Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/405/2015

M/s.Sridharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Pratishta Associates - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Sree Sun Associates and Vijay Anand

15 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 01.10.2015

Date of Reservation      : 19.05.2022

Date of Order               : 15.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.405/2015

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr. S. Sridharan

Flat No.E-207, 2^nd Floor,

E-Block, Brindavan Apartments,

No.67, Cross Road, New washermenpet,

Chennai – 600 081.                                                       …   Complainant                          

 

..Vs..

1.M/s Pratishta Associates

   Rep. by its Partner,

   Mrs.B. V. Manjula,

   Regd., office at Flat No.S-13, TNHB Complex,

   No.4/180, Luz Church Road,

   Mylapore,Chennai- 600 004.                                    … 1^st Opposite Party

 

2.M/s Advaita Homes

   Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

   Mr. B. Raja Reddy,

   Regd., office at Flat No.7,

   1^st floor, Archana Complex,

   No.10, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar,

   Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ...2^nd Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant             : M/s. M.Vijay Anand

Counsel for the Opposite Parties        : M/s. P. Subba Reddy

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member – I,Thiru. T. R. Sivakumhar.,B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for non-completion of project in time and for not providing the amenities as assured in the Developer Agreement and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards mental agony, strain and stress and financial loss to the Complainant and to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Case of the Complainant is that during the month of October  2010, the 1^st Opposite Party had approached the Complainant for selling their Housing flats constructed under the name of “Brindavan Apartments” at Plot No.67, Cross Road, New Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 081. On perusal of the project the Complainant herein by trusting the words of the 1^st Opposite Party accepted to buy a flat in the said project. On 05.03.2011 a Developer agreement was entered in to between Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party for construction of a Housing Flat admeasuring 1365 Sq.ft., in the E Block Second Floor of the project “Brindavan” and on the said date as per the said developer agreement the entire sale consideration for the schedule property is fixed as Rs.47,65,111/- which includes all taxes and charges on the said date Complainant have paid a sum of Rs.4,77,000/- as advance and after subsequent payments the 1^st Opposite Party registered the undivided share of land to an extent of 755.06 sq.ft., in Complainant’s favour by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.4183 of 2011, dated 28.11.2011. The entire amount Rs.47,65,111/- was paid in full whereas the 1^st Opposite Party has not completed the said project as assured. Due to the strenuous efforts taken by him, they got the possession of their flat only during the month of September 2013. The 1^st Opposite Party failed to handover the amenities with proper specifications as assured by him in the developer agreement. The Complainant reposed full confidence upon the 1^st Opposite Party, occupied their flat and waited for the completion and handing over of amenities as per the specifications termed in the Developer agreement. The 1^st Opposite Party also assured that they will complete all the amenities in full with proper approvals and specifications as mentioned in the said Developer agreement within a short time. The 1^st Opposite Party got their signatures in documents created by him. Thus being so, despite lapse of several months time 1^st Opposite Party did not turned up. During the month of September 2013, complainant along with other flat owners started asking for the common amenities as per the specifications in the Developer agreement. The  Opposite Parties got shocked because, there is none of the amenities provided by them with proper approvals and specifications as per the Developer agreement. Consequently Complainant along with other flat owners made several oral representations to both the Opposite Parties but they never ever cared to hear the same. As per the Developer agreement the individual and common amenities has to be completed and handed over by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, which were in violation of developer agreement that were in common not provided by the Opposite Parties as per ANNEXURE-B of the Developer Agreement in respect of Common Amenities and facilities such as Common area flooring would be Green, white Marble / Polished Granite,All taps and other fitting will be Jaquar continental or equivalent, Standard make Lifts, Security will be provided at an appropriate place and Security Intercom,24/7 Security system, swimming Pool,Fitness Centre,RO Plant,Car / Two wheeler parking facility,Electrical Cable lines and other underground laid pipelines markings with proper instrument and also with many of the Internal defects in the home/Flat of the Complainant, of Cracks in the wall of living room and two bedrooms in East and West side,Water logging in the bathroomsdue to improper laying of tiles by the builder, Foul smell coming from water taps if unused even for a day or two, Poor material quality of windows and poor quality of workmanship with many imperfections, most of the bath fitting has rusted, Poor quality of granite provided for the Kitchen slab, Electrical switches provided were of extreme poor quality, Main entrance door provided was of poor teak wood quality, lock provided was of inferior quality and malfunctioned. Keeping the house safety in mind changed the door and lock at my own cost, Balocony tiles provided was of extreme poor quality, Floor tile quality was poor, some places dampness couldbe observed due to improper filing of the floor and workman ship quality was of poor standads leading to visible imperfections, water seeping through the sunshades during rain and the complete bedroom floor was filed with water during rains, poor quality of sunshade and gap in the window fittings was one of the main reason, the plastering of wall is peeling in many places probably due to poor quality of cement mortar mix, and poor quality of sand and / or cement might have been used, none of the interior wall surfaces have been properly filled with putty and leveling has not been done properly resulting in most of the interior walls having exposed patches on the plastered surfaces, uneven plastering has shown undulations in the wall surfaces and all these factors combines make the building look such older than its actual age, the interior flush doors supplied by the builder are also of very poor quality and these doors were not long lasting, the door frames were not made to proper size and were not in plumb. Due to the persistent problem of termites, Complainant had to go in for anti-termite treatment and pest control on yearly basis. Had the anti-termite treatment and pest control been done at the time of construction, this would have been avoided. This was an additional financial burden of the Complainant, hardware used for each flat was of a very inferior quality. The specification asked was for Aluminium hardware, but the supplied stuff was power coated MS hardware which has not lasting for long, Due to such inferior and below-grade hardware has resulted in some of the bathroom doors to sag, leading to the doors not closing properly. And also had grievances on specifically on Foundation, Walls & Super Structure, External Wall Plastering,  Water supply, sewerage Work & Storm Water drainage systems, Stairs, Terraces, Water Supplied for common usage, Documentation issues like providing the property Tax card, CMDA approval copies, Service Tax receipt copy which we paid to the builder, Patta of the land till today, which was highlighted in the complaint.

