K.USHA RANI Vs. K.SUNIL KUMAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the owner of 500 sq. yards with existing super -structure bearing Municipal No. 8 -3 -216/2 situated at Sreenivas Nagar, West Colony, Yusufguda, and Hyderabad. While so she entered into an agreement on 6.1.1992 with builder firm by name M/s. Sikhara Constructions for the development of the property into a complex of residential flats. Due to filing of a suit by neighbour the construction work could not be taken up by the builder but later the suit was withdrawn as settled. Then the complainant entered into a fresh agreement on 24.5.1993 with the Managing Partner of M/s. Sree Towers for developing the land into a residential complex. According to which the latter agreed to construct the flats within 15 months from the date of agreement and hand over 40% of the built up floor space to the complainant in lieu of the land given for development. The construction was completed within 8 months excepting some finishing touches and gave possession of Flat No. 101 in the Ground Floor, 303 in the Second Floor on 14.2.1994 against part of the entitlement of 40% of the floor space subject to completion of finishing works like polishing of the floor, painting of doors and windows etc. which were also completed by May, 1994. But the complainant found that the walls in the west bedroom, halls, kitchen and balconies developed cracks and the door frames and shutters lost their shape. Complainant brought these facts to the notice of the opposite party. Though the opposite party applied cement mortar to fill up the gaps in the cracks but later they reappeared. With the result water is seeping through the outer walls into the bedrooms whenever there was rain. Even the southern RCC beams under Flat Nos. 303, 203 and 103 developed cracks as well as slab beams of the roof of Flat No. 303. As it was a matter of grave concern she consulted experienced Engineer who gave the opinion that the cracks in the RCC beams are due to structural defects in the construction of the building. Evidently the south -west corner RCC footings and pillars were raised without touching hard soil as a result of which there is uneven settlement of footings and columns. Even the pillars should have been 24" wide instead of 18". Steel rods used in the beams are not of required standard and tensity and adequate number of stirrups (rings) were not used.

(2.) IN view of the Final Report and also in view of the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the complainant, both oral and documentary, we are of the opinion that there are defects in the construction of the building. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Then next question is what is the quantum of compensation the complainant is entitled to. Though the complainant claims a sum of Rs. 16.00 lakhs we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint would meet the ends of justice as both the parties have not placed adequate evidence to arrive at the exact sum required to rectify the defects. As the opposite party has not been appearing we are of the view that even if a direction is given to rectify the defects he will not sincerely comply with the said directions. Hence, we are of the opinion that monetary compensation should be awarded.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -. Time for payment two months.