DHARMDAS KANCHAND Vs. TOORKEY ENGINEERING CONTRACTING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dt. 31.7.2008 in C.C.No.979/2007 on the file of District Forum-1,Hyderabad, the complainants preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants are the owners of various flats of Shama Apartments situated in the premises bearing no.1-8-41/2 , Pender Ghast Road, Secunderabad. The first opposite party is a partnership firm and second and third opposite parties are the partners. Opp.parties 1 to 3 are the owners of premises bearing Municipal no.138/1, Prender Ghast Road, Secunderabad popularly known as 'Shama'. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have developed the said property and constructed a multi storied building under the name and style of Shama Apartments in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved and sanctioned by Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. In the year 1980, a sanction from M.C.H. acquired for the construction of ground + four floors and two pent house flats on the 5th floor and based on the said sanctioned plan few of the complainants entered into an agreement of sale in the year 1981 with the opp.parties. During 1981-82 on account of road widening, a substantial portion of frontage land of Shama Apartments was acquired by MCH and an additional F.S.I. was granted to the opp.parties 1 to 3.

(3.) Thereafter an additional construction of 7 flats on 5th floor and four pent houses on the 6th floor as against the original sanction plan of December 1980, was undertaken by the opp.parties 1 to 3 and they applied to Director of Fire Services, Hyderabad through letter dt.15.6.1982 requesting for permission in the form of 'No Objection Certificate' in connection with the proposed additional constructions and with the said letter they have enclosed a plan showing the fire fighting facilities which were supposed to be provided in the complex. In response to the said letter, the Director of Fire Services, A.P., Hyderabad addressed a letter dt.14.7.1982 to the Special Officer, M.C.H. stating that " This department has, in principle no objection to allow the applicants to construct the proposed residential apartments as per details in the lay-out shown in the plans enclosed, subject satisfactory compliance of the following fire protection and fire fighting arrangements, and such other requirements , as required in National Building Code, that may be suggested by this department during the course of the construction". In the said letter the sixth opposite party laid down various fire protection and fire fighting arrangements to be provided by the builder in Shama Apartments like access, open spaces, court yards, car parking areas, stair case, corridors, lift lobby, flat entrance doors, electric cable shaft and electric meter room, escape route lighting, fire fighting equipment, fire pump and booster pump, external hydrants, alternative source of power supply, protable fire extinguishers and various basement requirements. The complainants submit that after obtaining provisional 'No Objection Certificate' by the Fire Department, the opp.parties constructed the apartments and sold the individual flats to the respective purchasers and few among them are the complainants herein. The complainants who are mostly senior citizens living in Shama Apartments received a letter of communication dt.16.1.2006 from the Govt. of A.P. Fire and Emergency Service Department addressed by the Director General of Fire Service to the opposite parties and as per this letter the complainants apartment was inspected by the Fire Service Department and a report dt.1.3.2005 was prepared wherein it was stated that the said apartments were not provided with Mandatory Fire Safety Measures. Opposite party no.2 was addressed a letter dt.15.2.2006 by the President of the Apartments for due compliance of the fire safety measures. The complainants submit that on 6.3.2006 Shama Apartments received a notice from opposite party no.5 stating that the construction carried out is contrary to Section 454 of MCH Act and Building Bye Laws, 21 and also contrary to A.P.Fire Service Act,1989. Thereafter the second complainant addressed a letter dt.5.6.2006 to opp.party no.4 to direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to comply with the provisions of Fire service measures. On 15.10.2007 opposite party no.5 issued a notice to opposite party no.2 directing him to provide the necessary fire safety measures and also issued a letter dt.8.11.2007 to opposite party no.6 requesting to take necessary action as per the provisions of A.P. Fire Service Act,1999 against the builder.