Further Complainant flat was a 3BHK one, in almost all the walls in the 3 Bed Rooms have major Cracks, the Hall wall also having major cracks, the bathroom fittings and the tiles used in the flat is totally of inferior quality and used very sub-standard materials as fixtures and fittings. The doors and windows were also having gaps and all are made up of sub-standard woods not as mentioned in the agreement.

After several enquires, Complainant came to understand about the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties were in collusion and committing fraud, except to compel both the Opposite Parties to complete the amenities,hence, the 1^st Opposite Party by way of letter dated 19.12.2013 informed Complainant about the formation of association and also thereby both the Opposite Parties demanded for the payment of maintenance charges from 01.01.2014. As mentioned in the said letter the 2^ndOpposite party conducted a meeting on 22.12.2013 whereby Complainant along with other flat owners demanded the completion of amenities and the 2^nd Opposite Party assured orally for rectification and concluded the said meeting. Right from the date of entering in to the Developer agreement the Opposite Partiescheated the Complainant along with other flat owners. Despite several chances given to the Opposite Parties they have not cared to rectify their mistakes, which caused the Complainant to cause letter on 12.07.2014 but the Opposite Parties kept on demanding maintenance charges and failed to reply specifically to Complainant’ demands and to carry out the pending works in the said project. As per the said terms of the said Developer agreement the Opposite Parties never constructed the amenities and they had not provided the same as per the specifications and the not even got proper approvals from the authorities concern for running the lifts and other amenities installed in the complex. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorities (CMDA) issued demolition notices for the unauthorized construction done by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties had collected a huge sum as Corpus fund from all the flat owners, even after specific demand to provide the details of the Corpus Fund, the same was being enjoying illegally and failed to provide the details. And the Opposite Patties till date not provided the necessary service tax paid certificate which was specifically collected from them. Though they were ready and willing to pay the maintenance charges after proper completion and handling over of the common amenities as per the specifications and approvals from the concerned authorities and Complainant have informed the same through various letters by RPAD dated 30.12.2013, 10.07.2014 and also by a letter dated 18.08.2014, but the Opposite Parties had not shown any interest. Even after the receipt of several reminders and reply the Opposite Parties herein sent a letter dated 24.10.2014 by registered post on 02.11.2014 and thereby demanded a huge sum as maintenance charges and also threatened, as the same would affect complainant’ daily life and due to the same huge mental agony and monetary loss may affect them and their family members also and an irreparable injury to them,  they were forced to file a Civil Suit in O.S. No.2172 of 2015 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai for permanent injunction restraining the Opposite Parties from demanding maintenance charges and form discontinuing services provided to the Complainant Flat till the handing over of the amenities with proper specifications by them more fully described in the developer agreement dated 05.03.2011. Apart from all the above deficiencies and misrepresentations the Opposite Parties herein constructed an unauthorized flat in the basement of the Block-E and registered the same in a third party’s name, who is the daughter of the 1^st Opposite Party thereby committed fraud and by the same, they shattered the U.D.S allotted to all the flat owners. Hence the Complaint.

