IMPORTANT POINT
Housing Board – Personalised, subjective, biased, one-sided & uncorroborated opinion about facilities cannot be relied upon in absence of substantive evidence.

ORDER

Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.—Introductory Information: The Complainant Ruchira Residency Apartment Owners’ Association (RRAOA) is an association of flat-buyers registered under West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 on 06.10.2010 so formed by the owners of 576 flats in the Project “Ruchira Residency,” developed and constructed by the OP Board at Premises No. 369, Purbachal Kalitala Road, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700078. The complainant association took over the assets, rights, liabilities, management and maintenance of common areas and amenities of the project after its own registration, from a society “Ruchira Residency Residents’ Welfare Association (RRRWA), a body registered under West Bengal Registration of Society Act, 1961 on 12.02.2007, who had earlier taken over such possession and management of common areas from OP Board on 16.04.2007. The original complaint in 2009 was filed by RRRWA, which was continued till the amended complaint by RRAOA was filed and admitted u/s 12(1)(b) by the Commission vide order dated 30.03.2022. The complaint involves allegation of misrepresentation in brochure, advertisements and communications and deficient provisioning of amenities and facilities vis-a-vis what was represented in the brochure. Having realised such deficient service from the OP developer, RRRWA had engaged Mr. Manojit De, an approved valuer of Calcutta High Court to submit a report with regard to the measurements of the area provided by the OP to the complainant as well as to verify with regard to the amenities and facilities which were promised but were not provided by the OP Board after inspecting the premises. Mr De was also requested to assess the defects in the civil work in the flats allotted to the members of the complainant. Mr. De, in his report after inspection came to the conclusion that the cost of removal of deficiency and defects can be estimated at Rs.8,30,08,240/-. Based thereon, the complaint is filed to claim equivalent compensation for deficient services including for delay in handing over the possession. Accordingly, following compensation has been claimed in the complaint:—

2. Jurisdiction: The preliminary objections werre raised by the OPs regarding the maintainability of the complaint/amended complaint on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction as also of maintainability by the current statutory association which, as per the OP, not being a voluntary organisation cannot institute or continue the complaint. The questions whether the RRRWA could file the complaint under Section 12(1)(c) and whether the complaint filed in 2009 by a different association could be continued by the same or even the newly formed association RRRWA, and whether a statutory association can institute or continue the present complaint, were raised by the opposite party. The orders passed by this Commission in this behalf including that dated 30.03.2022 admitting the amended complaint u/s 12(1)(b) have travelled twice before the Supreme Court. The amended complaint was taken on record under Section 12(1)(b) and the same was held maintainable after considering the plea raised by the opposite party with regard to the maintainability under Section 12(1)(b) as also on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Supreme Court vide its order dated 04.03.2023 in CA No. 4777 of 2022 has dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite party and directed the Commission to proceed with the amended complaint. The pleadings and the evidence already filed were also accordingly adopted for the purposes of the amended complaint. Thus,