A.T. Buildcon Private Limited vs Akshata Seth

The complainant / respondent entered into a transaction with the petitioner for purchased of a residential flat. A sale deed in favour of the complainant was executed on 8.3.2012. As per the possession clause contained in the sale deed, the possession was to be delivered within six months after receiving the entire price including maintenance charges. Thus the possession ought to have been delivered by 8.9.2012.

The complainant vide letter dated 3.9.2012 requested certain modification in the flat. The said modifications were specified in a letter dated 3.9.2012 and are detailed as under:-

"(i) Wall in front of bathroom upto slab height

(ii) Washing Area

(iii) Pooja Room

(iv) ........at roof"

The respondent having not completed the work, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint filed in April, 2013.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company which interalia maintained in its reply that in the event of non-availability of building material and labour, the time for delivery of possession was extendable. It was further stated that the possession was offered to the complainant in September, 2012 but he gave instructions for making changes in the flat and the said modifications work was in progress.

The District Forum vide its order dated 28.12.2013 directed as under:-

"On the basis of total discussion the partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP that within one month from the date of order.

A. The OP will without delay complete the work of flat No. A-503, A.T. Buildcon Block A 5th Floor and will give possession to the Complainant.

B. The OP will pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% from 17-04-2013.

C. The OP will pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment to the complainant.

D. The OP will pay the amount of Rs.5000/- for advocate fees and cost of suit."

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

It is evident from the report of the architect dated 25.6.2013 that the work in the flat was not complete on the date the inspection was carried out by the architect. This is petitioner's own case that in January 2014 they had filed an application before the State Commission stating therein that the work had been completed. Thus, the work was complete at the earliest by January 2014. The work ought to have been completed by 8.9.2012, without including the time period required for the modifications desired by the complainant. Considering the nature of modifications desired by the complainant, at best the time could be extended by three months. Therefore, after carrying out the modifications, the possession ought to have been delivered by December, 2012. That having not been done and the possession having been offered by way of an application filed before the State Commission in January 2013, the order for payment of compensation was fully justified.

However, the Fora below have not awarded any amount to the petitioner for the extra work which the complainant had sought in the flat. No evidence was led by the complainant to prove the value of the additional/extra work carried out by the petitioner at her instance. The petitioner has placed on record the details showing the cost of extra work and the amount payable for the extra work comes to Rs.143612/-. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the amount given by the petitioner needs to be accepted.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the Fora below is modified to the extent that out of the amount payable to the complainant in terms of the orders passed by the said Fora, the petitioner would be entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.143612/- towards the cost of the extra work. The balance payment shall be made without three months from today. The revision petition stands disposed of.