BABA CONSTRUCTIONS vs P.S.NEELAKANTAN

IT is the builder who is in appeal before us in this batch of six appeals. He is aggrieved by the orders of the State Commission issuing certain directions and yet leaving the parties to seek further reliefs in the Civil Court.

APPELLANT was opposite party before the State Commission. Smt. Salike Hemalata as owner of the land and her husband Salike Satya Murthy joined hands to build residential-cum-commercial complex in the land owned by Hemalata. Husband of Hemalata, Salike Satya Murthy became the developer and got irrevocable power of attorney executed by his wife in his favour. Necessary plans were sanctioned from the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. Two Blocks I and II were to be constructed. Block No. I was to be retained by Hemalata herself and 20 flats out of 22 flats constructed in Block II were agreed to be sold. Complainants-respondents herein are some of the flat owners who entered into agreements both with Hemalata for undivided portion of the land and with Salike Satya Murthy for construction of the flats. Both the agreements were executed simultaneously. Complainants filed complaints alleging deficiency in service. It was alleged that the construction was not as per the agreement. It was submitted that M/s. Baba Construction in which name Staya Murthy was constructing the flats and had not given the occupancy certificate. Lift was not installed, flooring of the staircase, lobbies, etc.were not completed, cellar flooring was incomplete, doors were of inferior quality and workmanship of mosaic flooring was of poor quality, plastic/PVC pipe-line provided for waterline was of sub-standard quality, external walls had not been painted with snowcem and the like. It was stated in the complaints that the defects were not rectified in spite of demands and as such complaints were filed. All these were denied by the appellant and it was submitted that full payments towards the agreed price of the flats had not been made.

State Commission in its order had considered in detail various allegations of deficiency in service and the stand taken by the appellant builder and, therefore, issued directions. Though there was no oral evidence, State Commission examined the documentary evidence in considerable depth and came to the conclusion as under : (1) There was nothing on the record to hold that lift had to be provided by the appellant within the cost of the flats. State Commission noted the fact that Baba Apartments Welfare Association had informed the appellant that the Association would itself execute the balance of works which showed that the installation of the lift was not at the cost of the appellant. Direction was, therefore, issued that it was not the responsibility of the appellant to bear the expenditure for the lift by himself but it was the responsibility of the complainants as well as other purchasers to contribute for the installation of the lift. State Commission also noticed that earlier the lift was available at the cost of about Rs. 2,50,000/- and now it was around Rs. 8.00 lakhs due to escalation in the price. Since it was the complainants and other purchasers who were equally responsible for erecting the lift, it was, therefore, left to the Association to take suitable steps for erecting lift after collecting contributions from the complainants and other purchasers.

(2) As to the allegation that Kwila teak was used instead of teak as agreed in the agreement, it was held that kwila teak was not inferior to regular teak and there was no deficiency in service in that regard. (3) Appellant had agreed to rectify the leakage in the water pipeline and complete all individual electric connections together with internal wiring in all the units of the complainants. If this was not done so far, appellant was liable to complete the same within two months from the date of the order which is 25.1.2001. (4) As regards other defects there was no evidence before the Commission and it was, therefore, not possible for the State Commission to go into and decide the same in its summary jurisdiction. For this complainants may well knock at the door of the Civil Court, if so advised. (5) As regards complaint of the appellant that he was entitled to recover huge sum of money from the complainants and other purchasers, he may well go to the Civil Court as he could not raise a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act and particularly when no directions have been given affecting him regarding other deficiencies pointed out by the complainants in their complaints.

ALL these directions were given in Complaint No. 32/1990 which was taken as the lead complaint. Thereafter individual complaints were taken up. In Complaint No. 131/1990 (First Appeal No. 89/2001) direction was issued to the appellant to execute sale deed within two months from the date of the order. It was submitted by the appellant that the complainants had not paid the agreed amount for the purchase of the flats. It was held that in case any balance amount was payable that shall be paid with interest at the rate of 18 per cent by the complainants to the appellant within two months from the date of the order. Direction was also given regarding issuance of occupancy certificate by the appellant. This was also to be obtained within two months from the date of the order. Thereafter State Commission again left the parties to go to Civil Court for further reliefs, if any. After examining the whole aspect of the matter we agree with the State Commission. The order of the State Commission is just and proper and we are, in fact, at a loss to understand as to how the appellant felt aggrieved from various directions issued, some of which were in his favour and others as per the agreement.

THERE is no merit in these appeals. These are dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 2,000/- in each appeal. Appeals dismissed with costs.