Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Kamble
Opponent absent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(04/12/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the builder and developer for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainants have purchased flat from the opponent by executing agreement dated 18/03/2008. The cost of the flat was Rs. 10 lacs. The commencement certificate for the construction of the ownership scheme was issued by the local authority on 17/5/2010. The opponent has agreed to deliver the possession of the flat within 18 months from the date of agreement. However, the opponent has not obtained occupation certificate while giving possession in Dec. 2010. The opponent has also left incomplete work of construction. External plaster was not completed, lift was not provided, society is not registered, water supply is irregular, no proper security is provided, parking arrangement is not proper and conveyance deed is not executed. The complainants have issued notice to the opponent as regards deficiency in service for not providing all the amenities and for incomplete construction. The opponent did not pay any heed to the said notice. Hence, the present complaint is filed against the opponent. The complainants have claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for deficiency in service and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for cost of the litigation.
2] The opponent though duly served remained absent, hence the complaint proceeded ex-parte against the opponent.
3] The complainants have produced voluminous documents, such as agreement between the parties, office copy of the notice, acknowledgement of the notice and the report of Government Registered Valuer Mr. Ravindra Bapat. On careful perusal and scrutiny of the said report, it reveals that the cost of the property has been shown as Rs. 25 lacs, even though it reveals from the agreement that it is Rs. 10 lac. While working out the deficiency in service, the Valuer has considered the deficiency in entire building and not with regards to the flat, which is purchased by the complainants. The Valuer in his report has opined that the cost of deficiencies is 20% of the entire cost of the flat by holding that the cost of the flat is Rs. 25 lacs. The complainants are not entitled for entire compensation for deficiency as regards the entire building. But they are entitled for compensation as regards deficiency in their flat only. It is not the case of the complainants that the present complaint is filed in representative capacity. In such circumstances, I held that the complainants are entitled for compensation for deficiencies, which has been shown in report as regards the flat belonging to them i.e. to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainants are also entitled for compensation on the ground of mental and physical sufferings and cost of the proceeding to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. In all the complainants are entitled for Rs. 30,000/- from the opponent. Hence the following order. In the result, I pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent
has caused deficiency in service.
3. The opponent is directed to pay total
amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand only) to the complainants
and take steps for formation of society
and execution of conveyance deed in
favour of society within six weeks from
the date of receipt of this order.
4. Copies of this order be furnished to the
parties free of cost.
5. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 04/12/2013
