IMPORTANT POINT
Builder cannot go beyond sanctioned plan.

S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member—These four appeals stand disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and common question of law.

2. Mr. Prasad Madhukar Deo and Mrs. Kalpana Prasad Deo are the Complainants in Consumer Complaint No.317 of 2005. Mr. Shriram Kisan Bhatambrekar is the Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.57 of 2006. Mr. Chandrakant N. Bawne is the Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.296 of 2007. Suffice to say that the Complainant Mr. Shriram Kisan Bhatambrekar, was occupying tenanted premises in house property bearing No.117, Kasba Peth, Pune; while the Complainants from other two consumer complaints were occupying tenanted premises in house property bearing No.116, Kasba Peth, Pune. Both these adjoining properties were given for development to the Appellant/original Opponent, namely M/s. Shreeyog Constructions, a partnership firm, represented by its partners Mr. Satish Kashinath Wadke and Mr. Ravindra Pandurang Wadke (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’). The builder entered into separate agreements with the respective Complainants. As per the said agreement, the Complainants were to give new flats in the proposed construction after development at concessional rates to the extent of the area of their respective tenanted premises and for additional area, they were to pay consideration at a higher rate. The Complainant Mr. Chandrakant N. Bawne, was put in possession of his flat by the end of month of March 2005, while the other Complainants are yet to be put in possession of their respective flats. Mr. Chandrakant N. Bawne’s original tenanted area was admeasuring about 325 sq. ft. and he agreed to purchase a flat having area admeasuring about 425 sq. ft. (built-up). He was actually put in possession of a flat admeasuring 336.02 sq. ft., in built-up area. While claiming the relief, he claimed possession of the entire area as agreed or in the alternative compensation for the less area. Similar is the case of other Complainants, who claimed possession of the entire area as per the agreement. Deficiency in service on the part of the builder is alleged by all these Complainants for not handing-over the possession of the area, as agreed.

3. The Forum partly allowed all these consumer complaints and directed the builder to hand-over possessions of their respective flats to the Complainants, Mr. Prasad Madhukar and Mrs. Kalpana Prasad Deo, and Mr. Shriram K. Bhatambrekar and also awarded compensation for the less area to these Complainants. In case of Complainant Mr. Chandrakant N. Bawne, since he had received possession of part of the area agreed to be put in possession, a compensation for shortfall in area was awarded to him. Besides that the builder was further directed to install a lift in the building and to obtain the requisite certificate of the competent authority for make operational. The Forum further directed the builder to form & register a co-operative housing society of the flat purchasers and to execute all relevant documents. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the builder erred these three appeals in each consumer complaint, supra.

4. Besides this, the Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.57 of 2006, namely Mr. Shriram Kisan Bhatambrekar also preferred an appeal bearing No.734 of 2009 against the impugned order since obviously he is not satisfied with the relief granted in his favour.

5. Heard both the parties.

6. In the instant case, in consumer complaints other than the complaint of Mr. Chandrakant N. Bawne, possession of the flats were not given after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, and therefore, the cause of action in respect of their complaints being continuous, no question of limitation would arise in their case. So far as consumer complaint of Mr. Chandrakant N. Bawne is concerned, as per the averments made in Complaint No. 296 of 2007, which was filed on 20.11.2007, he claimed possession of the entire premises as per the agreement dated 31.12.2002 i.e. the total area agree