A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:
1. The complaint OP 113/1994 was filed by M/s. Anuradha Nivas Flat Owners Association represented by its President M. Dharma Reddy on behalf of its members against M/s. Anuradha Estates represented by its Chief Executive Dr. R. Satyam Rayana.
2. The opposite party got permission from Hyderabad Municipality to construct 3 storeyed complex (Anuradha Nivas) consisting of 13 flats in each floor. The members of the complainant association entered into three separate agreements with the opposite party on 15.7.1991. They are; (1) agreement to sell undivided share in the land for a consideration of Rs. 14,864/- as evidenced by Ex. A-3 and Ex. B1. (2) Agreement for construction of flat/garage etc. for a consideration of Rs. 2,11,850/- as evidenced by Ex. A-12 and the agreement recites that an amount of Rs. 1,81,836/- was paid at the time of agreement and balance of Rs. 30,014/- has to be paid in instalments before 30.9.1991 and see also B2 (3) agreement for doing certain things and acts by the developer i.e. opposite party as evidenced by Ex. A13, such as service charges for land development and compound wall, architect fees, structural design, supervision charges for technical persons, and incidental and miscellaneous works such as bore wells, lifts, transformers etc., Municipal permit fee, betterment charges, water drainage charges and other incidental charges and other taxes or levies, office maintenance charges, commissions paid, advertisements, and any other miscellaneous expenses and service charges and for the above four functions is Rs. 20/- sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 22,300/-. See B4 also.
3. According to the allegations in the complaint, the opposite party failed to make construction within the time stipulated in the construction agreement and he admitted in a notarised affidavit dated 27.3.1992 given to one of the members that the works such as overhead water tank for providing Municipal water to the flats, electricity connection to the flat and fixation of electricity meter and switch boards, sanitary fittings in bath rooms and kitchen etc. including wash basins and toilet tanks, fixation of glasses to the windows, fixing of tower bolts and handles to all the doors, painting of walls and final floor polishing and providing drainage connection to the flats are pending and they were covered by the construction agreement.
4. Even though the opposite party received huge amounts, the opposite party has not provided the amenities and has not completed the construction and the construction made was defective and it failed to provide the following:
(i)Â failed to instal electricity transformer inspite of the members of the association paying Rs. 1,50,000/-;
(ii)Â failed to instal new motor to the bore well which necessitated the complainant association to spend Rs. 15,000/-;
(iii) failed to provide Municipal water connection to the flats of which the flat owners have to purchase water by paying Rs. 200/- per tank every day for the past two years;
(iv)Â failed to complete even the major works like Municipal water and drainage connection of the works;
(v)Â failed to provide way-out on the northern side of the complex;
(vi)Â raising another floor i.e., terrace which was prohibited under Section 24 of the A.P. Apartments Act and is therefore, illegal and is detrimental to the interest of the members of the complainant association,
(vii) failed to register the flats in the name of the members of the association, even though he registered some sale deeds, and is demanding excess money for registering the flats, and failed to give complete possession of the flats as agreed to in the construction agreement.
5. Therefore, the complainant gave a Lawyer notice dated 31.3.1994 to the opposite party demanding him to complete the works as admitted by the opposite party in their affidavit dated 27.3.1992 and also other remaining works for which the opposite party sent a false reply. On account of the failure of the opposite party to provide water supply and drainage connection, the complainant approached the Municipality and has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for water and drainage and other amounts.
6. Alleging that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in completing the construction and even in the constructions made there are certain defects such as walls giving cracks, leakage in bath rooms, not completing the floor etc., the above complaint was filed seeking a direction to the opposite party to complete the work within two months, to register the remaining sale deeds in favour of the members of the complainant association, to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- towards the amount incurred by the complainant for installing, electricity transformer, motor and for getting Municipal water and drainage connections together with interest @ 24% p.a. to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 14,04,000/- towards the reimbursement amount as stipulated in the construction agreements for defective materials and construction, to construct another overhead tank for the Municipal water storage and another sump on the ground floor, to provide cement flooring in ground floor for garage purpose and to provide water proof cement flooring on the 3rd floor roofing area, to replace the sub-standard and damaged water and drainage pipes, to provide lift facility, iron gate on the northern side road and to arrange cover to the staircase on the 3rd floor, to provide cover and steps/ladder for the overhead water tank on the 3rd floor to note the water level in the tank; to replace the unauthorised drainage connection with regular connection and to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- towards damages and costs.