3.  Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

        The complaint is not maintainable as the compensation can be obtained by the individual flat owner only for the deficiency of service but not for non production of the common amenities under the banner of unrecognized association. In the instant case, the Complainant was delivered the apartment space three years ago. Because of few members in the Association where there are 128 flats and these 4 persons for selfish motive in order to meet their selfish end by filing  these frivolous complaints causing inconvenience to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant do not have any locus standi to file such complaints as an individual owner of the apartment space, the present complaint was filed only in order to harass these Opposite Parties. Name of the 1^st Opposite was changed from 1^st July 2013 to M/s. Advaita Homes. Thus, the 2^nd Opposite Party is representing both the organizations. The complaint has been filed by an individual flat owner who bought Flat No.B-305, 3^rd Floor, Brindavan Apartments, No.67, Cross Road, New Washermentpet, Chennai-81, admeasuring 1525 sq.ft in the “B” Block, 3^rd floor, and paid a sale consideration of Rs.69,11,470/-. It is incorrect to state that the Complainant has reposed confidence on the builder. The Complainant was fully aware of all the works done by these Opposite Party and after satisfying himself on the entire premises only, this                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Complainant had taken possession of the apartment premises. No signature in the documents obtained from the Complainant, they had not created any documents in order to obtain signature from the Complainant. The entire premises were developed after obtaining proper approvals from the appropriate authorities and there was no fault at any point of time. The Complainant filed this present complaint only on the instigations of 3^rd parties in order to cause harm and hardship to the Opposite Parties. The allegations was not the individual issue but it is a  common issue, as referred above the Complainant has no locus standi to claim any compensation in respect of the common amenities because the members of the apartment complex excepting the Complainant in CC.No.405 to 408 of 2016 have formed an association and named it as “Brindavan Flat Owners Association” registered under the Societies Act, 1975. The Complainant under the capacity of the purchasers cannot claim for the compensation for the common amenities is concerned and moreover it is the fact that the above complaint has been filed only with the motive of plucking the portion of the sale consideration. The Opposite Party denies the allegations set out in respect of cracks and bathroom fittings etc., though the allegations was made previous, the Complainant once again wants to emphasize the complaint which clearly shows the crook intention of the Complainant. According to development agreement, the Builder was committed to maintain the entire premises for a period of 6 months and thereafter the association will be formed. The association will take care of entire maintenance. In practical the complaints prevented other members to form the association and thus created chaos in the entire complex and thus prevented us to form an association. Finally with great difficulties, majority of the members got agitate, frustrated against the activities of these Complainant / members and thereafter majority of the members decided to form a new association by electing office bearers democratically and by that procedure they elect democratically and the office bearers were appointed and such attempt has been disturbed by the Complainant and his association members.  The Complainant were at the intention of enjoying the entire premises without paying any money either to the Opposite Party or to the present registered association and moreover their relief will show there ill motive to enjoy all the services without paying maintenance charges, ultimately this Opposite Party has not cheated the Complainant, but it is only the Complainant who cheated the Opposite Party by enjoying all the amenities without paying any money to the Opposite Party. There was no such rectification works pending during the handing over possession of the apartment space and as far as the allegations in respect of other common amenities the individual flat owner is not entitled to claim any compensation against the Opposite Party. The erections and functioning of lifts and the generators were in accordance with the proper approvals from the concerned authorities and also being renewed regularly every year till now. The project is not within the purview of unauthorized construction, C.M.D.A has not issued the demolition notice against the erection of lifts and generators, but the alleged notice was sent by the C.M.D.A in respect of the office room situated in the ground floor of the apartment complex and the said office room constructed by the Opposite Party at the time of construction of the project and it was constructed only for exclusive use of the associates and workers of the Opposite Parties and it was likely to be demolished but thereafter only at the request of majority of flat owners the said office room was not demolished. It is only an additional facility for the all the flat owners and not for he builder. Further the said office room is only about 1600 sq.ft in measurement, which is not even 0.9% percent of the approved plan therefore such office room falls within permissible deviation limits of CMDA. Moreover it is very peculiar to note that none of the demolition notice has been filed in the list of documents Column in the complaint. Moreover it is very peculiar to note that none of the demolition notice has been filed in the list of documents column in the complaint. The Opposite Party has reposed the interest in the completion of the project, it was the fact that the present project was a dream project and at each and every level the Opposite Parties have given highest interest in completing the project. The opposite Party also denies the allegations in respect of the failure to construct the building as per the F.S.I. the Complainant failed to understand that the completion certificate will be issued by C.M.D.A to the promoters after satisfying the deviation parameters at all levels and in the instant case the C.M.D.A has issued the completion certificate. The Complainant being the member of the unrecognized association is not entitled to question the Opposite Parties with regard to the 1.maintenance charges for 6 months 2. Infrastructure charges 3. Corpus fund, as the Complainant had taken possession of the property on 2013 itself, 6 months maintenance period was expired, the maintenance period is over in all the blocks and the period is expired more than 30 months ago and in respect of Block C and E the maintenance period was expired before 01.01.2014.

