Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 21/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.395/2003, K.T.Thomas and another v/s. M/s.T.S.Construction Co. and others, passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘forum’ in short). It is a case against the builder, firstly, alleging that against 680 sq.ft. built up area, a flat of 500 sq.ft. carpet area was provided and considering the ratio of carpet area and built up area as 1: 1.2, 80 sq.ft. less area was given and, therefore, possession to that extent is claimed.
It is further alleged that `3 lakhs were collected by the builder for providing car parking, superior work and for sit out adjacent to the living room, but since these facilities were not provided, alleging deficiency in service, further reliefs are claimed.
Forum came to the conclusion that complainant failed to establish his case and, therefore, dismissed the consumer complaint and feeling aggrieved thereby original complainant preferred this appeal.
Heard Mr.V.Mannadiar-Advocate for the appellant. Respondents absent in spite of notice to them. Respondent no.2 appeared through Advocate Ms.Pooja Chavan, but absent today and other respondents though given notice by publication, are absent.
It is a case of the complainant that orally it was agreed to give 680 sq.ft. built up area as per sample flat shown. Thus, admittedly, since it is only an oral assurance and not part of the written agreement dated 07/01/2002, it cannot be construed in terms of the contractual obligation in terms of deficiency in service on the part of the builder. Oral assurance is also not established. In fact when the terms of the agreement could be seen and looked into from the document which is entered between the parties, oral assurance has no meaning. Therefore, the forum rightly concluded that alleged oral agreement is not established by the complainant.
As per version of respondent/original opponent no.2 -Mr.R.D.Shinde, who is the owner of the property, builder was not given any authority to dispose of any stilt area. Besides that, in absence of any agreement on record it cannot be said that stilt parking was agreed to be provided and which is not provided. Admittedly, `3 lakhs were received by the builder but according to the builder it was received towards the additional amenities/ superior work provided and it is not disputed that any such additional/ superior work was not provided. Under the circumstances, the forum rightly concluded that complainant failed to substantiate his case. We find no fault with the impugned order.
For the reasons stated, we find appeal is devoid of any substance and hence the order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 16th August, 2011.
