1.       Heard Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rohit Jolly, Advocate, for the OP. 

2.       Chloris Welfare Association has filed above complaint for directing opposite party to (i) rectify all structural defects as well as other defects as reported in DLP in the high-rise building “Mahindra Chloris” situated at 16/3, Mathura Road, Sector-19, Faridabad and resolve all the issues to the satisfaction of the complainant within stipulated period; (ii) pay Rs.40.- crores, as compensation for deficient, negligent services and sub-standard construction of 160 flats, in the said building; (iii) immediately provide adequate & wholesome water supply to all the residents; (iv) pay delay compensation to all the home buyers in the said building, in terms of the agreement from 10.07.2011 till the date of providing basic amenities and removal of all the defects; (v) pay Rs.5/- crores, as the compensation for mental agony and harassment; (vi) repossess the convenience shops from the owners/occupiers and handover to the complainant at reasonable price for running cooperative stores in it; (vii) recover three parking spaces from the store owner and give it to the flat buyers on priority basis as per wait list; (viii) immediately provide all the committed features in the security system and rectify all the defects in the same; (ix) pay Rs.13/- lacs, as litigation costs; and (x) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.

3.       The complainant stated that Chloris Welfare Association is an association, formed by the flat owners of the “Mahindra Chloris” and registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 06.04.2012. M/s. Mahindra Lifespace Developers Limited (the OP) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects. The OP launched a group housing project in the name of “Mahindra Chloris” at 16/3, Mathura Road, Sector-19, Faridabad, in an area of 392814 square feet, consisting 160 flats (40 flats of the area around 2000 sq.ft., 80 flats of the area around 2400 sq.ft., 40 flats of the area around 2900 sq.ft. and 28 EWS flats), in the year, 2008 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. The OP made sky rocketing promises and assurance that international standard apartments, just luxurious, re-defined concept of ‘e-security’ with high amenities, that have never been seen before. The OP advertised as IEC Secured Homes ‘Mahindra Chloris’ is an unique residential complex that has IEC security. These homes are electronically savvy, with special emphasis on earthquake resistance. Their e-connectivity allows you to control the apartments from anywhere in the world, even while you are on holiday’. My Green Home ‘One of the key highlights of ‘Mahindra Chloris’ would be that it will be built on the concept of “Green Building” under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) CS Certification. Guidelines stipulated by United States Green Building Council (USGBC). The project will be provisioned to have ample greenery out of the total area developed ensuring plenty of open spaces’. Highlights of Green Building ‘Improved ventilation effectiveness by providing open-able window space to floor ratio. Low VOC paints, adhesives and sealant, which helps in maintaining good indoor air quality. High Albedo insulating material on roof to reduce the heat absorption and energy demand for air conditioning. Use of low emissivity glass to reduce the energy requirement for indoor air-conditioning’. Living & Dining Spaces ‘Mahindra Chloris’ promises to be your ultimate living experience. The architecture, the landscaping, the structural finesse and exquisite aesthetics will simply sweep you off your feet’. Amenities & Clubs Spaces ‘The difference in amenities is the layout positioning and functionality. A very well designed parking lot for example, can double up as an amenity, as it makes parking of cars extremely convenient and time saving’. The OP charged basic sale price @Rs.3875/- to @Rs.4700/- per sq.ft., EDC @Rs.132 per sq.ft., IDC @Rs.25/- per sq.ft., Rs.300000/- for Car Parking, Power backup @Rs.75000/- and one time Club membership @Rs.75000/-. Believing upon the representations of the OP, the members of the complainant booked their respective flats in or around April, 2008 and paid the consideration as per their agreement. After completion of the construction, the OP offered possession to the flat buyers from July, 2011 onward. When the flat buyers started moving to their flats after taking possession, they were shocked to see poor quality and shortcoming in the construction i.e. the flats with leaking roof, cracking walls, substandard floor, plaster and paints of the walls are peeling off from many area etc. The flat buyers cannot drill in the wall for small holes as even on slightest touch of the wall, plaster used to peel off. There is structural failure in ceiling and cementing of expansion joints. The complainant wrote two letters to the OP however response of the OP has been perfunctory and evasive. The material used in the construction, specially the plaster in various components/ elements were of substandard & poor quality and not of the standard as laid down by the National Building Codes & ISI Codes thereby leading to structural failure of the newly build apartment. The complainant obtained two test reports from the Shriram Institute For Industrial Research dated 31.01.2013, wherein the sample of the plaster was taken from the site of “Godrej Chloris” showed ratio of cement and sand used in the plaster is 1: 12 and 1: 15. “Godrej Chloris” apartments falls within the ambit of Seismic Zone-4 as per National Disaster Management Authority, which makes it more prone to earthquakes and with such structure having bare resistance. The residents are under serious threats that the building might get collapse in case of such exigency/ calamity. The poor quality of the construction, substandard material used during construction, the corrosion of the Steel Reinforcements which forms the very basis of construction have commenced in short span of two years. The degree of corrosion is of so high that already Beams, Columns, Slabs, Facad Retaining Walls of various apartments have started rupturing, which can be reflected from various photographs. The sharp degree of corrosion that has already taken place in the apartments can be ascertained by the Half Cell Potential Test that was conducted by the Shriram Institute For Industrial Research. In the report dated 31.01.2013, the sample for the retaining wall below main gate (Left side of B1-401 Parking) was tested using  Profometer and the result case was “-407 i.e. High Level of Corrosion. Half Cell Potential Evaluation Criteria: Upto 200 Mv: Low Corrosion. Above- 300Mv- High Corrosion. Reinforcement