It was also the fact that the Opposite Party has been spent in average towards of Rs.2,10,000/- p.m the maintenance if the entire building till the date 31.01.2016. Maintenance amount of Rs.2,10,000/- p.m and till now the total expense has come to Rs.53,65,970/- even now the Complainant wants to live on the flat at the cost of the Opposite Parties is improper and illegal and in respect of the infrastructure and corpus fund, the Complainant has no locus standi to claim compensation against these Opposite Parties by being the member of the unrecognized association. The association which is consisting of 11 members as office bearers, now 6 members were rescind and became a defunk now it is not a legal and lawful body of the association. However the break up of the infrastructure have been explained to the registered association and it is the fact that the builder is entitled to maintain the entire premises as per the norms stipulated by C.M.D.A for the period of 6 months from the date of handing over possession, and in this case admittedly the possession of major flats were handed over by 01.06.2013, and accordingly the Opposite Parties were supposed to maintain the property only until 31.12.2013 and thereafter handover the maintenance to the lawful association until 03.05.2016, the Opposite Party being handicapped was forced to use the corpus fund for the maintenance of the premises. Only because of the ill acts of the Complainant and few others jointly and severally, that the corpus fund was utilized for maintenance, thus the amount has to be compensated to the flat owners only by Complainant and few others who have acted jointly and severally. The Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint under the banner of association because the said association is unrecognized 6 members out of 11 members already resigned and sent their resignation letter to registration of societies and moreover the majority of the members formed the new association and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975 and thereby this Complainant is only causing the nuisance in the schedule mentioned property and no way entitled to any claims as referred in the complaint.

3.   The Complainant submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14 were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted their Written Version and had not filed their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and their evidence was closed. On the side of the Opposite Parties, no document was marked.

4.Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint and to what other relief/s the Complainant are entitled for?

Point No.1 :-

Admittedly the Complainant is the owner of a Flat developed by the Opposite Parties. Ex.A1 is the Developer Agreement dated 05.03.2011 entered into between the 1^st Opposite Party and  the Complainant.