7. The opposite party in its version stated that the complaint is not maintainable at the instance of the association which was not promoted according to Clause 31 of the agreement with all owners and that the three agreements entered into are complimentary and inter-dependents. According to Clause 14 of the construction agreement, the flat owners have to pay service charges for all service connections but they were not paid by the complainant. It was further stated that the drainage connection was obtained before delivery of possession of the flats. Municipal water supply was arranged by purchasers themselves without making any payment to the opposite party and the allegation that the complainants are purchasing water every day at a cost of Rs. 200/- per day since over two years is denied and that the motor installed is in good condition and it does not require replacement, and that there are no deviations made from the specifications given in the construction agreement, and that in the north eastern corner a gate was opened and no inconvenience is caused to the residents in the complex, and the right of terrace construction and addition to the ground floor are reserved to the opposite party. It was further stated that sale deeds were executed in favour of the flat owners who settled their accounts with the opposite party and there is no obligation on the part of the opposite party to pay any amounts to get the water drainage or electricity connections unless the members of the complainant association pay the amounts and that there is no cause of action for the complainant association with regard to affidavit dated 27.3.1992 and there is no common cause of action for the complainant association, and that the transformer was purchased by the opposite party and that it arranged cables, meters and other drainage connections, borewell, motors, water tanks and other incidental works at their cost and have to get reimbursement from the complainant. The demand for another overhead tank and another sump has no basis as it was not mentioned that there is any such requirement and there is no promise to provide any lift and that the plastic pipes for water and drainage are according to the latest method adopted by all builders. For those members who have purchased the garage space, the flooring was done in the garage and that the complainant should pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party. According to the opposite party the complaint is false and filed to black mail the promoters to avoid payments for which act the members of the complainant association have to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party by way of damages and that the opposite party is prepared to register the sale deeds subject to settlement of the accounts by the members of the complainant association. As there is no deficiency of service in completing the construction or/and there are no defects in the construction and as there is no obligation on the part of opposite party to provide drainage, water and electricity facilities, unless the members of complainant's association pay the money, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. The complainant filed reply affidavit stating that the complaint is maintainable at the instance of the association, and that all the flat owners paid all the amounts due to the opposite party and the opposite party has not given any particulars except making a bald statement that the members of complainant association have to pay the money. It is also absolutely false to say that drainage connection was obtained before the flat owners occupied the flats and on the other hand it is the complainant that made application for drainage and drinking water connections, to the Executive Engineer and paid an amount of Rs. 2,05,400/- by way of demand drafts. Thus it is only the complainant association that obtained drainage and drinking water connections and the opposite party collected the money and left the flat owners to their fate.
9. According to the service agreement dated 15.7.1991 the opposite party has undertaken to construct compound wall, and to provide borewell, lifts, transformers, water and drainage facilities and collected at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. foot and also collected additional money from the flat owners at Rs. 2,500/- each for providing electric transformer and demanded Rs. 5,000/- from each flat owner. The opposite party is, therefore, liable to refund the amount of water and drainage connections and additional amount paid for electricity transformer. They once again reiterated that they purchased drinking water every day at Rs. 200/- per tanker and since the existing borewell was not giving water even for an hour, they dug another borewell on the north-west corner and spent Rs. 87,470 /- which has to be reimbursed from the opposite party.
10. The opposite party has not provided gate on the northern side and it has no right to construct anything on the terrace of the builder and did not register the flats in spite of payment of entire amount. They also pleaded that the construction is incomplete and M/s. Raja Rao and Company, Chartered Engineers and Government Registered Valuer estimated that it would cost Rs. 3,42,900/- to compele left over civil work Rs. 4,87,490/- for rectification of defects, and the complainant association spent Rs. 64,430/- towards left over works and the total amount comes to Rs. 8,94,820/-. They also stated that the. opposite party has to provide a lift and they got various quotations from BECO Lifts Pvt. Ltd. and Kone Elevators at Rs. 3,05,000/- and Rs. 2,90,000/- respectively. Therefore, the opposite party either has to instal a lift or pay Rs. 3,05,000/- to the complainant for providing lift. In substance it was stated that the complainant spent Rs. 1,05,400/- towards Municipal water connection charges, Rs. 1,11,000/- towards sewerage connection charges, Rs. 87,470/- towards borewell expenditure Rs. 97,500/- additional amounts collected towards electricity transformer charges, Rs. 3,05,000/- towards value of lift, and Rs. 8,95,000/- towards the value of civil works to be done by the opposite party and the value of works done by the complainant, in all a sum of Rs. 15,90,370/-.
