FLAT OWNER WINS CASE AGAINST BUILDING FIRM
Flat buyers are often fleeced by owners over maintenance and repair works. Bindu Madhavi Timmaraju, a 38-year-old resident of Manikonda, filed a case against Padmavathy Surishetty and Surenderanath Kande, owners of the land where a residential complex was built by Karthik Construction, based in Lakdikapul.
The complainant had purchased a flat on the first floor of S. K. Karthik Heights in Manikonda in 2012 for `13.8 lakh.
She was awarded `7.97 lakh towards the cost of repairs and `4.6 lakh for the installation of a generator and a compensation of `55,000 by the consumer forum.
A sum of `10.3 lakh was paid for beautification work. However, the complainant alleged that when she visited the flat it was in a dilapidated condition and inhabitable. The walls were painted with cheap paint and the flooring of the flat had broken tiles. The main door made of teak wood was also not provided.
The complainant also stated that the overall compound wall of the building was not raised enough. A generator was not provided as promised and there was no water proofing in the lift, making it difficult for other residents too.
After repeated complaints, the opposite parties said that the repairs would be done by January 2014. However, the rains in September 2013 led to water logging in the cellar, resulting in loss of power for more than 10 days. The complainant alleged that the ‘flats were sold by misinterpretation’.
The owners of the land denied all allegations, including the payment of `10.8 lakh. They stated that the building materials were chosen by the owner of the construction company and they were not responsible nor accountable for the lift and the generator.
They also contended that the health problems cited by the complainant were invalid as the flat was on the first floor.
The forum observed that “it is an obligation on the part of the builder to construct a completely finished flat by using specified materials. Padmavathy Surishetty and Surenderanath Kande should have ensured that the flat was constricted as per specifications.”
The forum also stated that the complainant could file a case without going through the welfare association as she was a paid user of the common amenities available.