AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member
This Consumer Complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed on 25.05.2017.
The complainants purchased from Mahaluxmi Buildtech Consortium Pvt. Ltd. (OP hereafter) a flat against a consideration of Rs.60,80,100/-. Their case, in brief, is that they, attracted by an advertisement, approached the OP and were handed over an official booklet of the project. Relying upon the promises in this booklet, they visited the site office of the OP at Sector 14, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad and booked Flat No.809 in Mahaluxmi Homz. Possession of the said flat was taken on 04.04.2015 and the sale deed was signed and executed on 03.08.2015. As such, in this manner, the entire transaction between the parties was completed.
The complaint is about non-provisioning of some items promised by the OP in their booklet which, per the complaint, has not been provided and which therefore constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
During the proceedings, despite service of notice, no one appeared for the OP. Proof of dasti service on the OP was filed by the complainants. Despite that, when the matter was listed for final arguments on 11.12.2019, nobody appeared for the OP and so, the matter was heard ex-parte. The complainant no.1 argued in person and took the Bench through basic facts of the case.
He submitted that at the time of taking possession, on 04.04.2015, he had raised objections in respect of several items in the check list used for handing over and taking over of possession. As per check list, the following deficiencies had been pointed out:
(i) Kitchen- plastic emulsion wall and ceiling : only distemper, no plastic emersion;
(ii) Bedroom- plastic emulsion on walls and ceiling: only distemper, no plastic emulsion;
(iii) Plastic emulsion on walla and ceiling- only distemper, no plastic emulsion;
(v) Two branded geysers to be supplied.
The complainant however submitted that two branded geysers had since been supplied and therefore this part of the complaint may be treated as withdrawn.
The complainant in person further argued that there were two major deficiencies.
One was that the main gate promised in the project complex opening onto the Delhi Road had not been provided. He submitted that this was one of the chief reasons why this flat had been purchased by him. Now, with only one main gate opening on the U.P. side, it meant an extra drive of 3 to 4 km. each time.
The other main grievance was that a swimming pool had also been promised in the project. This was to be on the left side of entry into the complex from the main gate opening on the Delhi Road side. He argued that not only has the swimming pool not been provided so far, the said area has now been used for basement and parking purpose. As such, it is unlikely that the promised swimming pool will ever materialise.
He therefore argued that OP be directed to address these two major deficiencies viz. the main gate and the swimming pool, and to, as per the written plaint, pay the complainant (i) Rs 30,00,000/- for mental agony etc, (ii) Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation charges; (iii) Rs. 10,00,000/- towards interest paid by the complainant on home loan, and (iv) interest on the amount paid to the OP @ 18% per annum pendent.
As earlier noted, this complaint is not about not having received possession or about delay in receiving possession. Rather, it is about promises in the booklet not kept. This is in two parts. One part relates to items promised but not provided in the flat per se. The other part is the non-provisioning of the main gate opening onto the Delhi road and the swimming pool.
As far as items related to the flat itself are concerned, of his own admission, only the following defects remain:
(i) Application for plastic emulsion instead of distemper in certain areas;
(ii) Powder coated aluminum glazing in windows.
In so far as these items specific to the complainants flat are concerned, it is directed that OP provide plastic emulsion on the areas as provided in the check list at the time of possession and also provide aluminum glazing in the window as promised.
Coming to the main gate and the swimming pool, these are admittedly common facilities, relating to the entire society and all the occupants therein, and therefore, any direction on these cannot be justly passed in the absence of the other complainants and the OP. These are deficiencies to be addressed by the project Society and the OP. No order can be passed on these two matters on the basis of this individual complaint.
In view of the brief discussion above, this consumer complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to make good the deficiency in service established in respect of providing plastic emulsion and aluminum glazing in windows, as promised and as provided in the check list at the time of possession. It is further directed that these be completed, within three months of the date of receipt of this order.