SURYA ESTATES CONSTRUCTION FIRM Vs. VENKATESHWARA SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 30.7.2010, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (short, "State Commission ") petitioners/opposite parties have filed present revision petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts as per complaint are that respondents/complainants are owners of respective flats in Surya Residency Apartment, Mylargadda, Secunderabad. The said apartments were constructed by petitioner no.1/opposite party no.1, represented by petitioner no.2/opposite party no.2, its Managing Director. Petitioner no.2 entered into agreements for sale of flats with respondents in July, 2002. Flats were handed over, vide registered sale deeds in the year 2003, with some unfinished works and promised to complete the unfinished works within one or two months. Respondents made personal visits to the office of the petitioners and requested them to complete the works which were left unfinished. However, there was no response from the petitioners. It is stated that following are the unfinished works and defects which were not rectified by the petitioners : -

(3.) PETITIONERS filed their counter denying most of the allegations made in the complaint. They have stated that as per agreement, respondents have to pay the amounts for providing electrical meters. Since, respondents have not paid the amount, petitioners with their own amount provided electrical meters. It is stated that there is no agreement to provide safeguards to cover the electrical boards. Petitioners have also alleged that they have allotted the parking areas to those who had purchased and paid the amount. It also states that at the time of handing over the possession, there was sufficient water in the bore well and availability of groundwater depends upon rains and many other factors which are not in their control. The complaint filed by the respondents is barred by limitation, as respondents entered into agreement with the petitioners in the year 2002 and sale deeds were executed in February, 2003. Thus, limitation for filing the complaint ends by February, 2005. There is no deficiency in service on their behalf and complaint merits dismissal with exemplary costs.