordingly a common compound wall was constructed around all the three
blocks as per the sanctioned plan. Hence separate boundary for the A block is not permitted by the HUDA and cannot be
constructed.

9.Rectification work near electrical panel board room.

All the rectification work was completed in the month of June,2003 itself . However then after the maintenance of
the electrical meters and electrical panel boards is the responsibility of the complainant association but the opposite
party has no responsibility of maintaining and rectifying same every time.


It is submitted that the designing of the roof of the complex is sloppy design making an angle at the top. This
designing was made and constructed so that water is not stagnated on the roof and not leaked in to the walls. If parapet
wall is constructed it will cause stagnation of water on the roof and defeat the very purpose of the design of the roof.
Moreover the cost of the construction of the flat does not include the construction of the parapet wall and it is not
provided in the agreement also.


The electrical transformer with H.T.Lines was already provided. The number of the transformers to be installed is
decided by the A.P.C.P.D.C.L., but not by the opposite party. Hence opposite party has no liability of providing the
same. The A.P.C.P.D.C.L., was provided two transformers for A, B and C blocks in the complex

12.1” drinking water connection. For water Connection Rs.5 lakhs has to be paid to the municipality for 105 flats.

The drinking water connection to each flat from the over head tank is already provided. Paying Rs.5 lakhs to
municipality for water connection is not covered in the terms of the agreement. It is the responsibility of each flat owner
to take connection from the municipality at their own expense. The cost of the water connection from the municipality
was not included in the cost of the flat since during the year when the construction took place there was no water
supply from the municipality in that area. The agreement provides for the bore well water connection only.

`13.Transfer of common electricity meter in the association’s name

Common electricity connection service is already in the name of the complex but on the name of the builder hence there is
no need of transfer.

14.Water filtration plant for overhead tanks.:

It is already provided.

12.1” drinking water connection. For water Connection Rs.5 lakhs has to be paid to the municipality for 105 flats.

The drinking water connection to each flat from the over head tank is already provided. Paying Rs.5 lakhs to
municipality for water connection is not covered in the terms of the agreement. It is the responsibility of each flat owner
to take connection from the municipality at their own expense. The cost of the water connection from the municipality
was not included in the cost of the flat since during the year when the construction took place there was no water
supply from the municipality in that area. The agreement provides for the bore well water connection only.

`13.Transfer of common electricity meter in the association’s name

Common electricity connection service is already in the name of the complex but on the name of the builder hence there is
no need of transfer.

14.Water filtration plant for overhead tanks.:

It is already provided.

15.The plan of the building was already handed over to adhoc committee of the association during 2003 itself.
Present association cannot again demand the same.

16. Rights in the terrace are agreed to be vested with the opposite party in the agreement hence transferring the
same in the name of association is beyond the terms of agreements of sale.

