Advocate Anandprakash R. Agrawal
for the complainants
Advocate M. V. Sahastrabudhe
for the Opponent Nos. 1 to 3
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 4th April 2013
This complaint is filed by flat owner against Builder and Promoter for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] The complainants are husband and wife. They had agreed to purchase a flat from the Opponents. The consideration of the flat was fixed as Rs.15,75,900/-. The complainants have paid the said amount from time to time. The Opponents had executed agreement before Sub-Registrar, Haveli 1 on 24/1/2008 and it was agreed that the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 12 months from the date of agreement. The complainants have paid balance amount by issuing cheques. However the opponents had not completed the work as per the agreement. They have not completed the coloring work, not provided lofts, tiles, water outlet fittings, w.c. pots. The Opponents have directed to get the work completed themselves. The complainants get the incomplete work completed by spending Rs.1,02,000/- for the same. The Opponents have not delivered the possession of the flat as per the agreement and delay of near about one year was caused for delivery of possession. Hence complainants have filed this complaint. Complainants have demanded Rs.1,92,000/- as compensation for causing delay in delivery of possession. Complainants have also asked completion certificate, copy of sanction plan and execution of conveyance deed and formation of society. The complainants have demanded Rs.55,000/- by way of compensation for mental and physical sufferings. The complainants have prayed Rs.1000/- as notice charges. The total claim of the complainant is Rs.3,50,000/-.
[2] The Opponent Nos. 4 appeared in person before the Forum on 26/9/2011 for himself and for the Opponent Nos. 5 and 6 but failed to file written version.
[3] The Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 resisted the claim of the complainants by filing written version. It is flatly denied by the Opponents that the complainants had spent expenses of Rs.1,02,000/- for coloring, fixation of tiles, water outlet fittings, fixation of w.c pots. It is also denied by the Opponents that there was delay in delivery of possession. According to them they have applied for completion certificate and are ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[4] Considering the pleadings and affidavits and documentary evidence which is produced on record by both parties as well as hearing argument of both counsel following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether the complainants proved that they had spent Rs.1,02,000/- for completion of the work as alleged ? | In the negative |
2 | Whether the complainants have proved that delay of one year was caused for delivery of possession? | In the negative |
3 | Whether the complainants have proved that opponents have caused deficiency in service by not supplying completion certificate, sanction plan, formation of society and by not executing conveyance deed ? | In the affirmative |
4 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed |
REASONS
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 4 -
The relation between the parties as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ is not disputed. It is also not disputed that opponents had agreed to sell out the flat to the complainants. The present complaint is filed on three grounds. The first ground is that the opponents have left the incomplete work in the disputed flat i.e. coloring was not done, the water outlet fittings were not done, tiles were not fixed, w.c. pots were not fixed and for that purpose the complainants were required to spend Rs.1,02,000/-. This fact is flatly denied by the opponents. The complainants have not produced any single document in order to support their contention. There are words against words as regards that contention. Hence I have no hesitation to held that the complainants have failed to prove that they had spent Rs.1,02,000/- for completion of the incomplete work.
The second ground of the complaint is that delay of 12 months was caused and hence compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- should be saddled with the opponents. According to the complainants as per the agreement possession of the disputed flat was to be delivered within 12 months from 1/12/2007. But the opponents have delivered the possession on 9/12/2009. The complainants have produced copy of agreement as well as possession letter and it reveals from the same that the dates which are mentioned on these documents are correct. It is the case of Opponents that eventhough the possession letter is showing the date 09/12/2009 the possession of the flat was actually delivered in the month of August 2008. In order to substantiate this fact the opponents have produced copies of electricity bills in the name of the complainants and it reveals from the same that the complainants had used the electricity for the said flat since November 2008. That means the actual possession of the flat was delivered as per the agreement. In such circumstances I held that there was no delay for delivery of possession of the said flat. Hence complainant is not entitled for compensation on that ground.
The third and the last contention in the complainants is that opponents have not provided completion certificate, they have not formed the society and not executed conveyance deed and thereby caused deficiency. As regards this claim the Opponents have produced certain documents which are showing that the Draft of Declaration Deed is prepared challan receipt as regards the amount is paid to the Corporation. But these documents are not sufficient to held that opponents had produced the completion certificate, copy of sanctioned plan, conveyance deed and formation of society. Hence I held that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service with that regard. In the light of the above discussion I held that Opponents have caused deficiency in service. Hence complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- in the present litigation. I answer points accordingly and pass the following order –
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that Opponents have caused deficiency in service by not executing conveyance deed, not providing sanction plan, completion certificate and formation of society.
3. Opponents are jointly and severally directed to execute conveyance deed, provide sanction plan, completion certificate and form the society within six weeks from the date of this Order.
4. Opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical and mental sufferings and Rs.1,000/- by way of costs of this litigation within six weeks from the date of this Order.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place-Pune
Date- 04/04/2013
rsc