11. No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties.
The complainant filed Exs. A-l to A-39 and also number of photos showing cracks in the walls and leakage of water from the roofs in bathroom etc. The opposite party filed Exs. B1 toB12.
12. From the complaint and counter and reply, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable at the instance of the Anuradha Nivas Flat Owners Association i.e. complainant" ?
2. Whether according to the terms of the construction agreement the opposite party agreed to provide electricity, water supply and drainage works at its cost without demanding any further amount from the members of the complainant, except a sum of Rs. 2,11,850/-?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount spent by it for getting water, drainage and electricity connections and the amount spent on borewell and the estimated cost for providing lift facility?
4. Whether there are any unfinished civil works and defects in the construction such as cracks, leakages etc. and the complainant is entitled for payment of Rs. 4,94,820/- in this regard including left overwork attended to by the complainant?
5. Whether the complainant spent Rs. 200/- every day for procuring Municipal water through tankers for the past two years?
6. Whether the opposite party should be directed to register the sale deeds in favour of the members of the complainant association and payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation?
13. On the question whether the complaint is maintainable or not the complainant association filed Exs. A-l and A-2. Ex. A-l is the certificate of Registration issued by Registrar of Societies under A.P. (Telangana Areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 on 31.3.1993. Ex. A2 is the Memorandum of Society which shows that Anuradha Nivas Flat Owners Association was a registered association and consisting of President, Secretary, Vice-President and permanent members shall be the owners of the flats in Anuradha Nivas and resident members shall be residing as tenants in the flats. Since the complainant is a registered society, the complaint is maintainable at the instance of association. The contention of the opposite party that under Clause 31 of the construction agreement, it is only the society formed under Clause 31 of the agreement can only file a complaint, cannot be accepted as complainant is defined under Section 2(1)(c) as a consumer or any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force. As the complainant is a registered society under A.P. (Telengana Areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350, the complaint is maintainable.
14. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the opposite party has to provide a lift. But the opposite party contended that there is no such provision in the construction agreement entered into between the parties. Ex. A-12 corresponding to Ex. B2 is the agreement for construction of flat. Clause 2 of the agreement says that multi storeyed building shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and designs sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the specifications prescribed in the Schedule-C with such modifications or variations as may be required by the authorities concerned. In the specifications for residential flats i.e. Ex. B3, there is no mention of providing any lift for residential flats, although it appears that for commercial centre, there is provision of four lifts. There is no other clause in the construction agreement for provision of lift by the opposite party for residential complex. But in the agreement Ex. A13 and in Ex. B4 for doing certain things by the developer it was stated that the developer agreed to provide architect fees, structural design, supervision charges for technical persons, and incidental and miscellaneous works such as borewells, lifts, transformers etc. Evidently this agreement relates to service charges for incidental and miscellaneous works. including lift. But it cannot be said that the opposite party agreed to provide any lift at its expense in the residential complex. Hence the question of giving any direction to the opposite party to provide a lift in the residential complex does not arise and Exs. A36 and A37 estimates for providing a lift need not be considered.
15. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that in violation of the agreement the opposite party is constructing a pent house or floor on the terrace and that since the terrace rights are sold to the members of the complainant association, the opposite party cannot make any construction in the terrace or additions in the ground floor. But under Clause 12 of the construction agreement the developer shall have a right to make additions/alterations, raise further floors or put additional structures at any time as may be permitted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and other concerned authorities and the purchasers shall consent to the same provided that the developer does not in any way effect or prejudice the right granted in favour of the purchasers in respect of the said flat/floor area/garage. There is no stipulation in the construction agreement that the terrace rights were sold to the flat owners and that the developer has no right to make any further construction. Hence the complainant cannot make grievance of the developer making any construction in the terrace after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipality. Ex. B6 is an affidavit given is an affidavit given by one M. Dharma Reddy owner of flat No. 301, in which he admitted that he has no right on the ground floor covered area and no objection for the use of the same by the developer and also for making future constructions on the terrace and ground floor.