The opposite party further contends that the relief of regularization of unauthorized construction is very vague and
there is no deficiency of service on their behalf and seek for dismissal of the complaint with costs .
6. The complainants filed affidavit by way of evidence and Ex.A1 to A24 were marked on behalf of the complainant
and opposite party has also filed affidavit of evidence and Exs.B1 to B18 are marked on behalf of the opposite party .
7. The main point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party
and if the complainant is entitled to relief sought in the complaint?
8. Both parties filed their written arguments.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the flat owners welfare association of Palace ‘A’ is a
registered one and the persons in the complaint are members of the said association and Mr.Khan is having right to sign
on the complaint as Secretary of the association. He denied the contention of the opposite party that the elections were
not conducted . The contention of the opposite party that the complainant’s association is an unauthorized group is
unsustainable on the ground that the complainant ’s association is registered under Societies Act and as such they fall
within the definition of Consumer and we are of the considered view that this complaint is maintainable .
10). The second contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation since the possession
has been given in November,2002 and the cause of action for raising any consumer dispute starts from December,2002
and the limitation ends in the month of December,2004 itself. The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that
the complaint is filed in the month of January 2006 without seeking any condonation of delay and hence the complaint is
barred by limitation. On perusal of the material on record we observe that there was correspondence between the
complainants and opposite parties from 10.1.2003 to 21.5.2003 (Ex.A4 and A5) and the opposite party also replied vide
letter dt.26.5.2003 asking the complainant to submit a list of pending works as per the terms of the sale agreement ,
brochure and HUDA permission . Thereafter also there has been continuous correspondence from the complainant to the
Fire Service Department , Town Planning Department which proves that there is continuous cause of action and when the
opposite parties themselves have written to the complainant on 21.5.2003 asking them to submit full and final list of
pending works and they have not yet completed all of them , we hold that there is continuous cause of action and the
complaint is well within the limitation period.
11). The main case of the complainant is that the members of the complainant association availed housing loan
letter dt.26.5.2003 asking the complainant to submit a list of pending works as per the terms of the sale agreement ,
brochure and HUDA permission . Thereafter also there has been continuous correspondence from the complainant to the
Fire Service Department , Town Planning Department which proves that there is continuous cause of action and when the
opposite parties themselves have written to the complainant on 21.5.2003 asking them to submit full and final list of
pending works and they have not yet completed all of them , we hold that there is continuous cause of action and the
complaint is well within the limitation period.
11). The main case of the complainant is that the members of the complainant association availed housing loan
facilities for purchase of the flats constructed by the opposite party and the opposite party sold the flats ranging from
Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3.75 lakhs depending upon Square feet area and started giving possession of the flats to the
individuals in Novermber,2002. But the opposite party did not complete entire building work and several installations and
civil works are still pending till date . Several times the complainant requested the opposite party to complete the works
but the opposite party failed to fulfill their mandatory obligations. The opposite party also collected Rs.19,000/ to
Rs.95,000/ from the complainant depending upon square feet area.
12). Ex.A1 is the brochure showing the area and specifications of the building. Ex.A2 is the agreement of sale for
flat no.217. Ex.A3 is the sale deed for flat no.21 of Happy Homes Palace BlockA. Ex.A4 is letters from Happy Homes
Palace “A” Owners Association to the Chairman Happy Home Housings listing the works to be carried out by the opposite
party. Ex.A5 is the letter dt.21.5.2003 from the opposite party to the complainant requesting to send full and final list
of works to be attended to as per the terms of the agreement . The complainant submits that they filed several
memorandums to the Chief Minister (Ex.A6 dt. 19.8.2003), Fire Services Department , and to Town Planning Department.
Ex.A7 is the letter dt. 6.1.2005 from Director General of Fire Services to the Commissioner, MCH, Hyderabad stating
that, in case, the occupancy certificate has already been issued, necessary action be initiated against the builder after
issuing a show cause notice to ensure compliance of required Fire Precautionary and Fire Protection measures. Ex.A8 is
the letter dt. 24.5.2004 from the Director of Town and Country Planning to the Municipal Commissioner, Rajendranagar
Municipality requesting to take necessary action in the matter. Ex.A10 is the letter dt. 31.8.2005 from Core Centre to
the to the Manager Complaints , Happy Homes Plaza. Ex.A11 is the Complaint of the complainant association to the Core
Centre. Ex.A12 is the letter dt.3.11.2005 to the opposite party and Ex.A13 is reply letter dt. 27.10.2005 given by the
opposite party to the Core Centre. Ex.A14 is the letter dt. 19.6.2005 from complainant association to the Commissioner ,
Rejendranagar Municipality requesting to take immediate action . Ex.A17 is the photograph album depicting the
incomplete works of the opposite party.
13). On perusal of the material on record we observe that there was a lot correspondence between the
complainants and opposite party from 10.1.2003 to 21.5.2005 and the opposite party wrote a letter to association dt.
21.5.2003 asking them to submit the full and final list of the pending works installations. The complainant association
replied on 26.5.2006 and gave list of pending works in compliance of the sale agreement, brochure and HUDA permission
1. Allotment of car and scooter parking.
2. Eight passenger lift instead of four
3. Window stoppers.
4. Plastering of stilt roof, beams, pillars and expansion of joints etc.

14. It is the complainant’s case that the opposite party did not give any assurance about the demands mentioned
in the letter and there are several deviations and variations in the construction and they also did not provide parapet wall
1. Allotment of car and scooter parking.
2. Eight passenger lift instead of four
3. Window stoppers.
4. Plastering of stilt roof, beams, pillars and expansion of joints etc.

