CONSUMERS GUIDANCE SOCIETY Vs. LAKKAM ESWAR REDDY, PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.A.1629 of 08:

(2.) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that one Sri K.P.Ravindran rep. by the complainant i.e.<APL>Consumers Guidance Society</APL>herein purchased Flat no.GF8 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8 lakhs from opp.parties 1 and 2 vide agreement dt.21.11.05 and got executed the sale deed on 15.12.05. Opposite party no.1 endorsed receipt for Rs.6 lakhs in the registered sale document but did not issue receipts for the balance amounts. The complainant submits that opposite party no.1 provided only 697 sq.ft. as against the guaranteed plinth area of 780 sq. ft. and also did not provide the car parking and several other amenities. The complainant submits that opp.parties 1 and 2 used substandard and non ISI electrical wiring, fixtures and water pipes resulting in seepage of water, deviated from the approved plan and constructed three additional flats and inspite of several requests did not rectify the defects with respect to drinking water, proper sewerage facilities, fire extinguishers and earthquake resistance facilities. They got issued a legal notice dt.10.12.2007 but did not receive any reply. Hence the complaint seeking direction to opposite parties to award monetary loss for not providing assured plinth area for Rs.85,075/- and compensation for not providing other amenities i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- for illegal construction of three additional flats, compensation of Rs.50, 000/- for mental agony and other costs.

(3.) Opp.party no.1 filed written version stating that the said K.P.Ravindran purchased flat GF 8 only after fully satisfying himself with its construction and he was also aware of the construction of the pent house and denies that only 697 sq. ft. of plinth area was delivered. Opp.party no.1 submits that the said complainant is in occupation of about 869 sq.ft. of plinth area including balcony and washing area which is in his exclusive possession and does not come under common area. 30ft. common area was given for the purpose of scooter parking and no amounts were paid towards the car parking facility. The agreement dt.21.11.2005 clearly stipulates that the opposite party is no way responsible to arrange drinking water facility and he has constructed the overhead tank and also arranged the borewell. Opposite party further submits that they used ISI standard material for sewerage and drainage purpose. The sale deed or brochure does not disclose that opposite party undertook to provide fire extinguishers or earthquake resistance facility. The entire sale consideration was paid by way of cheque and submits that K.P.Ravindran has claimed in his legal notice only Rs.50,000/- and has inflated that amount in the complaint as Rs.3,25,075/-. Opposite party also submits that an amount of Rs.5000/- was not paid by the complainant and that his cheque was dishonoured. There is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.