16. It is also contended on behalf of the complainant that the plan provided for opening of gates on two sides i.e. north and west so that they can have way-out to the roads. But the opposite party colluded with one of the flat owners on the northern side and did not open way-out on the northern side and closed the way to the northern side road. In the counter, the opposite party stated that the land on the north side belongs to the same owner who gave land to Anuradha Estates for development and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad revised the layout of entire area and still a road is open to the complex on the north east corner and no inconvenience is caused to the members of the complainant association. Since there is no material adduced by the complainant that a gate was not opened on north east corner according to the revised plan of the layout by the Municipality, the complainant cannot make a grievance that the opposite party did not provide a gate on the northern side, as the gate is provided on north eastern side according to the plan.
17. According to the complainant as the opposite party did not provide Municipal water connection, the complainant has to get the Municipal water by paying Rs. 200/- per tanker every day for the past 2 years. This allegation was denied by the opposite party in its counter. The complainant did not adduce any oral evidence or produce any documents to show that they have been paying every day Rs. 200/- per tanker for the past two years. In the absence of any material to show that the complainants have paid the amount, they are not entitled for any direction to the opposite party to pay the amount said to have been incurred by them towards supply of water by tankers.
18. It is also next contended that the opposite party has to provide cement flooring in ground floor for garage purpose and water proof cement flooring on third floor roofing area i.e. terrace. The opposite party submitted in their counter that according to the terms, water proofing of the roof was done long back. So far as the flooring of ground floor was concerned, it was only done to the extent sold to others as garages and the bal-. ance unsold areas belonged to the opposite party and they will complete the flooring shortly.
19. In the construction agreement inthepreamble portion, it was stated that it has been agreed between the parties that any flat/floor areas/garage is not covered by any agreement, the developer will be deemed to be the owners thereof and shall be entitled to sell them to any person or party as they deem fit. The construction agreement i.e. Ex. A12 mentions that it was only the flat that was sold and not garage. Under Clause 21, the purchaser shall have the right to enjoy the open land, roadways approaches and all other common amenities provided in the scheduled land as per the approved sanctioned plan along with others. Thus it is only the common amenities provided that can be utilised by the purchaser and as the purchaser did not purchase the specified garage space, he is not entitled to any relief with regard to flooring of the garage space as the unsold garage space belonged to the developer.
20. The complainant sought a direction to the opposite party to construct another overhead tank for Municipal water storage and another sump on the ground floor. But in the counter it was stated that without any calculation of capacity and necessity the complainants simply demanded for another over head tank and sump while they have already provided a tank with adequate capacity. In the specifications to the construction agreement, it was stated that the opposite party has to provide water supply by sump/borewell with overhead tanks. The opposite party already provided one overhead tank and sump probably depending on the number of flats in the complex. In the absence of any evidence to show that the overhead tank and sump provided by the opposite party is inadequate and in the absence of any specific agreement to provide second overhead tank and second sump, we are not inclined to give any direction to the opposite party in this regard.
21. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party has to provide electrical transformer and pay the amounts due to the Electricity Board or other Departments necessary for obtaining power supply. But according to the opposite party in Clause 14 of the construction agreement the complainants have to pay for all service connections including electricity. Later part of Clause 14 of the agreement reads that the expenses and deposits if any, like service connection charges, voluntary loan contribution, cost of transformers etc. have to be paid by the purchaser to the Electricity Department. It is, therefore, clear from the above clause that the complainants have to bear the electricity connection charges, voluntary loan contribution and cost of transformer etc.
22. The complainant filed Ex. A32 invoices and receipts Exs.A33 and A35 showing that they have incurred Rs. 31,360/- towards electrical panels, switches, fuse wires, DP bends etc. Since the complainants have to bear the electrical service connection charges, cost of transformer etc., the opposite party cannot be made liable to pay the amount incurred by the complainant and also an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- alleged to have been spent by them for installation of transformer etc.
23. It is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the opposite party failed to complete the major works like Municipal water and drainage connections. The opposite party agreed to complete all the pending works within a month from 27.3.1992 as evidenced by Ex. A4 the affidavit of R. Satyanarayana i.e. opposite party in favour of one Y.R. Sesha Rao the owner of flat bearing No. 111.
