NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Society of Catalysts —Complainant
versus
Raj Trust, R & M Trust & Ors. —Opp.Parties
Consumer Case No.170 of 2008
Decided on 19.4.2016
For the Complainant:Mr. Omesh Saigal, Mr. Yatindra N. Vidyarthi, Advocates
For the Opp.Party No.2: Ex-parte
For the Opp.Party Nos.3 & 9:Mr. Kunal Vajani, Mr. Pranaya Goyal Mr. Shubham Kulshreshtha, Advocates
For the Opp.Party No.5: Deleted
For the Opp.Party No.6:Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, Advocate
For the Opp.Party Nos.4, 7 & 8:Mr. R. David, Ms. Febin M. Varghese, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Having acknowledged completion of development work, plot owners are estopped from claiming, at a later date, that development was incomplete in any respect.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Real estate—Development agreement—No sale deed has been filed by complainant—Shortcomings in construction work—Having acknowledged completion of development work, plot owners are estopped from claiming, at a later date, that development was incomplete in any respect—Complaint disposed of with direction to opposite party Trust to transfer contingency funds to the association of plot owners along with 9% interest—Cost of Rs.25,000/- also awarded. (Paras 5 to 8)
Result: Complaint allowed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant claims to be a Voluntary Consumer Association and is registered under the Societies Registration Act and taking up the cases of consumers in various Forums, including Consumer Courts. One Mrs.Janaki, owner of the certain land in village Sadahalli, Taluk Devnanhalli, District Bangalore North, obtained sanction for converting the said land from the agricultural to non-agricultural / residential purposes and then entered into an agreement dated 20.08.1990, followed by supplementary agreement dated 05.11.1990 and subsequent agreements dated 17.11.1990 and 13.07.1992 with opposite party No.1 Raj Trust. Opposite Party No.1 prepared a scheme to develop the aforesaid land into a residential colony, and entered into a development agreement dated 23.09.1991 followed by supplementary agreement dated 01.09.1992 with opposite party No. 2 R & M Trust. Residential sites in the aforesaid project were then sold by opposite party No. 1 Raj Trust to several buyers, for consideration and individual sale deeds in their favour were executed jointly by opposite party No.1 and Mrs.Janki. Separate agreements were executed between plot buyers and opposite party No.2 R&M Trust for development of the plots sold to them by opposite party No.1, on payment of the agreed development charges. It is alleged in the complaint that opposite party No.2 completed the development work in phase-I of the aforesaid project namely Jade Garden including construction of club house for recreation facilities, constructing roads etc. and generally carried out its obligation in respect of the said phase-I. It is further alleged that after regular maintenance of phase-I, including its upkeep, security and management of the club house, Phase-I was handed over to the association of plot buye’. It is further alleged that after completing or during the completion of phase I, opposite party took up the work of phase II and III of the said project and entrusted the development work for the said phases also to opposite party No.2. According to the complainant, since phase-II to IV were not complete in all respects, opposite party No.1 was maintaining them, though after completing the development, the same also were to be handed over to the association. It is further alleged that the opposite party No.2 abruptly stopped the development work in phase II to IV, without street lights, water supply, security arrangements etc. and also failed to hand over those phases to the association. It is also alleged that opposite party No.1 & 2 collected Rs.10,000/- each from the plot owners towards contingency funds which they were required to pay to the association to enable it to manage the layout, but neither the common areas and facilities including club house were handed over to the association nor was the amount collected towards contingency, paid to the said association. The cost of completing the remaining development work of phase II to IV has been estimated by the complainant at Rs.5,56,62,562/-. Being aggrieved the complainant is before this Commission, seeking the following reliefs :
a. Direct the opposite parties to pay the Association a sum of over Rs.75,00,000/- towards reimbursement of the Contingency Fund collected by the opposite parties together with interest accrued cumulatively since it collection from plot owners;
b. Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,56,62,562/- (Rupees Five Crores Fifty Six Lakhs Sixty two thousand five sixty only) for restoring and making up the developmental deficiencies;
c. Direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.48,000/- per annum to each of the 50 odd members who have built houses in the layout in phases 2-4 as compensation for the extra cost incurred due to the deficiency in service. Till the concerned persons are located the amount be got deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
d. Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- each to all the 750 members who have purchased la