DILIP KUMAR vs GULNAR BUILDERS

THIS is an original complaint against the aforesaid party filed by the complainants jointly, complaining deficiency in service in construction of flats built by the opposite party.

THESE very flat owners had earlier also filed a complaint against this very opposite party through a Society formed by the complainants. That Complaint No. 199/93 was dismissed vide letter dated24.10.1994 as withdrawn on the ground that no leave was sought for representation by the Society. After that the complaint having been withdrawn, this complaint was filed by the complainants jointly on the very same grounds which according to the opposite party is barred by res judicata. The opposite party further argued that this complaint is not maintainable as the complainants have not made Society as joint party in the proceedings and that the earlier complaint was withdrawn as a result of an agreement executed between the two parties and filed before the State Commission stating therein that the complaint shall be withdrawn.

Before coming to the merits of the case we find that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the deficiencies pointed out except the report of the Commissioner Mr. G.S. Palnitkar, who was appointed as Commissioner by the State Commission with the consent of the parties. As such this report alone has to be the basis for an order in the instant case. The Commissioner inspected these flats on 22.8.1999 in presence of the Counsels for the opposite party and some of the flat owners.

MAIN points of the Commission's report are as under : (1) As regards water proofing treatment over the roof, cement plaster over the RCC slab appears to have been provided. No standard water proofing treatment has been made. (2) Looking to the vast area of the roof adequate cross slope to drain out the storm water should have been provided which has not been done with the result that all the flats constructed at the top floor have got leakage/seepage in the roof. (3) Mosaic tile flooring done in the flats is of mosaic tiles of white cement and the quality of these tiles is found satisfactory. It is true that in some flats uniform pattern of tiles have not been adopted. (4) No covered parking space for parking motor-cars and scooters has been provided in the complex, with the results occupants have got to park their vehicle in the open space and exposed weather. (5) Though original approved drawing provided entry from south side also but it has been found closed from south side as the covered space shown in the plan at G.F. has been utilised in the construction of flats. (6) As regards structural deficiency of the RCC columns in the basement no comments can be offered at this stage since the entire basement on eastern side has been completely filled in with earth. (7) Out of the four overhead tanks provided on the terrace floor three have been provided with steel ladder. (8) The electrical cables to individual flat connection from the motor room was provided through a drain covered with stone slab. But this proved ineffective due to entry of surface water in the drain, rodent problem and became ineffective. The occupants have now taken direct connection from the meter to their flats through open insulated wire. This has resulted in jumbling of electric wire and chances of cross connections/damage cannot be ruled. The entire system needs to be checked by a competent electrical authority to ensure safety of the occupants. (9) However no structural deficiency was observed in the flats inspected.

The complainants have also filed this complaint after several years of taking possession of the flats and as stated by the Commissioner, no structural deficiency was found in the flats. Absence of covered parking place is not a deficiency because this must have been known to the complainants even before commencement of the construction of the flats. Besides this, the complainants have also not furnished any authentic statement about the expenditure likely to be incurred in removal of any kind of deficiency pointed out by them.

AS such we feel that award of a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing the complaint to each of the complainants will meet the ends of justice, for the minor deficiencies pointed out in the Commissioner's report. We, therefore, direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of filing the complaint, to each of the complainants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Appeal disposed of.