14. It is the complainant’s case that the opposite party did not give any assurance about the demands mentioned
in the letter and there are several deviations and variations in the construction and they also did not provide parapet wall
on the terrace , drinking water facility and electronic transformer. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite
party stored LPG cylinders inside the complex in the stilt portion of the building and the association lodged a complaint to
the Fire Services Department and at the time of inspection fire service personnel stated that the building is not equipped
with fire safety equipment . Inspite of complaining to the concerned authorities , complainant’s association submits that
they did not receive any response. The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that in O.S.nos.514/2001,
515/2001 and 516/2001 filed by the opposite party the builder categorically admitted that he is ready to pay compounding
fee and get the deviations regularized in the said building. This itself shows that the builder committed many
irregularities. The opposite party also filed appeals against these three suits vide A.S.Nos.301/2006, 302/2006 and
303/2006 before the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. which are pending and there is no interim order.
15). The opposite party filed Exs.B1 to B18 documents wherein Exs.B1 to B16 are the possession letters
dt.31.8.2002, 6.8.2002, 10.7.2002, 16.9.2002, 27.7.02, 17.10.02, 3.6.02, 10.8.02,1.7.02, 25.11.02, 10.10.02, 6.7.02,
14.9.02 ,9.1.2003 , 16.9.02 and 24.4.03 respectively. Ex.B17 and B18 are the judgement copies filed by the opposite
party in O.S.No.626/2001 . in Ex.B18 i.e. O.S.No.626/2001 the suit was decreed in favour of the opposite party declaring
that the letter issued by the Commissioner , Rajendranagar Municipality as null and void and restraining them by way of
permanent injunction from demolishing the existing system. It is the case of the opposite party that they never
delayed completion of the works and the letter dt. 26.5.2003 contains the list which is not covered under the agreement of
sale or supplementary agreement and repeats the items which are already complied with . Moreover the demands of the
complainant given under the reliefs sought for in the complaint are entirely different from those which are mentioned in
the letter dt. 26.5.2003. With respect to non compliance of fire safety provisions , the learned counsel for the opposite
party submitted that the height of this building is only 17.5 mts. and as such provisions of Fire Services Act is not
applicable to the said building. The learned counsel for the opposite party further contended in his written arguments
that the reliefs sought for in the complaint have already been completed .

16). Now we address ourselves to the reliefs sought for by the complainant item wise.
16(a). Eight passenger lift instead of four :
The complainant submits that there is an offer in brochure for 8 passenger lift and therefore it is the duty of the opposite
party to provide the same. We observe from the record that the terms of the agreement in Ex.A3 clearly shows in Item
No.7 “four passenger lift” Taking into consideration that the complainant has signed this agreement wherein a ‘four
passenger lift’ has been agreed upon, he cannot now seek for installation of 8 passenger lift. If the brochure had offered
for 8 passenger lift, the complainant ought to have seen that the same was reflected in the agreement before he signed
the same.
16(b)Window stoppers:
The complainant submits that there is an offer in brochure for 8 passenger lift and therefore it is the duty of the opposite
party to provide the same. We observe from the record that the terms of the agreement in Ex.A3 clearly shows in Item
No.7 “four passenger lift” Taking into consideration that the complainant has signed this agreement wherein a ‘four
passenger lift’ has been agreed upon, he cannot now seek for installation of 8 passenger lift. If the brochure had offered
for 8 passenger lift, the complainant ought to have seen that the same was reflected in the agreement before he signed
the same.
16(b)Window stoppers:
In item 5 of the Sale Agreement it is stated that windows would be installed by the opposite party and this would mean
and include the window stoppers also and though the opposite party stated that they were installed in the month of
June/July 2005 itself there is no documentary evidence to support their contention. Hence we direct the opposite parties
to supply the same.

16 ©.Plastering of the stilt roof,beams,pillars and expansion joints etc. :

The contention of the opposite party is that the Agreement covers only plastering of flat but not stilt floor . Stilt floor is a
common area and pillars and beams and roof should be plastered since it is a basic part of construction of flat and the
opposite party cannot take umbrage that they are low cost flats and hence plastering was not done. Hence the
opposite party is directed to plaster the stilt area roof, beams, pillars and expansion joints .
16(d). Fire safety equipments and other safety measures:
It is stated in the AP.Apartment (Promotion of construction ownership) Act,1987 that fire protection requirements for
apartments buildings above 15 mts. in height depending upon the occupancy shall be protected by way of riser cum
down comer, automatic sprinkler installation, high pressure water spray or foam generating system etc. as per the
details given in Rule 4(b) to 14 f and as indicated in annexure I as stated n A.P.Apartments Act. The provisions of first
aid , fire fighting appliances has also been clearly given in Rule 15(h) and has to be adhered to as per the instructions
of Chief Fire officer of the area.
To reiterate, all the fire safety norms and specifications as per the A.P.Apartment (Promotion of construction
ownership) Act, the latest GOs of the Govt. should be adhered to , by the opposite party with respect to Fire safety
equipment and safety measures and an NOC has to be taken from the concerned department.

