Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
Padmavathy Balakrishnan and Ors. – Appellants
versus
M/s. Land Marvel Homes and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.555 of 2012 and 353 of 2013
Decided on 21.3.2024
For the Appellant for Padmavathy Balakrishnan:Mr. T. Sundar Ramanathan and Ms. Sukanya Viswanathan, Advocates
For the Respondent for M/s Land Marvel Homes:Mr. V. Prabhakar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Plinth areas – The builder has not brought any calculation based on the maps provided by the local commissioner to show that his calculations of plinth area is incorrect.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal – Real Estate Services – Construction – Plaint areas – Shortage of Construction – whether there was shortage in built up area of the flat – A perusal of the drawings attached to the local commissioner’s report shows that the external measurements of the floor have been accounted for and displayed accordingly. The builder has not brought any calculation based on the maps provided by the local commissioner to show that his calculations of plinth area is incorrect. Only an assertion has been made that the thickness of walls was not accounted for. In view of the fact that the local commissioner has taken into account the entire building plan including the wall while calculating the plinth area, the findings of the State Commission in its Order that the thickness of the wall was also taken into consideration to come at the figure of 1264.69 sq. ft., is justified – On facts, Award modified and also, multiple compensation for singular deficiency is not justified, the direction to the builder company to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience, granted by the State Commission is set aside. [Paras 10 to 17].
Result: Appeals disposed off.
ORDER
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—These cross appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission) in complaint No. 38 of 2004 whereby the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed.
2. Appeal no. 555 of 2012 has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainants’) for enhancement of compensation whereas appeal no. 353 of 2013 has been filed by M/s Land Marvel Homes (hereinafter referred to as the ‘builder company’) for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2012 of the State Commission.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
complainants and the learned counsel for the builder company and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 07.06.2012 and the memoranda of appeals.
4. There is a delay of 02 days in filing
the appeal No. 555 of 2012. Also, there is
delay of 260 days in filing the appeal no. 353 of 2013.
However, in the interest of justice, and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, to provide fair opportunity to the parties, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants and the builder company had entered into an agreement whereby it was agreed that the builder company shall construct a flat having a built up area of 1458 sq. ft. alongwith a covered car park and sell the same to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs. 32,46,150/-. The grievance of the complainants is that the flat does not have the built up area of 1458 sq. ft. with covered car park as per specifications mentioned in the agreement.
6. The complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking possession of a flat in question with plinth area 1465 sq. ft. with covered car park, complete with the requisite statutory completion certificate and to refund of the excess amount of Rs. 1,22,857/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 01.03.2003 till the date of payment. The complainants also sought compensation of Rs.12,000/- per month as stipulated in the agreement from 01.03.2003 till the date of possession and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental agony for the delay in handing over the flat. The complainants further sought interest at the rate of 12% on the sum of Rs.33,47,607/- from March 2003 till the date of handing over possession for not giving access to the flat with cost or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.33,47,607/- with interest from the date of payment till realization with compensation and costs for the deficiency in service on the part of the builder company.
7. The builder company refuted the allegations made by the complainants before the State Commission.
8. The State Commission partially allowed the complaint vide order dated 31.05.2005 and directed the builder company to hand over the flat in question to the complainants on the condition that the complainants should pay Rs.2,20,800/-.
9. Dissatisfied with this Order of the State Commission, both sides filed appeals before this Commission. The appeal of the complainants was partly allowed and the appeal of the builder company was dismissed. And the matter was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the limited question as to whether there was any shortage in the area of the flat and if there is any shortage in the area, the State Commission was directed to decide the quantum of compensation for such shortage.
The State Commission, vide its Order dated 07.06.2012, allowed the complaint in part and the builder company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,250/- towards the value of shortage of 200.91 sq.ft. area to the complainants along with Rs.5000/- towards commissioner’s fee and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony besides Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
9. Dissatisfied wi
