Advocate Prakash Tondare for the complainant
Advocate Priti Bhat for the opponents
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-*-*-**-**-*-*-*-**-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 12th December 2013
This complaint is filed by housing society against builder and developer for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] The members of the complainant society have purchased flats from the opponents which are situated at Bavdhan (Kd), Tal. Mulshi. They have paid entire consideration alongwith expenses. The possession of the flats was handed over to them. The quality of the flats was very poor. The opponents have failed to construct the office room of 12 sq.mtr for the society’s office. There is heavy leakage from the two over head water tanks, levelling of the ground is not proper. Compound wall was not properly constructed which fell down on 20/9/2010. The building is not painted properly. The electrical wiring is of low grade. No decorative entrance is provided. Moreover, the Opponents have created 12 conjested stilt car parking places without sanctioning it through PMC and charged Rs.50,000/- per flat holders as the consideration of car parking. The Opponents have also sold out common open terrace to Shri. Shirish Kher and Shri. Vanaja Vaidyanathan. The Opponents have not executed conveyance deed hence the complainant society has filed this complaint and claimed compensation for various defects and deficiencies to the tune of Rs.19,80,000/-.
[2] The opponents initially appeared and filed application that the total claim of the complainants is above Rs.22,00,000/-. Hence, Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Subsequently, the complainant has amended the claim and reduced the same to the tune of Rs.19,80,000/-. Thereafter, the opponents have not filed any written version and resisted the claim hence this complaint is decided on the basis of documents, affidavit and pleadings of complainant. The complainant has produced correspondence between complainant and opponent, copy of agreements which are showing that the opponent has sold out common terrace to one two flat owners. Complainants have also contended that the opponents have sold out 12 conjested illegal parkings. It reveals from the occupation certificate that only 12 parkings were sanctioned by corporation. However, the opponents have sold out 12 parking in addition to those parking. Thus, the opponents have sold out common area to individuals, that amount to gross deficiency in service.
[3] Complainants have claimed compensation on various counts i.e. for selling out common area to individuals, for not executing conveyance deed, for demolition of compound wall due to poor quality of construction. Allegations made by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the affidavit are not at all rebutted by the opponents. After considering the nature of dispute and documentary evidence which is produced by the complainant and which is not rebutted by the opponents, this Forum come to the conclusion that the lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- would meet ends of justice for deficiency in service and defects in the construction.
We answer the points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant society and shall pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant society within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
3. If the amount is not paid or deposited within the stipulated period, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
4. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date – 12/12/2013
