Land owners in a Joint Development Agreement are 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, and an unchallenged expert engineer's report is sufficient evidence to establish construction deficiencies even without photographs.

ORDER

BY HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI LADY MEMBER

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party for seeking order directing the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.95,93,750/- towards deficiency of service with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and also prayed for granting such other relief as this commission deemed fit in the circumstances including the cost in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;

The complainants submit that they are the owners of site bearing numbers from 4 to 13 situated at land survey No'86/3 & 86/4' The Opposite Parly claimed to be the experts in the field of development of the properties who have approached complainants to develop the said properfy. Accordingly, both parties are entered into Joint Development Agreement on 28.02.2011' As per the Joint Development Agreement 45Yo of the constructed area shall go to complainants and remaining 55% of the constructed area shall be retained by Opposite Party. The complainants further submit that the Opposite Party has not acted strictly in accordance with the conditions and requirements set out in the Joint Development Agreement. The opposite Party rendered the bellow mentioned defrciency of service in construction to the complainants which are as follows;

a) The Opposite Party has violated the approved plan,

b) The Opposite Party has not handed over one set of copy of all the related and modified drawing's to the complainants,

c) The Opposite Party has given only 19 flats without pooja rooms. But according to the ratio the owner has got 447.5 sq. less in contravention of the terms of the agreement,

d) The Opposite Party has not constructed the building as agreed in the JDA,

e) The kitchen slab must be of 30 mm thick, but it is 20mm thick slab and Opposite Party has not provided RCC loft and shelves for storage for all 19 flats, which come to the share of the complainants. The quality of glazed tiles used in Bath Room is of very poor quality contrary to the agreement and height provided for glazed tiles is less and in some houses the wash basin connection is not proper and commodes are of poor quality and lids are broken,

f) The door handles provided for bat-hroom is not closing properly. The room doors are fixed with ordinary rubber wood doors. Curtain stands are not provided for doors and windows. For all main doors and room doors haldraJfs not provided, door locks a-re not locking properly. The utility and balcony place is not covered with Grills. Sajjas not provided for all windows.

g) The electrical works are incomplete. Fridge point not provided, heating circuit wire is not according to the standard,

h) Till date the water connection not taken from BWSSB and sanitary connection is not approved from concemed BWSSB authorities.

i) Car parking is not allotted according to the serial number. In some car parking area, the car cant be parked. Security system/CCTV hasn't been provided till date.

j) There are two rooms constructed at the terrace floor, out of which one room shall be hand over to the complainant but till date the Opposite Party had not handed over the same.

3. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainants, the Opposite Party not bothered to the requests of the complainants and solved their problems. Hence, the complainants issued legal notice to the Opposite Party on 17.O6.2OL4 which was re