Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1824

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT, DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER
LAKKAM ESWAR REDDY – Appellant
Versus
CONSUMER GUIDANCE SOCIETY REP. K.P. RAVINDRAN & ANR. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3270 OF 2011 | REVISION PETITION NO. 3271 OF 2011 | REVISION PETITION NO. 3272 OF 2011

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. A. SUBHASHINI, MR. P. PRABHAKAR, MR. TARUN CHAUHAN
For the Respondents: MR. SAURABH GUPTA, MS. CH. LEELA SARVESWAR, MR. C. RAGHAVENDREN, MS. USHA RANI

The court upheld that deficiencies in the sale agreement concerning plinth area and parking provisions warrant compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petitions challenging the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission regarding consumer complaints - Issues regarding provision of plinth area and car parking facilities as per sale deed and construction agreement - Petitioner alleged deficiency in service and compensation sought - State Commission allowed the complaint in part granting monetary relief for deficiency in area and non-provision of car parking specifying no remedy for issues not originally sought. (Paras 6, 9, 12)

(B) The court dismissed the revision petitions affirming the findings of the State Commission that the purchasers experienced deficiencies as correctly identified, dismissing all claims that lacked merit. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The Respondents entered into a construction agreement with the petitioner, alleged deficiencies in construction regarding plinth area and other amenities. A legal notice was issued, followed by complaints to the District Forum and subsequent appeals to the State Commission which found merit in the complaint, leading to awards of compensation based on material presented.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the award by the State Commission based on evidence regarding deficiency of service related to contract fulfilled inadequately.

Issues: The primary issues included determination of the deficiency in the plinth area promised and contractual obligations concerning parking specifications as outlined in the sale document.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the obligations framed under the sale agreement were not fulfilled which warranted monetary compensation, underscoring the relevance of explicit agreements in real estate contracts.

Result: Revision petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of the agreement and allegations of deficiencies. (Para 4 , 5)
3. findings and observations of the state commission. (Para 6 , 9)
4. arguments concerning the alleged deficiencies in service. (Para 8)
5. final verdict and reasoning. (Para 10 , 12)

ORDER

DR.INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petitions (RPs) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.07.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1629, 1630 and 1631 of 2008 in which order dated 30.10.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 01, 02 and 97 of 2008 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 08.07.2011 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 1) was Respondent No. 1 before the State Commission and Opposite Party-1 before the District Forum and the Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 2) was Respondent No. 2 before the State Commission and Opposite Party No. 2 before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 30.11.2011 in all the Petitions. Parties filed Written Arguments on 27.08.2021 (Petitioner) and 06.11.2023 (Respondent No. 1) respectively. As the issues involved in all the three RPs are similar and challenge is to common order dated 08.07.2011 of the State Commission, they are taken up together. However, RP/3270/2011 is taken as lead case (FA/1629/2008 before the State Commission).

4. Brief facts of the case in RP/3270/2011, as presented by the Petitioner and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i) On 21.11.2005, Respondent No. 1/Complainant entered into a construction agreement with Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1, a builder operating under the name Vijayalakshmi Towers-II. After thoroughly reviewing and agreeing to the construction terms, conditions and amenities detailed in the agreement, Respondent No. 1 signed the agreement for Flat No. GF-8 in Vijayalakshmi Towers-II.

(ii) Respondent No. 1 visited the construction site multiple times during construction, as per clause 7 of the agreement, and was satisfied with the progress and quality of work. On 15.12.2005, a sale deed was executed for Flat No. GF-8, which included a plinth area of 780 sq. ft. including scooter parking. Respondent No. 1 took possession of the flat following the petitioner’s completion and handing over letter and has been residing there since. An appreciation letter from the Vijayalakshmi Towers-II Residents Welfare Association, dated 09.08.2007, shows satisfaction with the construction, amenities and quality of work done.

(iii) However, on 10.12.2007, Respondent No. 1 issued a legal notice alleging deficiencies such as defects, reduced plinth area, and not providing car parking, demanding Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The petitioner responded on 18.12.2007, contesting these claims. Dissatisfied, Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint on 20.12.2007, with the District Consumer Forum-II seeking Rs.3,25,075/- in compensation for alleged service shortcomings.

5. Vide Order dated 30.10.2008, in the CC no. 01 of 2008 the District Commission ordered that the complaint lacks any merits and dismissed the complaint.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 30.10.2008 of District Commission, Complainant/R-1 appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 08.07.2011 in FA No. 1629 of 2008 has allowed the appeal and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document