ORDER

DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY J., PRESIDENT The captioned complaint case is filed u/s 17read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short) by the registered society ‘Metro City Apartment Owners Society’ - complainant for different components from the OP – Builder.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the OP beingthe Builder has floated brochure inviting applications from the desirous person for purchasing flat constructed by him. Being allured by the promise for amenities availing and the different facilities available therein many flat buyers deposited money to purchase the flat. It was agreed by the OP to provide well-constructed flat with good interiors and the common area facilities including the lift, swimmingpool and main approach road, compound wall and many otherfacilities. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant found at the time of purchase of the flat that the OP has not kept his promise as made in the brochure, agreement and the sanction order of the B.D.A. who approved his plan. According to the complainant two number oflifts are required for Block No. 1 and 5 but only one lift to Block No. 2, 3 and 4 has been provided. Not only this but also the compound wall each side of the block arenot sufficient wide and internal road in east side of the Metro City has not been constructed. No swimming pool, park and plantation in the society’s common are constructed. There was seepage of water in the wall of toilets and kitchen. The flooring of each flat is with poor quality mosaic titles. The OP – Builder has taken Rs.10,000/- from each flat owner as additional amount for giving the amenities. Moreover, there is no fire security measures taken in the building. Watchman sheed and toilet has notbeen provided in the common areas. The compound wall in the West and South side has not been constructed with height for safety and security. Three numbers of septic tanks should have been provided but one tank has been provided. Like this complainant asked for compensation of Rs.99,50,000/- and also asked for further compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.

3. Per contra, OP filed written version stating that the Secretary of the Society has not been authorised by all flat owners for which he has no locus standi to file the case.

Moreover, it is averred in the written version that the OP has got Special Class Licence from the Govt. of Orissa and has given good experience in civil housing scheme and commercial complex at Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. In the written version, he has averred that as per the requirement, he has constructed all the amenities which are as follows:-

“xxxxxxxxx a) There was no such contract in the brochure to provide 3 nos. of lifts for Block No.1 and 5 provisions are subject to price of the property.

b) The lifts used and installed are of reputed company with ISI recognition.

c) Does not require as covered.

d) Does notrequire for all practical purpose of the scheme.

e) Internal road has been done.

f) Development of park is not to be done by the OP rather space has been left in which society can develop park as per their need.

g) Good standard of floor tile and mosaic tile has been used without looking to the profit of the opp.party for convenience of the allottees in this particular apartment.

h) All most all pipe fittings available are of good standard and diligent case has been taken while fitting the same but everything needs maintenance which society has neglected. So, the purpose of the society in the said complex has been defeated with their present management.

i) Tiles flooring are good looking needs rare and easy maintenance then mosaic floorings, so used by the builder as per the scheme.

j) Internal fittings for cable TV has been provided to each allottees flat. There is no such provision in the