16(e).Proper drainage system to be connected to the municipal main line as per specification of HUDA:

In item No.I of description of work in the Agreement of Sale it is stated as follows :
“6 ½ Borewell with submersible pump, over head water tank water filteration plant, water pipe linc, taps connection in
Toilets and Kitchen, Sewage Disposal System along with multi stage septic tank”
Therefore it is the duty of the opposite party to adhere to the terms of the description of work as listed in Agreement
of Sale and also as per the specifications of HUDA.
16(f).Rain Water harvesting system:
The opposite party is directed to provide rain water harvesting pits and the complainant shall maintain the same in
future.
16.(g). Structural stability certificate of the building:
The opposite party is ready and willing to provide another copy of structural stability certificate.

16(f).Rain Water harvesting system:
The opposite party is directed to provide rain water harvesting pits and the complainant shall maintain the same in
future.
16.(g). Structural stability certificate of the building:
The opposite party is ready and willing to provide another copy of structural stability certificate.
16(h).Construction of boundary wall with gates around the block:
It is the contention of the opposite party that the multi storied complex comprising of 3 blocks A,B and C and a common
compound wall was constructed around all the three complexes as per the sanctioned plan . We find force in the
contention of the opposite party that a separate boundary wall for A block cannot be constructed since the same is not
provided for either in the plan or in the brochure as well as in the agreement. It is for the complainant to establish that
the approved plan has such an express provision which was not adhered to by the opposite party. The complainant has
failed to file any such proof. Hence this prayer is disallowed.

16(i).Rectification work near electrical panel board room and provision of electrical transformer with HT lines. :

In item 6 of the Agreement of Sale it is stated as follows:
“Single phase electrical meter connection common meter panel , transformer and H.T.Line”
Hence the opposite parties are directed to provide the transformer and HT line as stated in the agreement. It is the
contention of the opposite party that the rectification work near the electrical panel board room has already been done
but has not filed any proof of the same. The complainant on his behalf filed the photographs in proof of his case and the
opposite party is hereby directed to rectify the works near the Electrical Panel Board.
16(j).Construction of parapet wall in terrace :
By virtue of the nature of the item itself an implied warranty is present and therefore construction of parapet wall, the
absence of which would create a risk and endanger the lives of the people moving on the terrace, and hence the
parapet wall has to be completed by the builder.
16(k).Drinking water connection :
It is the contention of the opposite party that the drinking water connection for each flat from the overhead tank was
already provided and it is the responsibility of each flat owner to take connection from the municipality at their own
expense. Since we do not find any specific provision in the agreement that the builder would pay for municipal water
connection, we are not inclined to award the same. We observe from the record in brochure also that under the sub
heading ‘Water Supply’ it only states ‘Filter Bore Water’. In the absence of any specific and express provision either in
the brochure or in the agreement we are of the considered view that the builder cannot be made liable to pay for
municipal water connection .

16(l).Transfer of common electricity meter in the Association’s name:

Builder is directed to make an application to the electricity department for transfer of common electricity meter in the
association’s name and also effect transfer of meter in the individual flat owners’ names

heading ‘Water Supply’ it only states ‘Filter Bore Water’. In the absence of any specific and express provision either in
the brochure or in the agreement we are of the considered view that the builder cannot be made liable to pay for
municipal water connection .

16(l).Transfer of common electricity meter in the Association’s name:

Builder is directed to make an application to the electricity department for transfer of common electricity meter in the
association’s name and also effect transfer of meter in the individual flat owners’ names
16(m).Water Filtration plant for overhead tanks:
The learned counsel contended that the water filtration plant for the overhead tanks has already been provided but did
not file any proof of its provision. The opposite paprty is directed to complete the water filter plant from the overhead
tank as per the provisions of the agreement.

16(n).Plan of the building:

The opposite party is directed to give copy of the building plan to the association
16(o).Rights in the terrace:
Since the rights of the terrace is with the opposite party as per the terms of the agreement the prayer of the complainant
that the same rights have to be transferred in the name of the association is unsustainable. .
16(p).Car and scooter parking:
Clear cut car and scooter parking should be earmarked by the builder to all the flat owners who have paid for the car and
scooter parking areas.
In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to complete all the aforementioned
directions which have been allowed (from para nos. 16(a) to 16(p)) within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt
of this order and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/ to each of the complainants and also to the members of the
complainant association who were members at the time of filing of the complaint. We also award costs of Rs.10,000/.
Time for compliance 3 months.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Dt. 6.7.2009