The contention of the Complainant is that while handing over of the possession of their flat during May 2013, the 1^st Opposite Party had failed to provide and hand over the amenities with proper specification as assured in the Developer Agreement (Ex.A1), the 1^st Opposite Party had also assured to complete the amenities in full with proper approvals and specifications as mentioned in the developer Agreement. During month of September 2013 the Complainant and other flat owners demanded for common amenities to be provided and to be handed over by the 1^st Opposite Party, as none of the amenities provided by them with proper approvals and specifications as per the Developer Agreement the Opposite Parties got shocked, which caused the Complainant and other flat owners to make oral representation to the Opposite Parties, who remained silent.

        The further contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties had failed to provide individual and common amenities as the same were not completed and handed over to the Complainant and to other flat owners and had listed the same which would be in violation of the developer Agreement like flooring, taps and fittings, standard lifts, security intercom, security system, Swimming pool, Fitness centre, RO Plant, Car / Two Wheeler Parking facility, Electricity cable lines and other underground laid pipeline markings, of which most of them were not provided by the 1^st Opposite Party and the provisions of certain above mentioned items were not as per the proper approvals and specifications of the developer Agreement. Further the Complainant had listed the defects in their flat made by the 1^st Opposite Party, with regard to major cracks in all the walls, bathroom fittings and tiles used were of inferior quality, very sub-standard materials as fixtures and fittings, the doors and windows with gaps and cracks, doors and windows made up of substandard woods and the same were not done as agreed under the Developer Agreement.

        The Complainant further contended that only after making several enquiries he come to know that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties where in collusion and having lost his hope that the Opposite Parties would rectify the defects as well as provide all the amenities as per the specifications assured by the 1^st Opposite Party under Ex.A1. But the 1^st Opposite Party by their letter dated 19.12.2013 intimated about formation of association and also demanded for payment of maintenance charges from 01.01.2014 in continuance to the said letter the 2^nd Opposite Party conducted the meeting on 22.12.2013 wherein the Complainant along with other flat owners demanded for completion of amenities which was orally agreed by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Though, agreed the Opposite Parties had not come forward in completing the amenities which caused the Complainant to send a reply dated 30.12.2013 which is Ex.A3. The demand of maintenance charges made by the Opposite Parties, made the complainant along with other flat owners to form an association by name “New washermenpet-Brindavan Apartment Owners Association”, bearing Registration No.435/2013 registered under Societies Registration Act. The Complainant thereafter had sent a letter dated 12.07.2014 demanding to resort his grievances as well the grievances in common, which is Ex.A4 and on receipt of Ex.A4 the Opposite Parties sent another letter dated 30.07.2014 again demanding the maintenance charges for which the Complainant was made to give a detailed reply on 18.8.2014 which is Ex.A5.

        Further contention of the Complainant is that inspite of their repeated requests and demands made to the Opposite Parties in completing the project  by providing the amenities to the complainant as well as to the other flat owners in common as assured under the Developer agreement, surprisingly the Opposite Parties had not obtained permission for running the lifts and other amenities installed in the complex were without proper sanction from the concerned authorities. Further the Opposite Parties had not completed the project in time as fixed for completion and handing over the amenities as per the developer agreement. Further the Opposite Parties failed to construct the building as per the F.S.I provided by the Development Authorities in the approved plan and also had failed to provide the building plan as well as the built up area and corporate area of the Complainant’s Flat. The Complainant had sent a letter on 18.08.2014 Ex.A-5 to the Opposite Parties as a last resort demanding the works to be completed in common and also demanded about the particulars of amount paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. It is further contended that the Opposite Party had collected huge sum as corpus fund from all the flat owners and the details of which had not been provided even after specific demand made, hence the Opposite Parties were duty bound to hand over entire corpus fund along with accrued interest to the association formed.

