INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. T KISHORE REDDY & 2 ORS; T KISHORE REDDY; SHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE PAPPAIAH REDDY; M ACHAMMA W/O A L MUNISWARACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s.Indraprastha Apartment Owners Association against the order dated 29.11.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No.148 of 2010, wherein the consumer complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and liberty has been granted to the complainant to move to the civil court for redressal of the grievances.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint against the respondents that the members of the appellant Association had entered into individual agreements with the builder, opposite party No.1 for purchase of the flats. However, when the purchasers got the possession and entered into the flats they were taken to surprise that the flats were not completed and regular water and sewage connection was not there. It was prayed in the complaint that opposites parties be directed to get regularised the water and sewage connection from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB). It was also alleged that the DG set or back up supply was not provided by the builder as well as the intercom facility was also not provided. It was prayed that the builder be directed to provide these services. It was further prayed in the complaint that if the opposite party is not able to provide these facilities, an amount of Rs.24,14,624/- may be awarded to the complainant Association to be paid by the opposite party so that Association may provide these facilities.

(3.) The complaint was resisted on the ground that the opposite party No.1 has no privity of contract with the complainant/appellant as individual agreements were signed with the individual allottees/flat purchasers. The development agreement was signed between opposite party No.1, the builder and land owners opposite parties No.2 and opposite party No.3. The State Commission dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 29.11.2013 by observing as follows:-