The court established that consumers can claim compensation for lack of basic amenities and that individual claims for common grievances must be evaluated in the context of collective action.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17(1)(a)(i) - Complaint for deficient service and unfair trade practices - Complainants sought completion of pending works, damages for delay, and refund of excess charges - Opposite parties argued complaint barred by limitation and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction - Commission found continuous cause of action exists and has jurisdiction. (Paras 6-10)

(B) Deficiency of Service - Opposite parties failed to provide essential amenities, including drinking water, and did not issue Occupancy Certificate - The complaint regarding common amenities cannot be maintained by individuals, but basic amenities must be provided. (Paras 10-15)

(C) Compensation - Complainants awarded compensation for inconvenience due to lack of basic amenities. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
Complainants entered into an agreement for a flat with the Opposite Parties, who failed to complete the project on time and provide essential amenities, leading to grievances and a legal complaint.

Findings of Court:
The complaint was partly allowed, with directions for the Opposite Parties to provide necessary documents and compensation for hardship.

Issues: The main issues were whether the complaint was barred by limitation, whether the commission had jurisdiction, and whether there was deficiency in service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the complaint was not barred by limitation due to continuous cause of action, and the Opposite Parties were liable for failure to provide basic amenities.

Result: Complaint allowed in part with directions to provide documents and compensation.

ORDER:

(PERHON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON- JUDICIAL)

1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainants U/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 on 228.04.2017 against the Opposite Parties to direct him as follows:-

(i) To complete the pending works.

(ii) To pay Rs.48,000/- being damages per the month from February, 2014 to May, 2014 for delayed period in completion of the project.

(iii) To pay a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- collected by the Opposite Party towards car parking.

(iv) To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

(v) To submit the Occupancy Certificate issued by the competent authority in terms and conditions of approved construction plan.

(vi) Costs of the complaint.

(vii) And pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case:- The case of the complainants is that when they were intending to purchase a flat they came across a project being developed by the Opposite Party by name and style “Habitat Elite” at premises bearing No.6-6-221/1, 222/1, 224/33/A, 6-6-221/1, 222/1, 224/33/B and 6-6-221/1, 222/1, 224/33/C in Sy.No.221/1, 222/1 & 224/1 situated at Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. That they approached the Opposite Parties in the month of January, 2013 and being attracted by the advertisements, representations, and assurances & promises made by the Opposite Parties the Complainants agreed to purchase a flat in the said venture; that the Opposite Parties had promised to provide superior quality apartment complex, timely completion of the project with all amenities such as safety measures, EPABX, power backup etc. and handed over a brochure, being attracted by the promises and assurances made by the Opposite Parties the Complainants agreed to purchase a flat bearing No.308 in 3rd floor admeasuring 2152 sft., with an undivided share of land of 81 sq., yards for a valid consideration and entered into an Agreement Of Sale on 19.01.2013. That as per clause-13 of the agreement of sale the Opposite Parties promised to complete the project within three months i.e., the project should have been completed by January, 2014. But, however the Opposite Parties failed to complete the construction and there were several pending works left. On 30.03.2013 the Opposite Parties have executed a registered sale deed vide Document No.622/2013 in favour of the Complainants, but however failed to complete the pending works. On 20.05.2014 the residents of the apartment complex including the Complainant had attended the meeting called by the Opposite Parties, wherein all the issues and problems being faced by the residents of complex and pending works concerning the complex were discussed. In the said meeting the Opposite Parties agreed to address all the issues being faced by the apartment owners as well as the pending works in a time bound manner which was clearly documented in the minutes of meeting. Despite the same the Opposite Parties failed to complete the pending works within the time frame as promised. As such the flat owners have addressed a letter on 01.07.2014 to the Opposite Parties to complete the pending works, upon which the Opposite Party had completed the two pending works i.e. fixing apartment name in bold steel letters and installation of water softener, these two works were completed in the month of August, 2014 the other works were still pending. On 13.12.2014 another letter was addressed to the Opposite Parties to complete the pending works as promised in the agreement of sale; upon which the Opposite Parties had completed the following works i.e. installation of “Kirloskar” Diesel Generator, operation of two lifts in the month of February, 2014 individual flat number plates in month of August, 2014 and intercom and its wiring work for the complete building in the month of August, 2016. However, there are still certain works to be completed which are as follows:-

(i) Rain water harvesting

(ii) Air condition and equipme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document