The Association of Allottees is a necessary party in compensation claims for common area defects, while individual allottees can claim for their apartments without bifurcating compensation for shared issues.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. Both these Miscellaneous Second Appeals are filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Order of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in REFA No.28 of 2024 arising from the Order of the Adjudicating Officer in CCP No.35 of 2022. Hence, both these Appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The Appellants in MSA No.12/2025 were the Complainants and the Appellants in MSA No.15/2025 were the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Adjudicating Officer. The Complainants are the Allottees, and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the Promoters of the Apartment building by the name ‘Sparkle Spaces’ launched by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Respondent No.4 was the Architectural Firm of the Project, which did not appear either before the Adjudicating Officer or before the Tribunal. It did not appear in these Appeals either.

3. The apartment building has 15 numbers of Apartments. The Complaint was filed by 13 persons, of whom 9 are Apartment Owners and 4 are occupants in 4 Apartments. They claimed Rs.85,00,000/- towards costs of rectification of the defects to the Apartment building, Rs.7,00,000/- each towards the cost of purchasing water at commercial rate on account of the delay in providing water connections, and Rs.10,00,000/- each towards mental agony.

4. On the side of the Complainants, the Complainant No.1 was examined as CW1, the Chartered Engineer who prepared Ext.A10 Report and Ext.A16 Estimate was examined as CW2 and marked Exts.A1 to A37. On the side of the Respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but marked Exts.B1 to B17.

5. The Adjudicating Officer found that the claims of Complainant Nos.3, 4, 11, and 12 are not maintainable, as they are not the Allottees of the Project. The Adjudicating Officer, relying on Exts.A10 and A16, found that rectification costs for rectifying the structural defects of the common areas is Rs.40,17,131/- and the rectification costs for rectifying the structural defects of the apartments of the Complainant Nos.1, 5, 6 and 10 are Rs.57,533/-, Rs.96,000/-, Rs.74,833/- and Rs.28,167/- respectively. The Adjudicating Officer divided the rectification costs of Rs.40,17,131/- with respect to the common area among the total 15 numbers of allottees and found that each of the allottees is entitled to get Rs.2,67,809/-. Accordingly, the Complaint was partly allowed, declaring that the Complainant Nos.1, 2, 5 to 10 and 13 are entitled to get Rs.2,67,809/- each and the Complainant Nos.1, 5, 6 and10 are entitled to get Rs.57,533/-, Rs.96,000/-, Rs.74,833/- and Rs.28,167/- respectively from the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and their assets with interest @ 14.85% per annum from the date of the Complaint till realisation with a cost of Rs.25,000/- and dismissing the Complaint against the Respondent No.4.

6. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 alone filed Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Order of the Adjudicating Officer.

7. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Officer holding that it is not permissible to bifurcate the compensation pertaining to the common area as it is a common issue affecting the entire allottees; that the Association of Apartment Owners is a necessary party with respect to compensation for the defects of the common area; and that the issue pertaining to t