24. The opposite party relied on Clause 14 which was already referred to and submitted that they have arranged drainage connections, borewell, motor, water supply and other incidental works and that the complainants have to pay to the opposite party under Clause 14 of the construction agreement. But Clause 14 refers to the expenses and deposits if any like service connection charges, voluntary loan contribution, transformer charges etc. have to be paid by the purchasers to the Electricity Department. But it does not mention that the complainants have to pay either to the water works department or to the opposite party the requisite charges for obtaining drainage and water connections. Hence the contention of the opposite party that under Clause 14 of the agreement, the complainants have to pay the necessary expenditure for obtaining water and drainage service connections cannot be accepted.
25. Moreover except stating in the counteraffidavit that he incurred expenditure for obtaining water connection, sewerage and drainage, the opposite party did not adduce any material to show that he incurred any expenditure in this regard. On the other hand the complainant filed Ex. A14 the statement of expenditure incurred by it towards water connection charges, sewerage connection and necessary deposits and the amounts paid for giving connection and pipe works to St. Pal's Engineering Works, supported by a receipt issued by Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Exs. A15 to A17 and the cheques issued in favour of Executive Engineer, Ex. A18 and the bill issued by St. Pal's Engineering Works and the total expenditure incurred by the complainant association in this regard is Rs. 2,18,650 /- as evidenced by Ex. A14.
26. The agreement Ex. A13 entered into for doing certain things and acts by the developer shows that the developer specifically agreed that he will bear the water, drainage charges and that incidental charges for payment of Rs. 22,300/- and it shows that one Bhargavi, one of the members paid the entire amount. This also shows the allegation that the complainants have to provide the water and drainage connections at their own expense and that the opposite party has nothing to do with them cannot be believed. Having regard to Ex. A14, agreement, we are satisfied that the opposite party is liable to payto the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,18,650/- incurred by the complainant association.
27. It is next submitted that the complainant installed a new motor to the borewell at an expenditure of Rs. 15,000/- which the opposite party has to pay to the complainant. The complainant filed Ex. A20 showing that a sum of Rs. 87,470/- was incurred towards borewell. The amount of Rs. 87,470/- was supported by a receipt issued by Manasa Bore Wells and Deccan Pipe Industries Exs. A21 and A-22 and Hyderabad Pump Engineering Company Ex. A24. These receipts show that this expenditure was incurred on 3.7.1995, 12.7.1995, i.e. subsequent to the filing of the complaint.
28. According to the opposite party he dug the borewell, and arranged necessary connections and water sumps and incidental works. But due to lack of rains and lowering of the ground water table, the water from the borewell might not be sufficient in summer. Since he provided the borewell, if the complainant wants to have second bore-well dug, they have to bear the expenses. Evidently this borwell was dug in the year 1995 during the pendency of the complaint and as the possession of the flats was given some time in 1993 itself to some flat owners who occupied the flats, we are satisfied that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this regard. Moreover this expenditure was incurred subsequent to the filing of the complaint.
29. It is next submitted that the opposite party did not complete the construction and even with regard to the said incomplete construction, there are many defects, which the opposite party has to rectify. Under the construction agreement, the opposite party has to construct the complex according to the specifications mentioned therein. But the opposite party pleaded that the complainants have not paid the consideration as agreed to. But there is no material on record, except the allegation in the counter that the complainant did not pay the amount, the opposite party did not file any notice said to have been given by him to the complainant for payment of any amount by them, except stating so in reply notice Ex. A7 dated 21.4.1994 to the Lawyer notice Ex. A6 dated 31.3.1994 given on behalf of the complainant. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the version of the complainant that the entire amount was paid.