corrosion is considered the most dangerous source of degradation among the most frequent environmental attacks, affecting RC structures. Due to this, there is reduction of load bearing capacity and a significant loss of ductility with increasing levels of corrosion, but also in number of cases, shift of the failure mechanism from the ductile to brittle type. The main consequence is the reduction of resistance to environment and load bearing capacity of the structural elements. Formation of corrosion product (i.e. iron oxides) occurs along the steel bar surface. The external pressure generated by the increasing volume of corrosion product results in expanding action which induces tensile and radial pressure on the concrete surrounding the reinforcement bars, which may exceed tensile strength of the material. The main effects are cover cracking and possible delamination of the outer concrete layers, together with the reduction of bond between steel and concrete, which may lead to degradation of concrete cover and in some cases, where there are high corrosion levels it may lead to degradation of the concrete cover and total expulsion of the outer layers and thereby causing loss or anchorage and failure of the structure. The complainant asked the OP to provide Test Report Certificate of the water used in constructions, which was refused by them. Multi-stories structure the expansion joints, help to provide the necessary movement of the building with the minimum resistance at the joint and thus in cycles of summers and winters as well as in calamities like earthquake, the expansion joints help the building to expand/ contract and sway, protecting the building from cracking and collapsing. Once expansion joints have been provided, it is to be maintained in the true spirit because if it is blocked it will cause in the structure beyond comprehension. In the apartment, the water from the central open area drains into the area around expansion joints to flow down into the water harvesting wells. However, expansion joints have been designed and constructed in extremely poor manner. Expansion joints have been provided at the same column without the plate bearing thus restricting the free movement of beams totally defeating the very purpose of providing the expansion joints. The drain water, instead of flowing in the harvesting wells, drained through the expansion joints between the concrete slabs flooding the entire basement area with knee deep water. Continuous flooding in basement has resulted in chipping off of entire floor and formation of deep pits in any area. The complainant approached the OP for redressal of above problem but instead of solving the problem in proper technical manner to ensure retaining integrity of structure as well as stoppage of leakage, the OP cosmetically filled up the expansion joints with white cements from the bottom. When water logging continued after the cosmetic operation in the stilt parking area due to water leakage through concrete expansion joints and disproportionate slope in the floor of stilt parking area, the engineers of the OP collectively decided to chisel out miniature canals to lead the water to nearest drain. The OP is guilty of using unfit water for construction, which resulted in volumes of detrimental effects on the structure and adversely affected the strength of the building. the Shriram Institute For Industrial Research conducted test of the water, sample of which was collected from Chloris Apartment and the test report dated 31.01.2013 showed that “water does not confirm to is 456-2000 for construction purpose. The ground water used for construction was saline and the opposite party without taking any precaution/remedial measure used such saline water and thereby caused immense danger to the building structure. The OP realized more than Rs.5/- crores and additional amount of Rs.3.75 crores, from the flat buyers in the head of ‘External Development Charges’ but at the time of offering possession, there was no regular water connection/supply from Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The OP was supplying drinking and daily use water from bore-well directly, which was saline water. Test report of FDRA Labs India Pvt. Ltd. of the water supplied by the OP for drinking shows that it was unfit for human consumption. Test result showed Dissolved solids 5567 mg/ per litter (reference range 500 to 2000 mg. per litter) Chloride as 1085 mg (reference rage 250 to 1000), total hardness as 1320 mg (reference range 300 to 600). Total Dissolved Salt (TDS) up to 750 mg/lt is accepted in India for bathing and washing while drinking water should have TDS less than 200-250 mf/lt. The report of Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Faridabad of the year 2010 categorised the natural ground water of India as desirable, permissible but unfit for human consumption as ground water of India mostly contains calcium bicarbonate (Ca-HCO3), where total salinity of water is below 500 mg/dl (corresponding electrical conductance of 750 s/cm at 250C) i.e. much beyond the permissible limits as prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) formally known as Indian Standard Institute (ISI). Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), vide its document IS:10500:1991 Edition 2.2 (2003-09) has recommended the quality of standards for drinking water. As the water had such high variations of TDS, it was the duty on the part of the OP to install a suitable centralized RO system, making the water suitable for bathing and washing. The centralized RO system should have been followed by an effective RO equipment system installed in each of main dwelling unit, which could cure all the germs of the water and would treat high TDS making it fit, for drinking and for other purposes. But in blind pursuit of cost reduction, the OP failed to comply with above requirement and instead installed RO equipment in each dwelling units which the manufacturer recommends for water having TDS (between 200 to 500 mg/lt) and which reduces TDS only by 70%. The current technology for domestic RO provides equipment for treatment of water having TDS of maximum 2500 mg/lt only and for water having very high TDS between 500-2500 mg/lt, the manufacturer recommends RO equipment with higher rating which reduces TDS by 90% and gives potable water but the OP miserably failed to install such effective RO equipment and instead installed a totally unsuitable and hence ineffective RO equipment which is not at all capable of removing extremely high TDS of bore-well water. Above fact is asserted by the test conducted by the FDRA Labs India Private Limited of the composite samples collected from the outlet of R.O. system. Test Result Report dated 05.09.2012 endorsed