SRAVANTHI NIVAS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. V. SREEDHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

(2.) The case of the complainant a welfare association is that R1 is the owner of plot admeasuring 487.59 sq.yds in Sultanvala, Saroornagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. R1 entrusted the property to R2 builder to construct 12 flats. R2 has retained two flats in the ground floor while the remaining flats were sold and executed sale deeds both by R1 & R2. In the sale deeds there was a categorical mention of provision of car parking. Instead of providing car parking place they have constructed one more flat in the parking area thereby the extent has been reduced to 360 sq.yds. Even in that, R1 & R2 had constructed a room for watchman, erected lift, provided transformer and electric meters. As a result there was no parking area left. The construction was contrary to the approved plan. While the original sanctioned plan was G+2 they have obtained permission for G+3. One of the owners of the flat viz., G103 issued legal notice for rectifying the defects and for providing car parking area. R2 gave a vague reply. Therefore they filed the complaint directing R1 & R2 to provide sufficient car parking, and hand over original lift documents to the association and pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.

(3.) R1 owner resisted the case. He questioned the authority of the person who filed the complaint without proper authorization from the members of the association. The entire complex was completed and handed over to the respective members of the association more than three years ago and they have been paying the taxes in their individual names and therefore it was barred by limitation. He entered into development agreement with R2 on 11.6.2003. It was agreed that R2 would complete the construction and it was his responsibility in regard to construction of complex. He was in no way responsible for any defect. R2 has issued a brochure after obtaining sanction from the municipality inviting prospective purchasers showing the plans of construction. The members of the association after satisfying and verifying the documents and after personally visiting the complex purchased the property. While he was allotted five flats towards his share along with equal number of car parking out of which four flats were sold along with car parking leaving only one flat with car parking. After sale of entire flats in the complex car parking was allotted to the flat owners by draw of lots in the presence of purchasers in June, 2004, and they were allotted as per the draw. Sri V. V. Prasad and Smt. K. N. Vasantha Kumari who have purchased and occupied G101 & G103 from the developer's share in December, 2003 and May, 2004 accepted and participated in the lottery and car parking area was allotted. The allegation that there was no sufficient car parking was denied. The construction that was made in the ground floor was as per the sanction plan. The watchman room, electrical meters were installed for the convenience of the flat owners. It cannot be said that they were causing inconvenience. There was no unauthorised construction. There was no deficiency in service on his part and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.