The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complainant, as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is entitled to file a consumer complaint against the opponents for deficiency in service and claim the market value of the deficit carpet area given to her.

ORDER

D.R. Shirasao, Judicial Member. - Complainant has filed this complaint for getting market value of deficit area given to her by the opponents along with interest on that amount. Complainants submitted that she is member of opponent No. 3-Renu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The building of the society had become old and was in dilapidated condition. Hence, all the members of the society decided to redevelop the building. In that respect resolution was taken in Annual General Meeting. As per resolution three tenders were invited by opponent no .3 for redevelopment of the building. Opponent no. 3 had approved the tender of opponent no. 1 for redevelopment of the building. In that respect Special General Body Meeting was taken on 28.10.2008 by the society. Thereafter, development agreement was executed on 15.05.2008 in between opponent no. 3 through opponent nos. 4, 5 and 6 who are the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of the opponent no. 3 with the opponent no. 1 through opponent no. 2. At that time individual tri-parte agreement was also executed in between the complainant, opponent no. 1 and opponent no. 3. Complainant submitted that as per clause 2 of development agreement complainant was entitled to get 30% additional carpet area in the newly constructed building. She submitted that the same fact is also mentioned in her individual tri-parte agreement. Complainant submitted that she had also purchased additional carpet area of 56 sq. meters from opponent no. 1 and this fact is also mentioned in her agreement. Complainant submitted that the area of the original flat which was in her possession was 640.17 sq.ft. She was also entitled to get additional carpet area of 197.83 sq.ft. She had purchased 56 sq.ft. carpet area. Thus, she was entitled to get total carpet area of 894 sq.ft. She submitted that this fact is mentioned in her individual agreement. She submitted that by that agreement it was disclosed that flat no. 3 situated on first floor of new building will be allotted to complainant. She submitted that after construction of new building when she had taken possession of her flat she had seen that carpet area of flat provided to her is 686 sq.ft. only. Hence, to remove the doubt she got measured of her flat through SIMCON Designers. Accordingly, they issued certificate that the area of the flat allotted to complainant is only 686 sq.ft. She submitted that, accordingly she issued notice to opponent no. 2 for giving less area of flat and to pay the price of less area given to her. Opponent no. 2 replied her notice on 03.02.2015. Thereafter, complainant had again issued a notice to opponent no. 3 on 07.02.2015. She had also given report in that respect in police station and to Commissioner of Police. She had also made complaint to Deputy Engineer of B.M.C., Executive Engineer and Municipal Commissioner of B.M.C. She had also given report to Deputy Legal Metrology Department. She submitted that in her presence Legal Metrology Department had prepared panchanama of her flat and measured the same and found that the area of the flat is only 62.77 sq. meters. Complainant submitted that at the time of executing Development Agreement there was no concept of fungible area. Complainant submitted that as per new D.C. Rules, complainant is also entitled to get additional 35% of carpet area. Hence, complainant submitted that she is entitled to get total carpet area of 1118.05 sq.ft. from the opponents. Complainant submitted that the market value of the residential flats in that area is not below Rs. 35,000/- per sq.ft. Complainant submitted that, hence, she is entitled to get market value of less carpet area given to her which comes to 1.51 crore. She submitted that, however, she is restricting her claim to Rs. 99 lacs for the purpose of jurisdiction of this Commission. Accordingly, the complainant has demanded market value of defici