remarks as “Dissolved solids in the sample is 699 mg/lt whereas the desirable limits 500 and is thus much beyond the permissible limits”. The complainant also got test report dated 31.01.2013 from Shriram Institute For Industrial Research of the sample of water taken from “Godrej Chloris”, which showed “With respect to physic-chemical tests water does not confirm to IS: 10500-1991 (Reaff.1993, Ed.2.2) and cannot be considered fit for drinking purpose”. Due to supply of water, which is unsuitable for human consumption, the residents are prone to serious health hazards and in fact many residents started complaining of gastrointestinal track (G.I.T.) disorders, pain joints and various deformities. Due to supply of hard and saline water faucets, taps, kitchen sinks, drain, jalis etc. of the flats were started rusting and damaged within short time. Discharging capacity of water pipes have been reduced drastically and may be blocked soon. The complainant raised the issue of supply of water unsuitable for human consumption but the OP did not response. Finding no response the complainant rushed to government departments and managed to bring water supply till end of February, 2012 from Municipal Corporation Faridabad. But water supply from Municipal Corporation Faridabad is inadequate to the need of the residents. Section-2(i) of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 defines “internal development works” means (i) metalling of roads and paving of footpaths; (ii) turfing and plantation with trees of open spaces; (iii) street lighting; (iv) adequate and wholesome water supply; ((v) sewers and drains both for storm and sullage water and necessary provision for their treatment and disposal; and (vi) any other work that the Director may think necessary in the interest of proper development of a colony. It is mandatory for the developers to ensure adequate and wholesome water supply. The construction of the roads inside the complex does not comply with the specifications either in terms of longitudinal gradient or CAMBER is also not in a proper manner and is adversely affecting the drainage. Poor compaction of the sub-grade resulting deformities in pavement of the road. The result of deadly combination of poor drainage and compaction is that road has already started to settle-in leading to pot holes at many places even though it has weathered only 2 mansoons. The OP has failed to provide access road from the project to sector road of the HUDA although the same was very much included in the approved building plan and was even promised by the OPs to the owners, thereby putting the residents in extreme inconvenience, hardship etc. The OP has not constructed rear boundary wall straight as per the building plan but has been unauthorisedly brought in by one meter over a length of 26 meters in east-south corner, reducing the plot area by approximately 26 sq. mtrs. Solar water heater installed in the residential complex are of inferior quality and are not optimally designed. The OP did not obtain approval for installing solar water heater from Haryana Government Renewable Energy Department and mandated in Govt. Order dated 29.07.2005, issued in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 and is thus also liable for non-compliance of the statutory rules and regulations. Solar water heaters must be of optimally designed quality and as per specifications, which the OP miserably failed to provide. The OP has illegally sold 3 covered parking spaces to a shop owner who is not even the resident of the project. The OP promised to the flat buyers to provide 3 convenience shops, one each for daily needs, fruits & vegetables and general purpose. The OP converted them into a single store. The party, who owns it, failed to run the same, putting the residents to umpteen challenges. The OP constructed only one basement, where only 279 cars can be parked, despite the fact that as per the approved site plan, the OP had to construct two basements with total 326 parking. Due to which, many flat buyers, who owned more than one car, are forced to park their car in open, which is likely to lead accidents endangering safety of the residents and their vehicles to maximize number of parking within in a single basement. The OP has drastically reduced size (length & width) of each parking to the extent that door of a car cannot be opened fully and fouls with the car parked in adjacent car parking, damaging both the cars and making ingress and egress difficult and time consuming between two parked cars, against commitment of parking as an amenity offering extremely conveniently and time saving chore. The basement parking is in very bad & dilapidated conditions, with a span of two years only. It is submitted that basement, which has provision of main control room, maintenance room, security system office and car parking, is profusely leaking points, structural corrosion and seepage with foul smell. The OP failed to provide effective security system and surveillance system in the apartments. At the time of booking, the OP promised to provide advance IEC security system, having multiple layers of security comprising security from inside the apartment from lobby & security gate and even remotely through mobile phones and internet but nothing was provided. The poor and ineffective security system installed is total failure. The alarm system installed is defective and the alarms start sounding without relevant signals and they did not work when the real situation like gas leakage actually takes place. Even poor and inferior basic doorbells installed in flats are not functioning properly. The inferior quality of the UPS system for backup to systems are provided. Lights, fans and air-conditioner switch off on its own. Many times, it becomes a hassle to switch on AC. Switch positions becomes meaningless due to automatic switching off. It is further submitted that the UPS in every tower of the complex to manage the operations of the main security and lighting system works erratically resulting in loss of memory of the security and lighting system. Height of the building is more than 30 meters but prior clearance from National Airport Authority of India has not been taken. All the defects were pointed out to the OP, who promised to rectify it before 10.07.2012 but many of the defects reported to DLP have not been rectified. When the complainant informed the OP about the shortcomings and poor construction, the OP assured that the defects will be cured but it has been a year now but nothing has been done. The continuous leakage is not only health hazard for 308 families residing there but it is also endangering to the life of the structure. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 26.04.2013.      

