IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of flat – Collection of excessive amount – Defects in flat – Deficiency in service.

ORDER

This First Appeal under Section 58(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenges the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint no.1, 880 of 2008 dated 30.07.2021. It is seen that FA nos.881 and 882 of 2021 also emanate from the same order. Hence, all the three FAs are proposed to be disposed of through a common order, in view of the fact that the facts of the First Appeals are similar and also the fact that they agitate common grievances. For reasons of convenience, the facts of the case are taken from FA no.880 of 2021.

2. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay along with the First Appeal filed, the delay of 6 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.

4. The relevant facts of this case are that the respondent had booked a flat being constructed by the appellant who is a builder. A flat was booked in the project of Elegant Builders and an Agreement of Sale dated 21.03.2007 was executed. The building plan was sanctioned on 28.06.2006 by the Bruhat Bangalore Municipal Palika Corporation (BBMP) to construct 9 flats on the plot in question. Water supply connection was sanctioned by the BWSSB on 21.04.2007 and the Electricity Department issued an inspection report on 30.08.2008. On 14.08.2008, after taking the possession of the flat in question, the respondent issued a legal notice to the appellant seeking details of the accounts, completion certificate and raised various other grievances primarily in respect of the lift installed, parking slots and the collection of excess amount charged from them. Thereafter, Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2008 was filed on 20.08.2008 before the State Commission praying for several reliefs. The main contention was that the opposite party/ appellant herein had collected an excess amount of Rs.18.69 lakhs and prayed for the return of the same with interest @ 15% per annum. On 31.01.2008, the State Commission dismissed the complaint and directed the respondent to approach the appropriate Civil Court for the recovery of the money. However, in FA No.526 of 2008, this Commission remanded the matter to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh. Vide order dated 20.10.2010, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund Rs.18.69 lakhs to the complainant/ respondent in CC No.88 of 2008. It also directed that in case demolition of the unauthorised construction/ violation of sanctioned plan of the flats by the BBMP, the appellant would rebuild the same as per the approved plan at its cost.

5. Both the parties approached this Commission by way of an appeal and cross appeal nos. FA 402 of 2010 and 439 of 2010 respectively. FA no.439 of 2010 was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 28.07.2016 and FA No.402 of 2010 was ordered to be infructuous on 28.07.2016. The State Commission’s order dated 20.10.2010 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the State Commission. Miscellaneous Application No.874 of 2011 was filed on 04.11.2011 seeking restoration of the appeal in FA No.402 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Commission. The impugned order in CC no.88 of 2008 has now been appealed against by the builder challenging the order of the State Commission dated 30.07.2021 whereby the contention of the respondent had been upheld and various relief including the refund of the excess amount collected (Rs.18.69 lakh) had been ordered.

6. Essentially, this matter which had a fairly chequered journey in terms of appeals, relates to whether appellant had charged the respondent an additional and unjustified amount for construction of the flat in question. The contention of the appellant is that while there was a Sale Agreement executed between the parties, there was also a Construction Agreement between them which