Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava,
President & Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
KASHI NATH—Complainant
versus
M/S. KUMAON CONSTRUCTION—Opposite Party
Case No. 313 of 1993—Decided on 9.6.2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Madhur Kant Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. V.P. Sharma, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the builder's responsibility to deliver possession and provide satisfactory construction services as per the agreements, and the consumer's entitlement to compensation and damages for deficient services.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Real Estate Dispute - 3.4.1989, 19.1.1991 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the legal framework for adjudicating real estate disputes. The court emphasized the responsibilities of builders and the rights of consumers in real estate transactions. The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the agreements dated 3.4.1989 and 19.1.1991, which stipulated the builder's obligations and the consumer's entitlements.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the builder failed to construct a house as per the agreed terms and conditions, and also deprived the complainant of a portion of the purchased land. The complainant sought possession of the house, interest on the deposited amount, restoration of the land, compensation, and damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the builder provided deficient services and failed to deliver possession of the constructed house as per the agreements. The court also noted the deficiencies in construction work and the builder's non-compliance with the terms of the agreements.
Issues: The issues included non-compliance with construction agreements, deficiency in services, deprivation of land, and failure to deliver possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the builder was responsible for the deficient services and non-compliance with the agreements. The court emphasized the consumer's entitlement to possession, interest, compensation, and damages in such cases.
Final Decision: The complaint was partly allowed, and the builder was directed to hand over possession of the completed house, pay interest, compensation, and damages, and cover the cost of proceedings within four months.
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member—This complaint has been filed by Mr. Kashi Nath, a resident of District Pilibhit against M/s. Kumaon Construction, Nainital.
2. The complainant has alleged that he is owner of Plot No. C-13, measuring 200 sq. mtrs. of land situated at Naini Vihar, Malli Tal, Distt. Nainital.
3. The land was purchased by the complainant through a sale deed, executed on 3.4.1989 by Mr. Prabhat Pandey on behalf of one Mr. Ajay Shah, in favour of the complainant. The sale deed is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nainital, on 25.4.1989.
4. The opposite party (OP) is a builder/contractor having its office in Nainital, engaged in building houses, flats etc. under the contract and agreed terms and conditions with the parties.
5. The opposite party motivated the complainant to purchase Plot No. C-13 from Mr. Ajay Shah through Mr. Prabhat Pandey and arranged transaction of sale and also assured that they will construct the house on that plot within a period of 18 months from the date of starting construction.
6. On the terms and assurance of the opposite party, the complainant purchased Plot No. C-13, Mallital, Nainital, and further entered into an agreement dated 3.4.1989 with the opposite party.
7. As per the terms of the agreement, the builder was to construct the residential house as per the specifications provided by the complainant. The builder was required to get the lay out plan approved from Nainital Development Authority as per their rules and regulations before starting any construction on the plot but the opposite party did not do that.
8. The complainant further alleges that possession was to be delivered of the newly constructed house within 18 months of starting construction in July, 1989 as per specifications agreed to between the 2 parties. The opposite party was also required to arrange a fitness report of the qualified engineer/architect about completion of the house in all respects and each and every manner as per the terms of the agreement.
9. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 2,44,500/- to the opposite party till 15.1.1991 towards cost of construction of the house but the opposite party carried out construction work very slowly.
10. The complainant wrote several letters to the opposite party for constructing the house expeditiously but the opposite party did not pay any heed.
11. When damages and compensation from the opposite party M/s. Kumaon Construction were claimed, then they assured the complainant that they would construct the house very soon. An agreement on 19.3.1991 was again entered into on 19.3.1991 between the two parties in addition to the agreement already entered into. According to this agreement, construction of the house, complete in all respects, was to be completed in the month of June, 1992 with completion of due formalities. A further amount of Rs. 1,85,000/-, in addition to Rs. 2,44,500/-, towards construction of the house, was demanded and paid to the opposite party. Thus the opposite party took payment of a sum of Rs. 4,29,500/-. An acknowledgement of the payment so received was made by the opposite party.
12. The opposite party taking advantage of good faith and trust shown by the complainant again misguided the complainant and demanded Rs. 90,000/- through letter dated 6.8.1996 for extra construction.
13. To avoid complications, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/-, as full and final settlement with the opposite party. This payment of Rs. 90,000/- was made on 23.6.1992 and 21.7.1992 in terms of two instalments of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively.
14. Inspite of this, the complainant was shocked to find that construction of the house in question by the opposite party, in terms of the agreements entered into, has not been completed and the opposite party had mischievously mingled a part of the land of the complaint with the plots of others with the result that the complainant was deprived of his land measuring 73.43 sq. mtrs. from the original plot C-13 w