4.       The OP filed written statement on 15.10.2013 and denied the allegations made in the complaint. The OP stated that the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana granted License No.217 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007, for development of residential group housing colony at Khasra Nos.2083/256, 2084/256 and 258 (total area 4.935 acres of village Faridabad, presently  16/3, Mathura Road, Sector-19, Faridabad to the OP and approved Building Plan on 17.01.2008. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India granted “Environmental Clearance” for above project on 06.06.2006. State Pollution Control Board, Haryana issued ‘No Objection Certificate” on 20.07.2006. The OP obtained requisite ‘Height/Aviation Clearance’ from Airports Authority of India vide letter dated 12.08.2008. The OP obtained “Fire NOC” on 15.11.2010, from the Commissioner, Fire Station Office, Municipal Corporation Faridabad. The OP raised construction as per approved plan with slight variation as necessitated. The OP used steel and other building materials of top quality. Italian marble was used. Steel, cement, concrete sands etc. were used as per prescribed standard ratio. The construction was raised and fittings were conducted in supervision of qualified engineers. The OP completed the construction as per specification in the agreement and applied for issue of “occupation certificate” on 13.12.2010, which was issued on 01.07.2011 in respect of Tower-A-1, T-2, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, C-1 & C-2, community building (club), convenient shopping (commercial area) and basement. The OP engaged Digihome Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai for Integrated Electronic Concept (IEC), who installed digihome equipment, for which, the OP did not  charge from the flat buyers. The OP applied for regular water connection, for supply of water through 100 MM Dia, on 05.02.2010 and deposited requisite fee for it on 06.07.2010, with the Municipal Corporation Faridabad. The OP applied for sewer connection on 05.02.2010, and deposited requisite fee for it. Municipal Corporation Faridabad sanctioned the water connection in February, 2012. After obtaining “occupation certificate”, the OP started handing over possession to the flat buyers, from July, 2011. Before taking possession, individual flat buyer checked construction and fittings etc. of their flat and after satisfying with it, signed the possession letter and took possession. The OP handed over possession with the agreed time period and is not liable to pay any delay compensation. The OP prepared a check-list, containing item-wise details of all the amenities, construction, installation and papers etc. The office bearers of Chloris Welfare Association checked each and every item mentioned in the check list during 12.07.2011 to 19.08.2011 and recorded their satisfaction, then all the documents and then the OP handed over the project and the papers to the complainant on 19.08.2011. As per agreement, the OP engaged ‘Knight Frank’ a top-rated management agency to look after the project. ‘Mahindra Chloris” is a platinum-rated green building, awarded by Indian Green Building Council, which provides pristine condition using high quality materials and construction standards. Till the regular water supply from Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, the OP supplied water through bore-well and installed RO system to cure the water, in terms of the condition of the ‘occupation certificate’. Along with application for issue of ‘occupation certificate’ the OP attached Structural Stability Certificate issued by a qualified Architect. Before grant of “occupation certificate”, the development authorities conducted comprehensive check of the construction including structural stability, resistance to earthquake and other phenomenon. The ‘completion certificate’ can only be received after completion of the project, including EWS section. As per clause-19 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, ‘defect liability period’ of the OP is one year. During this one year period, not a single complaint either through email or letter was made either by flat buyer or by the complainant, (except email dated 22.04.2012, regarding insufficient water supply). The OP being a customer centric organisation and mindful of inconvenience to its customers, wrote a letter dated 26.06.2012 to Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, for increasing water supply. After taking possession, some of the flat buyers torn the original construction and made their own extensive alterations/modifications in kitchen and bathrooms, in derogation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and dumped the salvage in common area, which is root cause for the seepage and leakage. The flat buyers destructed water proofing and layout of water pipes, which resulted seepage through the shafts, leading to peeling of the outer plaster and cracks near the ground due to capillary action. In Tower-A-1 and Tower-A-2, major changes have been made by the flat buyers, which are affected with seepage. The complainant attached the photograph of selective portion but deliberately concealed the fact relating to renovation done by the flat buyers of that portion. Another reason for seepage is lack of maintenance of overhead/ rooftop water tanks. Alleged corrosion at a solitary retention wall at the periphery of the premises and the basement, which is a common area is due to lack of maintenance by the complainant. Flooding in basement is caused due to failure of the complainant to install sump pump. The complainant has deliberately and mischievously took sample from a portion of retaining wall at the basement which experienced a high ingress of water that was noticed by the OP and remedial measures have been taken to stop the water inflow and repair. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the plaster is peeling from the internal wall of the apartment or that mud is coming out when nails are sought to be driven in for hanging various objects. The complainant stopped the OP’s personals from carrying on their activities related to the basement in past. The complainant cannot take advantage of the wrong done by its members. The OP has fulfilled all the obligations as mentioned the brochure and the agreement with the buyer. External Development Charges and Additional External Development Charges are realized by Haryana Urban Development Authority and deposited by the OP time to time. The Shriram Institute For Industrial Research used an incorrect standard for making its assessment. The protocol used i.e. ASTMC-1084 is not the standard that is to be deployed for this purpose as in the plaster, blended cement is used. This test method may determine only the Portland cement component of blended cement i.e. quality of pure cement. The protocol prescribed for both internal and external plaster is I S Code 1661-1972 and Table-2 thereof prescribes the ratio of cement-lime-sand as 1:0:6 within which sand can be both coarse and fine with coarseness imparting strength to the mixture. The practice in constructions of this kind is to mix equal quantities of course and fine sand with the prescribed cement i.e. Portland Pozzalana Cement. Accordingly the prescribed standard of plaster was used in internal plastering as proved by the checklist prepared during construction in daily course of business. As regards the resistance of the structures to earthquake, which can occur in Seismic Zone-4, where the property is located, the Structural Stability Certificate from the Vintech Consultants was obtained by the OP and attached with the application for issue of ‘occupation certificate’. In respect of corrosion test report ASTM C 876 standard has been used which has no significance. The OP has not been allowed by the complainant to examine it, take sample and obtain its report from its own or any other independent agency. The potential measurement should be interpreted by engineers or technical specialists experienced in the fields of concrete materials and corrosion testing. It is often necessary to use other data such as chloride contents, depth of carbonation, declamation survey findings, rate of corrosion results and environmental exposure conditions. In additions to corrosion potential measurements too formulate conclusions concerning corrosion activity of embedded steel and its probable effect on the service of a structure. No sample was taken from the towers which have more fundamental bearing on human life and property in respect of load bearing strength. The reinforcing iron and steel members are deeply encased in high quality and compacted concrete and the construction standards are well above those prescribed or expected from structures of this kind. As regards the quality of the water used in construction particularly for mixing cement, no water was used from the site for this purpose. The OP used ‘ready mix cement’ i.e. pre-prepared cement sourced from the reputed agencies, like L&T, ACC etc.  which prepared the same at a different location using high quality cement, fly-ash, sand, polymers etc. from reputed manufacturers, like Binai, Birla, Uttam and J.P., laboratory tested water. Along with the supply of ready mixed cement etc., test reports are supplied by the supplier. Before its use, the OP also got tested each and every such supply. On the basis of design and technical recommendations of Vintech Consultants, the plates have been provided on capitals of columns to give free movement to both the beams and are adequate for structure of this kind. As per blue prints/structural drawings, expansion joints are provided only between the towers and ton-tower basement and extended basement area. No expansion joint is used in the Towers. False statement has been made in the complaint in this respect. Flow of water into basement in past, the situation has now been remedied by the OP, voluntarily using the ‘third solution’ as termed by the complainant, despite the efforts of the complainant to hamper or hinder the efforts of the OP. The construction has been completed before the order of Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana dated 14.08.2012. Supply of potable and daily use water is the statutory liability of Municipal Corporation and cannot be treated as a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP has development internal infrastructure, deposited, EDC, and water connection charges, required for adequate amount of water supply, which was sanctioned and supply was started in February, 2012. The OP denied allegations of rusting corrosion of pipes, faucets, taps etc. inside the flats for want of knowledge. The residents of the colony behind the project objected to the access being provided citing security concerns and a dispute in this regard is pending between the two parties. The OP is trying to resolve this dispute between two RWA amicably. Approximately encroachment in an area of one meter in width and 26 meter in length affects the lawn area and does not cause any inconvenience to the residents of the project. The OP installed highest quality BIS approved solar water heaters, which has been accepted by the Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency, vide its letter dated 04.04.2011. As per clause-3 of the agreement, car parking is charged separately. In the allotment letter, all the flat buyers were allotted one car parking. At the time of issue of possession letters, the OP informed the buyers that they can purchase one additional car parking on payment basis, subject to availability. Admittedly basement area has 279 car parking space while total number of the flats are 160. Clause 10 of the agreement clearly stipulates that common area do not include shops and commercial premises as well as the EWS portion. The home buyers can have no objection in allotment of car parking to shop owners. The complainant has no locus standi to raise this issue. None of the buyers demanded for additional car parking or deposited its charges. Convenience stores are being run satisfactorily, which stocked all items of daily use including groceries, fruits and vegetables. However, the residents did not patronise the shop and the store found unprofitable to run its operations. The change in design resulting in reduction of car parking space was due to feasibility and design issue and the OP has no motive to inconvenience the members as it was a revenue earning source for the OP. There are total 160 flats out of which 30% is still unoccupied. Allegation that 308 families are residing is falsely. Various prayers made in the complaint are beyond the contractual and legal obligation of the OP, which is an attempt of unjust enrichment on false and imaginary allegations. Arbitration proceeding is most optimal forum to resolve the dispute. The complaint and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.  

