ANURADHA NIVAS FLATS OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. ANNURADHA ESTATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by appellant/complainant 'M/s. Anuradha Nivas Flat Owners' Association, not being satisfied by the order of the State Commission. Brief facts of the case are that the members of the complainant association before us had entered into three separate agreements with the respondent relating to, (i) undivided share in the land, (ii) construction agreement for flat/garage etc., and what is termed as (iii) service agreement. The respondent was to build three floors in the undivided share of land and thirteen flats in each floor. Each of the member of the association was to pay Rs. 14,864/ - for the undivided share in the land and each flat was to cost Rs. 2,11,850/ - for which Rs. 1,81,836/ - was paid at the time of agreement and the balance amountofRs.30,014/ -tobepaidbefore 30.3.1990. Needless to say that each of the buyer was bound by the terms of the agreement. Once the respondent failed to make construction within the stipulated time and noticing certain deficiencies in the services to be provided by the respondent as perceived by the complainants, the latter moved the State Commission alleging deficiency of services on the part of the respondent and praying for the following reliefs :

(2.) IT was argued before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant Association, that the State Commission has erred in not granting all the reliefs as prayed by them before the State Commission. According to them the State Commission ought to have allowed Rs. 31,560/ - towards electrical works but due to non screening of the agreement failed to award this in their favour. They are also entitled to full Rs. 3,50,000/ - with interest @ 24% toward installation of electricity, transformer, meter and municipal water and drainage, whereas they have been allowed Rs. 2,18,650/ - only, thus the balance of Rs. 1,31,350/ - be allowed to them. In the service agreement there is a mention of lift which has not been provided. It is there in the approved plan and since complainants have been charged for this and the agreement proving for this, it needs to be provided. Enough storage fidelity for supply of water from overhead tank has not been built, hence this needs to be provided as per agreement, to provide sufficient water to the complainants. As the open spaces belong to the complainant, thus the common areas including stilt, parking areas, terrace cannot be sold or otherwise alienated. Iron gate on the northern side has not been provided causing great inconvenience to the complainants. Hence the respondents be directed to provide iron gate on the northern side. The learned Counsel vehemently argued that the complainants are entitled to reasonable compensation for all the sufferings they have been made to live with. Whatever they are asking for is as per the terms of agreement and notarised affidavit dated 27.3.1992 given to one of the members of the complainant association.

(3.) On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that a mere perusal of the construction agreement clearly reveals that there was no provision for lift in this agreement. What is being attempted is to introduce the provision for lift through the service agreement, in which there is a clause of charges for several 'services' including lift. The State Commission has rightly rejected the contention of the appellants/complainants on this count and no ground has been made out to change the order of the State Commission. All the services which were to be provided under the agreement have been provided. There has been some delay but that is on account of delayed payments made by the complainants. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence needs to be rejected.