Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1427
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. Viswanath, PRESIDING MEMBER
M/S. SRI DHARANI CONSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
MRS. YELLA SUNANDA & ANR. – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 893 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Deepak Parashar, Mr. Prakhar P. Singh
For the Respondents: Mr Manav Gecil Thomas
A builder's failure to provide agreed-upon amenities constitutes deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petitions against the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal and directing completion of unfinished construction - Opposite Party failed to provide amenities as promised in the brochure - The court discusses the responsibilities of builders concerning construction defects and the necessity of basic facilities. (Paras 1-11)
(B) The court dismisses the revision petitions without any legal irregularity found in the State Commission's order, affirming the need for compliance with promised amenities as evidenced by the Commissioner’s report. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant bought a flat and alleged deficiencies in service and construction defects while seeking remedies concerning the promised amenities and refunds.
Findings of Court:
The State Commission allowed the Complainant's appeal directing the builder to rectify deficiencies, including completing construction and providing necessary services.
Issues: The major concerns were the fulfillment of amenities promised by the builder and the legitimacy of claims regarding the construction area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rightly held that the Builder had failed to deliver the promised amenities and maintenance.
Result: Revision petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of the state commission in consumer disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the complainant's claims and allegations against the builder. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. the state commission's findings and orders regarding deficiencies. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. response of the opposite party including claims of settlement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. final rulings of the court affirming the state commission's orders. (Para 11 , 12) |
1. Present Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) have arisen out of the order of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 725/2008 dated 29.12.2010.
2. Since both the Revision Petitions arise out of the same order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the State Commission, they are taken up together through this common order. To facilitate easy understanding, the Parties in this order are being referred to as the Complainant, Developer as Opposite Party No. 1 and Owners as Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 as arrayed before the District Forum.
3. The Complainant stated that he approached the Opposite Parties and booked Flat no. 305 in 3rd floor of ‘Prashanth Heights’. Complainant purchased the flat for a sale consideration of Rs.4,08,000/-, whereas he paid Rs.4,49,000/- in total to the Opposite Party. The Complainant was also forced to enter into another agreement, dated 13.10.1999 with Opposite Party No. l for completion of unfinished flat for which a sum of Rs. 91,500/- was again demanded. Opposite Party No. l along with Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 executed a sale deed on 13.10.99 in favour of the Complainant and at the time of registration of the said flat the Opposite Party collected an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards registration fee and expenses.
4. It was the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party failed to construct the Flat as per the promises made in the brochure and the terms of the Agreement. The Opposite Party did not provide Manjeera water connection, i.e. water connection from Hyderabad Metro Water and Sewerage Board, for drinking purpose. The construction material and wood used by the Opposite Parties was of sub-standard quality, which resulted in leakage/seepage from the roof, walls in the bathrooms and waste water pipes. There were also cracks and water leakages in the bed room walls and kitchen walls. Cracks developed in the doors and frames of the doors due to the inferior wood used by the Opposite Party. The common areas and terrace rights were also not handed over to the Flat owners association. The actual area of the flat handed over to the Complainant was less than 913 sq. ft.. The Complainant measured the area of the flat with the help of a Qualified Engineer and it was revealed that the area handed over was 795.91 sq. ft. only including common areas. As per the sale deed, the Complainant paid an excess amount of Rs.52,299/- for 117 sq. ft. @ Rs.447/- per sq. ft.. The Complainant was also not provided with the following amenities as per the Brochure and the Agreement:
(a) No provision was made for the Association office.
(b) No parking place was provided for as per the Multi Storied Building Regulations, 1981, both inmates and visitors or atleast as per the agreement.
(c) The Opposite Party has converted and grabbed the common areas like terrace, and the parking area in stilt into six shops and sold it to third parties in violation of the Building Plan.
(d) No provision for generator and generator room and the fire-fighting system; as per regulation 15 and 7 of the Multi-Storied Building Regulations, 1981.
(e) Installation of Dish Antenna is not made as per the specifications made in the brochure.
(f) Water proof treatment for the top-roof leakages for the 5th floor was not made.
The Opposite Party did not complete the painting of main-door, ventilators, bathroom walls and one side wall of the hall. The Opposite Party also collected
