SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 22

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANUP K THAKUR, PM
M/S. MANGLAM BUILD-DEVELOPERS LTD. & 2 ORS. – Appellant
Versus
AVIRAL MATHUR & ANR. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 993 OF 2015



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sunil Mund
For the Respondents:Mr. Debesh Panda, Advocate, Mr. Naman Maheshwari, Advocate

Consumer complaints must address issues that affect individual consumers, and cannot encompass broader grievances affecting all residents without a collective complaint.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 14 - Consumer complaint regarding deficiencies in construction and facilities provided - Complainants booked a villa with certain expectations based on the project brochure - Court determined that the complainant could not seek collective grievances affecting other residents through an individual complaint, emphasizing the binding nature of the signed agreement over the brochure claims. (Paras 22-28)

(B) Evidence-based Evaluation - The State Commission granted compensation for defects found in construction. Court upheld this finding but annulled other reliefs addressing common grievances, asserting that it was essential for such complaints to be brought collectively by all affected parties, not an individual. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
Respondents booked a villa, subsequently alleging deficiencies in construction and services promised in the brochure, leading to their complaint for remedies against the developers.

Findings of Court:
Compensation of Rs.2 lakh upheld for proven construction deficiencies; other reliefs regarding common facilities annulled.

Issues: The individual complainant's right to claim reliefs affecting communal aspects of the project, and the relevance of a project brochure vs. a signed agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that grievances regarding communal facilities must be collectively addressed, and individual complaints cannot supersede the formal agreements executed.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation upheld, but other reliefs set aside.

Table of Content
1. complaint filed regarding construction deficiencies. (Para 1 , 2)
2. individual complaints cannot address common grievances. (Para 5 , 22)
3. compensation upheld; communal reliefs annulled. (Para 25 , 26 , 28)

ORDER

1. This First Appeal No.993 of 2015 has been filed challenging the order dated 06.11.2015 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in C.C. No.28 of 2014. The impugned order, for ease of reference, is reproduced below:

“19. The present complaint of complainants is allowed jointly and severally against the opposite parties as follows:

(a) The Opposite Parties shall pay to the complainants consolidated amount of Rs.2 Lacs (Rupees Two Lacs Only) as compensation for
the defects and deficiencies in the construction."

(b) We restrain the opposite parties from extending the Club House facilities created for the residents of Manglam Arpan, the Villas to any of it’s projects viz. Manglam Arpan Residency, the Premium Residential Apartments.

(c) We further direct the Opposite parties to:-

(i) to construct 6’ feet high boundary wall on the fourth remaining side of the campus.

(ii) to construct the 30’ feet and 40’ feet wide CC road at the entrance and in the entire campus.

(iii) to provide/fix glasses in the MS railing in the stairs.

(iv) The opposite parties shall also pay to the complainants Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) as cost of proceedings.

The compliance of the order shall be made within one month.”

2. C.C. No.28 of 2014 had been filed, as noted in the impugned order, alleging the following deficiency and defects in the villa:

“a) Vitrified tiles have been provided in Drawing and Dining Room and Kitchen instead of Marble flooring;

b) Interlocking pavers not provided;

c) Kitchen Garden not provided;

d) MS Railing with glass not provided;

e) Electrical circuits not provided at suitable places;

f) Provision for AC not kept in the room;

g) Internet connection was not provided;

h) DTH installation was not provided;

i) Power backup was not provided as promised;

j) Bitumen entrance road provided in place of cc road;

k) Security arrangements not inadequate;

l) Surrounding Wall around campus was not constructed;

m) Sewage Treatment Plan was not provided;

n) Floating Terrace not provided;

o) Club House not functioning;

p) Landscape Garden was not provided;

2. Besides these defects the complainants alleged that the opposite party has developed another project-Manglam Arpan Residents-Premium Residential Apartments. The complainant alleged that Club House facility provided for the Manglam Arpan Villa is being shared with the residents of the apartments, while both these projects are different and also no common entrance for these projects is permissible”.

And making the following prayer for reliefs:

“a) Pass an order directing the Respondents not to allow anybody else to enter the club house of Manglam Arpan, the Villas except the residents and their guests.

b) Pass an order directing the Respondents to rectify and provide all the services/facilities as promised specifically in the Brochure within a maximum time period of three months.

bb) In the alternative, if the Respondents fail to provide such services/facilities, direct the Respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.20,66,000 (Twenty lacs sixty-six thousand) towards the loss of the value and utility in the said property.

c) Pass an order directing the Respondents to reimburse Rs.1,27,000/- (One lac twenty seven thousand) for out of pocket expenses incurred by the Complainants.

d) Pass an order directing the Respondents to pay damages to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- (twelve lacs) for the mental harassment and suffering caused to the Complainants.

e) Pass an order directing the Respondents to reimburse the costs of the proceedings to the Complainants.

f) Pass any other order it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

3. A brief look at the facts reveals that the respondents/complainants (complainants herein

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top