5.       The complainant filed Rejoinder, Affidavit of Evidence of Dr. Ashok K. Agrawal and documentary evidence. The OP filed Sur-Rejoinder, Affidavit of Evidence of Aniket Kumar and documentary evidence. The complainant filed IA/5700/2015 for appointment of Local Commissioner, for inspection of the building and verify the material used in construction, including water, aggregate, sand, reinforcement cement & concrete, pre-stressed concrete, steel etc., check the corrosion, signs of structural defects, damages, distress, deformation, deterioration, cracks, excessive deflection, connection failure, instability, tilt, spalling concrete, established reasons of settlement under building floor, foundation and road and submit expert opinion. This Commission, vide order dated 02.05.2023, with the consent of the parties appointed IIT Delhi, for spot inspection and submit expert report in respect of the issues raised in the application. The Registrar approached the Director of IIT, Delhi for its invoice relating to professional fee for inspect and expert report, who vide letter dated 07.08.2023, informed the professional fee of Rs.80/- lakhs. When the case was listed next, the complainant did not agree to pay half of the profession fee of IIT Delhi, then both the parties were asked to give 5 names of reputed and qualified architect for inspection, but the parties did not agree for the names suggested by each other. When the case was taken up on 18.09.2023, the parties agreed for Building Congress and the complainant was directed to obtain invoice of its professional fee. But when the case was listed, next on 26.10.2023, the counsel for the complainant stated the case be heard on existing evidence. On 15.07.2024, the OP produced an IA in the court, which was permitted to be filed and filed on 01.08.2024 (registered as IA/11660/2024) annexing ‘completion certificate’ of the project dated 02.08.2019 and photographs of the building at the time of handing over to the complainants. The complainant also filed IA on 18.09.2024, during argument, annexing copy of Licence No.217 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007, approval of Building Plan dated 17.01.2008, sanctioned map, ‘occupation certificate’ and minutes of meeting dated 30.10.2016. Both the parties have argued at length and filed their written arguments.

