IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Jurisdiction of the State Commission – Section 17(1)(a)(i) empowers the State Commission to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore (under the 1986 Act limits). This is the provision under which the complainant filed the case.
(2) Definition of “Consumer” – Section 2(1)(d) defines who qualifies as a consumer. It specifically excludes a person who obtains goods or services for any “commercial purpose.” However, the explanation to this section provides an exception: commercial purpose does not include goods bought or services availed exclusively for the purpose of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment (which the complainant attempted to argue by stating he was setting up an office to “eke out his livelihood”).
(3) “Deficiency” – Section 2(1)(g) defines deficiency as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law, or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract. The core of the complainant’s argument rested on alleging this deficiency in construction and amenities.

JUDGMENT

Meena Ramanathan, Member (Non-Judicial)—This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s.17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:—

(i) to pay Rs.7,25,000/- for loss of rent from 14th August 2014 to till March 2016 @ Rs.36,250/- per month;

(ii) to pay Rs.10,00,000/- for not obtaining Occupancy Certificate;

(iii) to reimburse Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% from December 2015 incurred by the complainant for competing the internal pending works;

(iv) to reimburse shortage of Sq. ft of the officer space amount @ Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft.

(v) to demarcate and allot car parking area to the complainant;

(vi) to remove the room in front of complainant officer space and to construct common toilets as per Sale Deed plan;

(vii) to remove unauthorized constructions in cellar car parking area;

(viii) to provide adequate (300 kV) capacity electricity transformer;

(ix) to provide 10 member full capacity lift;

(x) to provide drinking water connections from HMWS & SB.

(xi) to install power Generator;

(xii) to complete paintings of the building;

(xiii) to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- towards mental agony,

(xiv) to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pass such other order or orders which this Commission deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant has filed the present complaint on the following submissions:

The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are engaged in the Housing Construction Activity. That in its course of business, the opposite party had entered into a Development Agreement cum GPA vide document No.1097/11, dated 28.01.2011 with the owners of Plot No.14 and 27 in Survey No.78, situated at Patrikanagar, Madhapur Village, Serilingamplaly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The opposite parties have obtained permission for constructing multi storied commercial complex consisting of cellar, ground + upper 4 floor have vide Permit No.21709/HO/WZ/Cr-11/2013 dated 25.03.2013 from GHMC. The complainant being an Advocate to establish his own office to eke out his livelihood he agreed to purchase the office space which was offered by the opposite parties admeasuring 1450 sq. ft in 04th Floor @ Rs.2,000/-per sq. ft. including common area, undivided share of land 49.42 sq. yards which includes car parking, electricity water connection etc. The complainant paid advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.29,00,000/-. On 14.08.2014 the opposite parties have executed the sale deed by conveying title in 1450 sq. ft in 4th floor in favour of the complainant by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.23,00,000/-.

The opposite parties have promised the complainant that according to commercial norms, they will complete the internal pending civil works, electrical wiring with meter, office doors works of the complainant’s office space and common civil works of the said building till December 2015.

3. It is further submitted that the opposite parties have completed only two side walls of the said office space at the time of registration but, they have failed to complete/provide internal civil works i.e. electricity wiring and meter, water and drainage connections, internal walls, flooring, doors and windows. On one pretext or the other they were postponing the works. The complainant has proceeded with the construction works in the inner portion of the said office space by himself so as to make the office fit for occupancy by end of February 2016. The pending works estimated by a Civil Engineer i.e. M/s RK Associates. The pending works were constructed through a qualified civil contractor i.e. M/s Saiteja Constructions and the expenses incurred is Rs.8,00,000/-. The opposite parties have wantonly and deliberately not completed all the pending works of the office space of the complainant. The opposite parties have not even obtained Occupancy Certificate from G