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the complainants: Nil For the opp.party :Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainants:
Ex.A1 : Brochure issued by Happy Homes Housings
Ex.A2 : Agreement of sale dt. 4.9.2001 for flat no.217.
Ex.A3 : Sale deed dt. 24.6.2005 for flat no.21 of Happy Homes Palace
Block – A.
Ex.A4 : letters from Happy Homes Palace “A” Owners AdHoc
Association to the Chairman, Happy Home Housings.
Ex.A5 :Lr. dt.21.5.2003 from Happy Homes Housings to
To the President of complt. Association
Ex.A6 : Lr.dt.19.8.2003 from complt. Association to the C.M.of A.P.
Ex.A7 : Lr.dt.6.1.2005 from Director General of Fire Services to
the Commissioner , MCH.
Ex.A8 : Lr.dt. 24.5.2004 from Director of Town and Country
Planning to the Municipal Commission, Rajendranagar
Municipality.
Ex.A9 : EMail dt.29.8.05 from complt. No.3 to the President,
APSCDRC.
Ex.A10 :Lr.dt.31.8.2005 from Core Centre to opp.party
Ex.A1 : Brochure issued by Happy Homes Housings
Ex.A2 : Agreement of sale dt. 4.9.2001 for flat no.217.
Ex.A3 : Sale deed dt. 24.6.2005 for flat no.21 of Happy Homes Palace
Block – A.
Ex.A4 : letters from Happy Homes Palace “A” Owners AdHoc
Association to the Chairman, Happy Home Housings.
Ex.A5 :Lr. dt.21.5.2003 from Happy Homes Housings to
To the President of complt. Association
Ex.A6 : Lr.dt.19.8.2003 from complt. Association to the C.M.of A.P.
Ex.A7 : Lr.dt.6.1.2005 from Director General of Fire Services to
the Commissioner , MCH.
Ex.A8 : Lr.dt. 24.5.2004 from Director of Town and Country
Planning to the Municipal Commission, Rajendranagar
Municipality.
Ex.A9 : EMail dt.29.8.05 from complt. No.3 to the President,
APSCDRC.
Ex.A10 :Lr.dt.31.8.2005 from Core Centre to opp.party
Ex.A11 :Lr. from Core Centre to the complainant
Ex.A12 :Lr. dt. 3.11.2005 from Core Centre to opp.party
Ex.A13 :Lr. dt. 27.10.2005 from opp.party to the Core Centre.
Ex.A14 :Lr. dt.19.6.2005 from complt. Assn. to the Commissioner,
Rajendranagar Municipality.
Ex.A15 :Hindu News paperdt. 30.3.2005 with news item of sewage
Overflowing of Happy Homes Colony near Upparpally colony.
Ex.A16 : Lr. from Md.Kazim Ali to the Municipal Commissioner,
Rajendranagar Municipality.
Ex.A17: Photograph album
Ex.A18 :Lr. dt. 15.9.2008 from Director General of Fire & Emergency
Services to the opp.party.
Ex.A19 :Notice dt. 22.2.2008 issued by Greater Hyd. Municipal
Corpn.
Ex.A20 : Lr. dt. 26.4.2008 from Mr.Ravinder Reddy to the
Dy.Commissiner.
Ex.A21 : Lr.dt.18.6.2008 from Dy.Commissioner, Rajendra Nagar
Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpn.to the Secretary
of complt . Assn.
Ex.A22 : Memo dt. 29.8.2008 issued by Municipal Admn. & Urban
Development (M) Department copies marked to the Secretary of Complt. Assn. and Commissioner, GHMC.
Ex.A23 : Certified copy of Registrar of Societies , Moosapet
R,R,Dist with Document no.1 giving Aims and objects.
Ex.A24 : Certified copy of Document no.II Rules and Regulations
Functions of the Executive Committee and Office Bearers.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite party :

Ex.B1 : Possession letter dt. 31.8.2002.
Ex.B2 : Possession letter dt. 6.8.2002.
Ex.B3 : Possession letter dt.10.7.2002,
Ex.B4 : Possession letter dt. 16.9.2002,
Ex.B7: Possession letter dt 3.6.02,
Ex.B10:Possession letter dt 25.11.02,
Ex.B11:Possession letter dt 10.10.02,
Ex.B13: Possession letter dt 14.9.02 ,
Ex.B14: Possession letter dt 9.1.2003 ,
Ex.B15: Possession letter dt 16.9.02
Ex.B16: Possession letter dt 24.4.03
Ex.B17: Order copy in O.S.NO. 626/2001 dt. 4.1.2006
Ex.B18: Order copy in O.S.NO. 626/2001 dt. 4.1.2006

PRESIDENT

MEMBER
DT. 6.7.2009

Palace 'A' Consumer Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palace 'A' Consumer Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE A.P.