6.       We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The OP has stated and proved from the documents that the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana granted License No.217 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007, for development of residential group housing colony at Khasra Nos.2083/256, 2084/256 and 258 (total area 4.935 acres of village Faridabad, presently  16/3, Mathura Road, Sector-19, Faridabad to the OP and approved Building Plan on 17.01.2008. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India granted “Environmental Clearance” for above project on 06.06.2006. State Pollution Control Board, Haryana issued ‘No Objection Certificate” on 20.07.2006. The OP obtained requisite ‘Height/Aviation Clearance’ from Airports Authority of India vide letter dated 12.08.2008. The OP obtained “Fire NOC” on 15.11.2010, from the Commissioner, Fire Station Office, Municipal Corporation Faridabad. The OP raised construction as per approved plan with slight variation as necessitated and completed the construction as per specification in the agreement and applied for issue of “occupation certificate” on 13.12.2010, which was issued on 01.07.2011 in respect of Tower-A-1, T-2, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, C-1 & C-2, community building (club), convenient shopping (commercial area) and basement. After obtaining “occupation certificate”, the OP started handing over possession to the flat buyers, from July, 2011. Before taking possession, individual flat buyer checked construction and fittings etc. of their flat and after satisfying with it, signed the possession letter and took possession. The OP prepared a check-list, containing item-wise details of all the amenities, construction, installation and papers etc. The office bearers of Chloris Welfare Association checked each and every items mentioned in the check list during 12.07.2011 to 19.08.2011 and recorded their satisfaction, then all the documents and then the OP handed over the project and the papers to the complainant on 19.08.2011. Conveyance deeds were executed in favour of the flat buyers in September, 2011. The OP admits that there is an encroachment in an area of one meter in width and 26 meter in length in east-south corner but stated that it affects the lawn area and does not cause any inconvenience to the residents. The complainant does not dispute signing check list either by individual flat owners or by the office bearers of the complainant.

