KETANBHAI CHIMANLAL GAJJAR Vs. SHYAMAL ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 28.3.2005 rendered in Complaint No. 952 of 2001 by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, partly allowing the complaint directing opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,38,800 to Shyamal Association towards repairing cost and Rs. 23,650 towards drainage expenses with 9% interest from 29.8.2001. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have been further directed to obtain Building Use Permission and water connection from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation at their own cost and make the same available to the complainants and also directing opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 1,000 by way of cost of the complaint.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the present appeal shortly stated are that opponent Nos. 2 and 3 floated a scheme in the name of Shyamlal Association in Final Plot No. 418 of TPS No. 25. Opponent No. 1 carried out construction and handed over possession of the flats to the members of the complainant Association. In the brochure, while floating the scheme, it was stated that there will be drainage, 24 hour water facility, Building Use Permission and all other facilities would be provided to the members; still, however, the members were given possession without obtaining Building Use Permission from the local authority. Water connection was also not made available to the members by the opponents and there was no drainage facility provided by the opponent; that the opponents have assumed management from 6.2.2000. Thereafter, Rs. 23,650 were paid and drainage connection was obtained on 13.7.2000; that water facility was made from tanker as the bore well had failed; that in the earthquake, the flats were badly damaged and required extensive repairs. The attention of the opponents was drawn to this but of no consequence; that Rs. 1,37,800 were required to be spent for carrying out necessary repairs including some RCC work; that a notie was served to the opponents calling upon the opponents to pay Rs. 3,67,420 spent by the Association and the opponents did not pay any heed and complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act came to be filed.

(3.) THE learned City Forum issued summons to the opponents. Summons of opponent No. 1 returned with the endorsement 'refused' and opponent No. 1 was treated as served; opponent No. 2 did not appear in the Forum despite service of notice. Opponent No. 3 was also not served with the summons as it is suggested from the record and later on deleted from array of parties. The learned City Forum considering the averments in the complaint partly allowed the complaint and passed order as aforesaid. It is this order which is assailed in this appeal by the appellants.