Housing constructed by the opposite party and sold for Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3.75 lakhs depending upon the square feet

November, 2002 while the building works were still under progress and civil works were pending. As per the sale

agreement, brochure and Huda Permission , opposite party promised to provide in Palace “A” Block the following

features , for which the opposite party collected money from the flat owners ranging from Rs.19,000/­ to Rs.95,000/­

wrote first letter of pending list on 10.1.2003 . On non compliance of sale agreement and HUDA permission from

10.1.2003 till 21.5.2003 several letters were written to the opposite party . The opposite party wrote a letter dt.

21.5.2003 to the association to submit full and final list of pending installations and works. Likewise the association

it would be automatically arranged by the opposite party. Even after several requests the opposite party did not

2. The complainant further submits that fire safety norms were not met by the builder/developer and made the

complainant to fill the check list of fire safety . The building does not have mandatory fire safety provisions and the

plot owner lodged a complaint with Rajendra Nagar Municipality for necessary action but the opposite party and the

seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.45 lakhs , to provide all facilities in the building or complete the

title of the complaint , only authorization letters of 10 persons have been filed. Hence the said Mr.Khan has no

Reddy Dist. which was decreed in favour of opp.party, hence there is no ground to raise this plea of deficiency in

9. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the flat owners welfare association of Palace ‘A’ is a

unsustainable on the ground that the complainant ’s association is registered under Societies Act and as such they fall

Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.3.75 lakhs depending upon Square feet area and started giving possession of the flats to the

but the opposite party failed to fulfill their mandatory obligations. The opposite party also collected Rs.19,000/ ­ to

flat no.217. Ex.A3 is the sale deed for flat no.21 of Happy Homes Palace Block­A. Ex.A4 is letters from Happy Homes

Ex.A7 is the letter dt. 6.1.2005 from Director General of Fire Services to the Commissioner, MCH, Hyderabad stating

the letter dt. 24.5.2004 from the Director of Town and Country Planning to the Municipal Commissioner, Rajendranagar

Rejendranagar Municipality requesting to take immediate action . Ex.A17 is the photograph album depicting the

13). On perusal of the material on record we observe that there was a lot correspondence between the

fee and get the deviations regularized in the said building. This itself shows that the builder committed many

14.9.02 ,9.1.2003 , 16.9.02 and 24.4.03 respectively. Ex.B17 and B18 are the judgement copies filed by the opposite

permanent injunction from demolishing the existing system. It is the case of the opposite party that they never

applicable to the said building. The learned counsel for the opposite party further contended in his written arguments

No.7 “four passenger lift” Taking into consideration that the complainant has signed this agreement wherein a ‘four

No.7 “four passenger lift” Taking into consideration that the complainant has signed this agreement wherein a ‘four

opposite party cannot take umbrage that they are low cost flats and hence plastering was not done. Hence the

It is stated in the AP.Apartment (Promotion of construction ownership) Act,1987 that fire protection requirements for

apartments buildings above 15 mts. in height depending upon the occupancy shall be protected by way of riser cum

down comer, automatic sprinkler installation, high pressure water spray or foam generating system etc. as per the

To reiterate, all the fire safety norms and specifications as per the A.P.Apartment (Promotion of construction

compound wall was constructed around all the three complexes as per the sanctioned plan . We find force in the

absence of which would create a risk and endanger the lives of the people moving on the terrace, and hence the

connection, we are not inclined to award the same. We observe from the record in brochure also that under the sub

the brochure or in the agreement we are of the considered view that the builder cannot be made liable to pay for

the brochure or in the agreement we are of the considered view that the builder cannot be made liable to pay for

not file any proof of its provision. The opposite paprty is directed to complete the water filter plant from the overhead

In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to complete all the aforementioned

You might also like

features , for which the opposite party collected money from the flat owners ranging from Rs.19,000/ to Rs.95,000/

but the opposite party failed to fulfill their mandatory obligations. The opposite party also collected Rs.19,000/ to

flat no.217. Ex.A3 is the sale deed for flat no.21 of Happy Homes Palace BlockA. Ex.A4 is letters from Happy Homes