J SRIRAM MURTHY Vs. P SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first complainant along with his son second complainant entered into an agreement dated 16.11.1993 with the opposite party builder for construction of two-bed room flat bearing No.302 in third floor of the proposed venture "kusum Mansion" in S. No.24, Plot No.53 at Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.3,27,000/-. According to the terms of the agreement the construction should be completed within 15 months including the grace period of three months and thereafter the opposite party had to pay liquidated damages of Rs.1,500/- per month for the delayed delivery of possession. According to the complainants they paid the entire consideration but as possession was not delivered they occupied the flat due to compulsions in an unfinished stage on 11.4.1995. Therefore, they gave a registered notice on 15.5.1995 for which there was no response. Hence they filed the complaint.

(2.) It is pointed out in the complaint that the opposite party is bound to regularise the municipal water connection, drainage connection and provide separate electricity connection to each flat. Compound wall has to be provided, flooring in the corridors in respect of third floor and staircase was not done, external plastering and distemper colouring was not done, lift not provided, flooring is not completed in stilt area. Besides failure to provide these common facilities the opposite party also failed to provide lintel, cement plastering in the bed room, cracks on the walls not rectified, sunshades for the windows not provided, western side drainage pipe line not provided, flush tanks not provided in the bath rooms, internal walls not painted with distemper, flooring not completed, plastering of parapet wall not done, painting of windows and doors left undone. Besides using poor quality of wood, glass panels were not fixed to the windows which are specific deficiencies in respect of the flat purchased by the complainants. Hence they filed an annexure showing the details of defects and alternatively claimed a sum of Rs.5,80,000/-.

(3.) In the counter filed by the opposite party it is admitted that he entered into an agreement of sale on 16.11.1993 for the said flat for Rs.3,27,000/- but the complainants failed to pay the instalments as agreed on time. He intimated the complainants that the flat is ready for occupation in the month of February, 1995 itself and asked them to pay the balance. The complainants took possession of the flat without informing the opposite party. It is denied that he abandoned completion of the flat. It is further stated that as per the agreement the flat owners have to bear the proportionate cost of water charges, etc. As per item No.14 of the specifications attached to the agreement he has to construct the overhead tanks with borewell and corporation water and sump for fresh water which was done. The overhead tank was divided into two portions to store borewell water as well as municipal water separately. A sump was constructed to collect the municipal water from the tap connection. He also provided facility to pump the municipal water collected in the sump to the overhead tank and provided separate pipelines to each of the flats. He also constructed one more big sump at the request of the flat owners, but the complainants and other flat owners failed to pay the cost of the same. He did not agree to provide separate water connection to them. It is further stated that drainage connection has to be obtained by the flat owners by paying the required charges to concerned authorities. He did not agree to provide or regularise/any drainage connection to the flats of the apartment. So far as the electricity connections are concerned it is agreed by the purchasers to pay the proportionate demands of A. P. State Electricity Board as per Clause 18 of the agreement. Therefore, it is for the purchasers to contribute towards the cost of equipment or such other charges for installation and maintenance, etc. of the transformer or other equipment. He himself approached the Electricity Board and got installed a transformer near the complex. The flat owners failed to apply for individual connections to the APSE Board authorities.