7.       The OP has stated that Clause-19 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement provides one year period as ‘defect liability period’ of the OP. During one year period, after taking possession by the flat buyers or handing over to the complainant, not a single complaint either through email or letter was made either by flat buyer or by the complainant, in respect of construction (except email dated 22.04.2012, regarding insufficient water supply). After taking possession, some of the flat buyers torn the original construction and made their own extensive alterations/modifications in kitchen and bathrooms, in derogation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and dumped the salvage in common area, which is root cause for the seepage and leakage. The flat buyers destructed water proofing and layout of water pipes, which resulted seepage through the shafts, leading to peeling of the outer plaster and cracks near the ground due to capillary action. In Tower-A-1 and Tower-A-2, major changes have been made by the flat buyers, which are affected with seepage. The complainant attached the photograph of selective portion but deliberately concealed the fact relating to renovation done by the flat buyers of that portion. Another reason for seepage is lack of maintenance of overhead/ rooftop water tanks. As the possession was handed over within the agreed time period and is not liable to pay any delay compensation.

8.       The complainant stated that construction of the apartment is highly defective and technically unfeasible. The complainant has filed three test reports relating plaster materials in this respect obtained from the Shriram Institute For Industrial Research dated 29.01.2013 and 31.01.2013, sample of one of it was taken from “Retaining wall below main gate” and other two reports do not mention the place from where sample was taken. The reports shows that cement and sand were used in the ratio of 1:12 and 1:15. It does not satisfy the concise of a common man that plaster in the ratio of 1:12 and 1:15 of the cement and sand will stand on wall for a single day and its painting is possible. The OP stated that the Shriram Institute For Industrial Research did not use the incorrect standard for making its assessment. The protocol used i.e. ASTMC-1084 is not the standard that is to be deployed for this purpose as in the plaster, blended cement is used. This test method may determine only the Portland cement component of blended cement i.e. quality of pure cement. The protocol prescribed for both internal and external plaster is I S Code 1661-1972 and Table-2 thereof prescribes the ratio of cement-lime-sand as 1:0:6 within which sand can be both coarse and fine with coarseness imparting strength to the mixture. The practice in constructions of this kind is to mix equal quantities of course and fine sand with the prescribed cement i.e. Portland Pozzalana Cement. Accordingly the prescribed standard of plaster was used in internal plastering as proved by the checklist prepared during construction in daily course of business. The Test Reports produced by the complainant relate to plaster of wall and has nothing to do with the strength of the building. The OP rebutted these report by filing its report. Under the law, statutory authority used to conduct its own test in all aspect before issue of ‘occupation certificate’ and again before issue of ‘completion certificate’. The ‘occupation certificate’ and ‘completion certificate’ have been issued by the development authority. In such circumstance, the burden lies upon the complainant to obtained fresh certificate in accordance with provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Although the complainant filed IA/5700/2015 for appointment of Local Commissioner, for inspection of the building and verify the material used in construction, including water, aggregate, sand, reinforcement cement & concrete, pre-stressed concrete, steel etc., check the corrosion, signs of structural defects, damages, distress, deformation, deterioration, cracks, excessive deflection, connection failure, instability, tilt, spalling concrete, established reasons of settlement under building floor, foundation and road and submit expert opinion and order was passed on it on 02.05.2023 but later on the complainant avoided to pay profession fee of its share and stated to decide the complaint on existing material. As such, adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant, who has failed to prove that sub-standard material was used in plaster.  

9.       The complainant alleged that there is structural failure in ceiling and cementing of expansion joints. The material used in the construction, specially the plaster in various components/ elements were of substandard & poor quality and not of the standard as laid down by the National Building Codes & ISI Codes thereby leading to structural failure of the newly build apartment. “Godrej Chloris” apartments falls within the ambit of Seismic Zone-4 as per National Disaster Management Authority, which makes it more prone to earthquakes and with such structure having bare resistance. The residents are under serious threats that the building might get collapse in case of such exigency/ calamity. The poor quality of the construction, substandard material used during construction, the corrosion of the Steel Reinforcements which forms the very basis of construction have commenced in short span of two years. The degree of corrosion is of so high that already Beams, Columns, Slabs, Facad Retaining Walls of various apartments have started rupturing, which can be reflected from various photographs. The complainant has not filed any evidence to prove it. It appears that the complainant has raised this ground only on the basis of the report relating to water of the bore-well.