30. In the construction agreement Ex. A12 it was stated that the amount of Rs. 1,81,836/was paid at the time of signing of the agreement and the balance of Rs. 30,014/- was paid in instalments. As the agreement was dated 15.7.1991 and the balance was only a sum of Rs. 30,014/- and in the affidavit given to one Sesha Rao i.e. Ex. A4 dated 27.3.1992, one of the flat owner bearing No. 111 he admitted certain works have to be attended to and agreed to complete the pending works. There was no mention that the flat owners have to pay any balance of consideration. It also shows that there are certain pending works to be completed by the opposite party as on 27.3.1992 and that the building is not completed in all respects and that there are defects and deficiencies in the construction so far made and it is also clear from the certificate issued by M. Raja Rao and Company dated 20.12.1995 (Ex. A25) that left over civil works to be done and the rectification of defects to be carried out and the estimated expenditure for the same. It also mentions the expenditure incurred by the complainant as Rs. 64,430/- towards some the works done by the complainant association. This amount of Rs. 64,430/- includes Rs. 7,720/- towards gate and installation as evidenced by Ex. A26, Rs. 9,600/- towards RCC roof slab over sump, Rs. 2,500/- towards AC sheet roofing to staircase room in terrace, Rs. 13,250/- towards piping works and Rs. 31,360/- towards electrical works etc. As was have held that the opposite party is not liable to pay for the electrical works, after deducting Rs. 31,360/- from Rs. 64,430/- the complainant is entitled for reimbursement of Rs. 33,070/-. Deducting this sum of Rs. 33,070/- from the sum of total estimate made by Raja Rao and Company i.e. Rs. 8,94,820/-, the estimated cost for attending to the repairs, defects and for attending to incomplete works will come to Rs. 8,63,460/- (Rs. 8,94,820/- â Rs. 33,070/-)
31. The opposite party is bound to attend to the incomplete and defective works or has to pay the above said sum of Rs. 8,63,460 /- to the complainant.
32. The complainant filed some photos as material paper No. 3 showing about the leakage of water, effecting the walls and also some cracks in the walls and incomplete works which clearly show that the opposite party has to complete some works and that there are also defects in the construction.
33. The learned Counsel for the complainant invited our attention to the decision of National Commission in Sanjay Nagar Residents' Welfare Association v. The Vice-Chairman, G.D.A., II (1995) CPJ 58 (NC) wherein the National Commission held that failure to give possession and demanding higher amount especially when the complainants were in need of possession of house amounts to unfair trade practice and failue to provide infrastructural facilities and use of sub-standard material also amounts to deficiency of service.
34. Ex. A25, the certificate issued by M. Raja Rao and Co., also supports the case of the complainant that there is incomplete construction and also defects in the construction so far made. We, therefore, hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in this regard and direct the opposite party to complete the incomplete works according to the plan, specifications and agreement and report of M. Raja Rao and Co., and pay a sum of Rs. 33,070/- (Rs. 64,430/- as mentioned in Ex. A25 supported by bills minus Rs. 31,360/-) with interest @ 15% p.a. from August, 1995 i.e. the last bill Ex. A30 is 30.7.1995, within two months from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party shall pay to all the members of the complainant put together a sum of Rs. 8,63,460/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of expiry of two months period mentioned above till the date of payment.
35. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that they have paid to the opposite party under Ex. A3 agreement of sale towards undivided share a sum of Rs. 14,864/-. and the opposite party did not state anywhere in the counter that the members of the complainant have not paid the consideration for purchase of undivided share in the land. Even according to the opposite party he registered sale deeds in favour of flat owners who paid the consideration. Ex. B5 is one of such registered sale deed dated 26.10.1991 in favour of one Shankar Reddy for undivided share of land. As the members of the complainant paid the entire consideration of Rs. 14,864/- they are entitled to registered sale deeds on their paying the requisite stamp duty and registration charges to the opposite party. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for mental agony and other damages. Since we have awarded interest on the amount said to have been spent by the complainant, we are not inclined to award separate compensation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to complete the construction and effect repairs as mentioned in Ex. A25 certificate issued by Raja Rao and Co., within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party shall pay to all the members of the complainant put together a sum of Rs. 8,63,460/- with interest @ 15% p.a. after the expiry of period of two months as aforementioned.
(ii) The opposite party shall also pay to all the members of the complainant put together a sum of Rs. 2,18,650/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 1.1.1995 as they have incurred the expenditure some time in November and December, 1994 for obtaining water connection, sewerage and drainage connections etc., till the date of payment.
(iii) The opposite party is further directed to execute and register sale deeds for the undivided share in the land in favour of all the members of the complainant on depositing with the opposite party, requisite stamp duty and registration charges, within one month from the date of the such deposit by the members of the complainant association.
There shall be no order as to costs in this complaint.
Complaint partly allowed.