The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Shri Bharatkumar Pandya, has partly allowed a complaint filed by Tirupati Devi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. against M/s Raja Construction Company & Ors., holding that handing over possession without obtaining the Occupation Certificate and carrying out construction beyond the sanctioned plan constituted a continuing deficiency in service.

Facts:

The complainant, Tirupati Devi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising 33 members occupying 25 flats in Balaji Apartments, Mumbai, entered into a redevelopment agreement with M/s Raja Construction Company on March 14, 2005. Under the agreement, the builder was required to demolish the existing buildings, construct new flats and provide them to the members free of cost.

The builder handed over possession to the flat owners from 2008-09 onwards but allegedly failed to provide the sanctioned building plans and Occupation Certificate (OC). An RTI application subsequently revealed deviations from the sanctioned plans, including substantial additional construction.

The Society consequently filed a consumer complaint in 2013, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and sought compensation for delayed construction, variation in flat area, regularisation expenses and non-provision of the Occupation and Completion Certificates.

Contentions of the builder:

The builder denied the allegations and argued that the complaint was not maintainable, barred by limitation and involved excessive claims. It contended that the members had accepted possession of their flats and that any delay in obtaining the Occupation Certificate was attributable to alterations made by the members themselves. The builder also disputed the Society's right to maintain the complaint without impleading all members or obtaining the necessary permission.

Observations and decision:

The Commission observed that the builder had committed serious and continuing deficiency in service by handing over possession without obtaining the Occupation Certificate and by carrying out substantial construction beyond the sanctioned plan. It rejected the builder's contention that illegal construction by the members was responsible for the absence of the OC.

The Commission held that the builder was responsible for obtaining the OC and bearing the necessary regularisation and related charges. It also found that the Society was entitled to compensation for the prolonged absence of the OC, risk of demolition, mental agony and additional expenses.

Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed. The builder and its partners were held jointly and severally liable and directed to obtain the OC within 12 months and pay ₹6 crore compensation to the Society within three months, failing which the amount would carry 8% simple interest. The Commission also awarded ₹10 lakh towards litigation costs.

Appearances:

For the Complainants : Mr. Akshay Shrivastava, Ms. Sumbul Ismail, Mr. Tanishq Sirohi, Ms. Khushi Singhal, Advocates

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Mr. Sameer Tiwari, Advocates

Case no.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 45 OF 2013

Case Title: Tirupati Devi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Raja Construction Company & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order