The OP admits that the project lies in Seismic Zone-4, but stated that no water was used from the site for this purpose for mixing cement, sand concrete etc.. The OP used ‘ready mix cement’ i.e. pre-prepared cement sourced from the reputed agencies, like L&T, ACC etc. which prepared the same at a different location using high quality cement, fly-ash, sand, polymers ect. from reputed manufacturers, like Binai, Birla, Uttam and J.P., laboratory tested water. Along with the supply of ready mixed cement etc., test reports are supplied by the supplier. Before its use, the OP also got tested each and every such supply. On the basis of design and technical recommendations of Vintech Consultants, the plates have been provided on capitals of columns to give free movement to both the beams and are adequate for structure of this kind. As per blue prints/structural drawings, expansion joints are provided only between the towers and ton-tower basement and extended basement area. No expansion joint is used in the Towers. The OP has produced all the certificates in respect of the material used at the time of construction, obtained from certified labs and the Structural Stability Certificate obtained from the Vintech Consultants which was attached with the application for issue of ‘occupation certificate’. In respect of corrosion test report ASTM C 876 standard has been used which has no significance. The OP used steel and other building materials of top quality. Italian marble was used. Steel, cement, concrete sands etc. were used as per prescribed standard ratio. The construction was raised and fittings were conducted in supervision of qualified engineers. The ‘occupation certificate’ and ‘completion certificate’ have been issued by the development authority. This issue is also not proved.

10.     So far as saline water of the bore-well of the site is concerned, the OP has stated that it had applied for regular water connection, for supply of water through 100 MM Dia, on 05.02.2010 and deposited requisite fee for it on 06.07.2010, with the Municipal Corporation Faridabad. The OP applied for sewer connection on 05.02.2010, and deposited requisite fee for it. The complainant in paragraph-19 of the complaint admits that Municipal Corporation Faridabad sanctioned the water connection and started supply in February, 2012. During this period, the OP supplied water from bore-well after treating it from RO system. The complainant admits installation of RO system but alleged that it was not of standard quality, without disclosing the name of manufacture of the RO system. So far as the allegations of inadequate water supply is concerned, the OP has deposited External Development Charges and the charges of supply of the water. The water is a natural resource and its supply is regulated by the local authority according to its availability. Inadequate supply of water cannot be attributed upon the OP. Although the complainant has alleged that due to supply of saline water, fittings in kitchen and bathrooms have been damaged but no proof has been filed in this respect. Similarly the allegation that the complainant incurred Rs.20/- lakhs in obtaining connection for regular water supply is also not proved

11.     The complainant stated that the OP had advertised as IEC Secured Homes ‘Mahindra Chloris’ is an unique residential complex that has IEC security. These homes are electronically savvy, with special emphasis on earthquake resistance. Their e-connectivity allows you to control the apartments from anywhere in the world, even while you are on holiday’. The OP engaged Digihome Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai for Integrated Electronic Concept (IEC), who installed digihome equipment, for which, the OP did not  charge from the flat buyers. The OP installed highest quality BIS approved solar water heaters, which has been accepted by the Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency, vide its letter dated 04.04.2011. None of the flat buyers raised any grievance in this respect during defect liability period.

12.     So far as second basement is concerned, under clause-3 of the agreement, car parking is charged separately. In the allotment letter, all the flat buyers were allotted one car parking. At the time of issue of possession letters, the OP informed the buyers that they can purchase one additional car parking on payment basis, subject to availability. Admittedly basement area has 279 car parking space while total number of the flats are 160. Clause 10 of the agreement clearly stipulates that common area do not include shops and commercial premises as well as the EWS portion and the clause13 of the conveyance deed provides that the OP has to transfer and convey its rights, title and interest in the building along with common areas and facilities, excluding car parking spaces, EWS, shop and commercial premises in favour of the Association. The home buyers can have no objection in allotment of car parking to shop owners. The owners of shops and commercial premises cannot be said to be an outsider. Basement area were reserved for car parking, as such, the complainant has no locus standi to question it.

13.     In the written arguments, the complainant has stated that they re-laid periphery road within a short period of 3-4 years by expending approximately Rs.7/- lakhs, replaced all the fire pipelines badly corroded due to bad quality of water expending approximately Rs.25/- lakhs, secured re-laying of high tension wire directly through DHBVN, Haryana expending approximately Rs.25/- lakhs, STP capacity upgraded as the installed capacity was inadequate, expending approximately Rs.25/- lakhs, expended approximately Rs.60/- lakhs per year since the beginning to ensure safety & security, continued to expend towards procurement of potable water since beginning expending approximately Rs.20/- lakhs per year and refurbishment of the exteriors of the building in just within 3 years, expending approximately Rs.one crore. But neither there is any pleading in the complaint nor any evidence in this respect has been filed. In any case, after defect liability period, the OP will not liable for it.   

ORDER

In view of aforesaid discussions, the complaint is dismissed.