IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of flat – Deficiency in service – Multiple compensation for singular deficiency is not justifiable.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against Order dated 08.09.2017, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.295/2014. In the impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District (‘District Forum’) dated 13.03.2014 in CC No.73/2011.

2. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that they purchased flats 601 and 602 on the 6th Floor of ‘B’ wing of ‘Vinayak Ashish’, Mulund (West), Mumbai, from OP and obtained possession on 02.09.2003 upon full payment. However, soon after possession was taken, the flats began leaking from all sides, causing significant damage to their furniture and fixtures. They immediately notified the OP, who verbally assured that the issue would be addressed. In the absence of response, they wrote several letters on 8.5.2005, 8.12.2005, 28.6.2006, 30.9.2006, and 24.3.2007, but to no avail. Subsequently, they obtained a report from M/s Silvel Impex Pvt. Ltd., a professional architect, dated 21.12.2007, confirming the defects. Since, the OP failed to rectify the issues, they filed this complaint, seeking damages of Rs.9,46,250 as determined by the architect, along with costs and compensation.

4. In their written version, the OP contended that the possession of the flats was handed over in 2003, at which time they inspected the flats and after being satisfied with its condition, they took possession. OP denied having received any letters regarding leakage issues, claiming that the letters produced by them were fabricated. Upon receiving letter dated 18.04.2007, they had appointed architects to inspect their flats, but they had refused access. Additionally, the OP had contended that, after taking possession, the Complainant made major structural alterations, including removal of an internal load-bearing wall and the amalgamation of both flats without obtaining permission from either the OP or the Municipal Corporation. These unauthorized structural changes caused the leakage issues, which the OP had sought to verify through the appointed architects, but they refused inspection to conceal this fact. The OP had also asserted that no other flats in the building experienced any leakage and they could not be held responsible for the leakage in the flats in question, as it had been caused by their own actions. Also, the claim was barred by limitation, as possession was taken in 2003, and the leakage had allegedly been noticed the same year, yet the complaint had not been filed until 2008. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 13.03.2014, allowed the complaint with the following reasons and directives:

“...On perusal of Section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is seen that the complainant is required to file his complaint within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The record shows that both the complainants were put in possession of flat No.601 & 602 by the opponent in 2003. The complainants are claiming that immediately after the purchase of flat they were facing the problem of leakages. The present complaint speaks about the problem of leakages and inferior quality of construction in the flat due to which the wall have developed cracks. ... The present complains has been filed within two years from 2006. The record shows that, in 2005 the complainants had brought to the notice of the opponent about the leakage problem. Since the complaint has been filed within two years from the 2006 by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore we decide point No.1 in negative.

Now coming to the point of deficiency of se