Though the Complainant was ready and willing to pay the maintenance charges but only after proper completion and handing over of the common amenities as per the specifications and approvals from the concerned authorities. Further contended that due to threat of non-continuance of maintenance charges towards common services through the letter dated 24.10.2014 sent by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant were forced to file a civil suit in O.S.No.2172 of 2015 before the Hon’ble VII City Civil Court, Chennai for permanent injunction present the Opposite Parties demanding the maintenance charges and from discontinuing services provided.

The Opposite Parties contended that they had constructed and completed the project along with the common amenities as assured under the Developer Agreement (Ex.A1) and also as per the sanctioned plan, the allegations that were made by the Complainant are not true and the Complainant have no locus standi to file his complaint seeking for completion of common amenities when there is a registered association formed by the majority of the flat owners. The Opposite Parties further contended that there were no deficiencies much less alleged in the complaint as they have provided all the amenities more specifically highlighted by the Complainant in this complaint, but with regard to the swimming pool the contention of the Opposite Party is that the same was provided initially and later it was closed on the complaint given by the Complainant, for which even now they have pursuing for reopening through CMDA, if at all the Complainant being the individual owner is not entitled to claim for the same as the same is a common issue. With regard to the installation of transformer at the entrance as alleged by the Complainant, were not promised by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties further contended that they had constructed an office room for exclusive use of the associates and workers of the Opposite Parties and the same was likely to be demolished but at the request of majority of flat owners was not demolished. Even otherwise the said room measures about 1600 sq.ft is with the permissible deviation limits of CMDA and hence the UDS allotted to the Complainant is not disturbed.

It is clear from the admission made by the Opposite Parties that the  swimming pool is not presently available as assured in the developer agreement, to the use of the Complainant or to the other flat owners, as the same was closed because of the Complaint given by the Complainant and they are pursuing for reopening of the same through CMDA, is not sustainable, as the swimming pool available earlier on proper approval the same would not have been closed on any aspects and with regard to the other common amenities the Opposite Parties had submitted that they have provided the same as per the CMDA approved plan. The Opposite Parties had failed to rectify the defects in the flat of the Complainant which is found in Ex.A-7 and also failed to provide the commitments made in the developer agreement dated 05.03.2011 entered into between the Opposite Parties and the Complainant, further as agreed and assured to the Complainant the amenities and facilities mentioned in the development agreement dated 05.03.2011, the Complainant can very well maintain this complaint in respect of any defects in common amenities and facilities. The Complainant contended that the non execution of Deed of Apartment by the 1^st Opposite Party by furnishing the details of amenities provided with proper specification and get the Deed of Apartment registered which is compulsory under Tamilnadu Apartment ownership Act, 1994, which the 1^st Opposite Party failed to do so. The Judgments referred by the Complainant, reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd –Vs- Hilli - Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd passed on 04.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of extension of filing of Written Version beyond 45 days is not permited, does not apply to the case in hand, and another Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Faqir Chand Gulati –Vs- Uppal Agencies Pvt Ltd. & Another dated 10.07.2008 relying the Complainant is a consumer as well as entitled to seek for deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties.

Hence, this Commission holds that the act of the Opposite Parties by not rectifying the defects in the Complainant flat in spite of his repeated requests and demands and also by not providing the common amenities in complete usage to the Complainant as assured in Annexure A and B to the Developer Agreement, amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for not completing the project by proving all common amenities in time and for not providing  the amenities especially the swimming pool and having caused disturbance to the Complainant’s undivided share in the land and also for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  by way of general compensation for deficiency of service and also for towards mental agony, strain and stress and financial loss to the Complainant and for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s.

        In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs Only) for non-completion of the project in time and for not providing  the amenities especially for the swimming pool and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony, strain and stress and financial loss to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 15^th of June 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                 T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

       MEMBER II                            MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	05.03.2011	Copy of the Developer agreement entered between the Complainant and the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A2	28.11.2011	Copy of the Sale deed executed in favour  of the Complainant by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A3	30.12.2013	Copy of reply letter to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	12.07.2014	Copy of letter to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	18.08.2014	Copy of reply letter to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A6		Copy of proof of acknowledgements
Ex.A7		Photographs

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Nil

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT