AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner came out with a project, namely, 'Vasundhra Farms Phase-II' consisting of houses on plots of different sizes. The special features of the project, highlighted in the brochure issued by the petitioner were as under:-
· Farm land from 10,000 sq. ft. to 16,500 sq. ft. one tine investment that also in easy instalments, lifelong holidays, within affordable reach.
· 150 domestic plants for every farm, option for communal plantation of Rose garden to pay you assured rich returns.
· Water supply and electricity to every farm with an additional generator common to all.
· Telephone to every farm.
· Round O clock security.
· An easy approach metal road to every farm.
· Complete fencing to total land and secured barbed wire fencing to every farm with gate.
· Green and fresh atmosphere.
· Annual maintenance contracts at very nominal charges.
· TV/ Disk Antenna connection to each farm.
· T.V./V.C.R./extra tents will be made available on very nominal rent to farm house holders."
The rates included -
"1. Cost of land with total development of road, water, electricity, telephone and common fencing to entire land.
480 sq. ft. construction (for 10000 sq. ft. land) with cable TV. connections.
Membership for adjoining resort.
Cost of Rose and Teak plants.
Drip irrigation system upto each farmhouse.
Family lawn with fountain.
Cost of plantation and manures/fertilizers etc.
Experts fees and buy back arrangements for farm produce.
Barbed wire fencing on individual plots with gate.
Children park with swing/seasaw in each plot."
The complainant booked plot No.9 admeasuring 0.23 acre in the above-referred project. A sale deed of the land was executed in his favour. The complainant also entered into an agreement of building construction with the petitioner for construction of a house on the aforesaid land at the cost of Rs.2,50,000/-. The house was to be construction within a period of four months and it was agreed that if the construction was delayed, the builder would be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.2 lakh paid by the complainant. The following was the schedule of land incorporated in the agreement:-
"All that pieces and parcel of agricultural land bearing Farm Land 0.23 acres i.e. hector 0.2324 R. plot no. 09 admeasuring 10000.00 sq. ft. [929.368 sq. Mt] having size 28.16 Mts. x 35.00 Mts. of kh. no. 60 part of mouza Panjri [Bz], P.H. no. 42 Tq & Dist. Nagpur, together with provision of water supply to loft tanks from borwell, along with tree plantation as per horticulture planning, electricity fitting and drips and sprinklers for plants, landscaping and having construction of House. The said Farm Land Plot is bounded as under:
xxxxxxxxxxxx"
The complainant also entered into a maintenance agreement with the petitioner whereby he was to pay Rs.4,000/- per month for maintenance of plants, irrigation system, etc.
Alleging that the quality of the construction of the farm house was inferior and several agreed amenities and facilities had not been provided, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The construction of the farm house was also not completed within the agreed period of four months from the date of the agreement between the parties. The constructed farm house was eventually delivered to the complainant in January 2000 but according to the complainant, it was not complete in all respects at that time. It was also alleged in the complaint that the horticulture plantation work was not done at all, there was no water facilities in the farm house from the common well and drift and sprinkler was not provided. It was also claimed that common facilities such as swimming tank, resort, internal roads, tree plantation, restaurant, TV and dish antenna and telephone connections were not provided by the petitioner.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner who took a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by limitation having been filed in October 2002 though the possession had been delivered in January 2000. The petitioner denied having agreed to provide amenities such as restaurant, resort, swimming pool etc. The alleged defects in the construction were also denied. The allegation of the complainant with respect to absence of drift and sprinkler was also disputed.
The District Forum vide its order dated 17.11.2008 directed as under:-
"1) Complaint of the complainant xx unintelligible xx allowed.
2) The non-applicant shall comply with all the errors as mentioned in the para-2 of Reasons and provide all the facilities to the complainant. The non-applicant shall comply with the order within three months from the date of this order.
3) The non-applicant shall pay amount at the rate of 18% interest on the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for the period from 01 January-1999 to 31 December-2000 to the complainant which she had paid for construction.
4) The non-applicant shall pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment and Rs.2000/- towards the cost and expenses of the complaint thus total Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only).
Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 1.3.2018, the State Commission directed as under:-
"8. The appeal must therefore be partly allowed as under:-
(i) We hold that pursuant to the agreement between the parties the OP was and is liable to provide and maintain the proper roads inside the scheme area, provide electricity and the drips or sprinklers for the plants as agreed, create and maintain lawn in the scheme area as well as plantation of herbs, garden and tree plants as many as can be in the area of the scheme as per horticulture planning, provide facility of the water to the loft Tanks from the Bore well, Dish Antenna. Construction of the Farm House was found of inferior quality as the walls had developed cracks. It must be repaired by the OP. Doors and windows were of the inferior quality. They must be replaced. One Overhead Tank for storage of water ought to be provided for the farm house.
In the event common amenities like Restaurant, Swimming pool, club, resort are provided inside the scheme area, the complainant shall be entitled to use the on payment of the charges as applicable and payable as member of the scheme "Vasundhara Phase 2" to the Developer/manager thereof for to use the pay and use facilities available, in the resort as member-co-owner in the Scheme. The Builder-Developer (OP) shall assist the Complainant as member Co-owner of the scheme to effect appropriate mutations in the revenue record of the State Government in respect of the Farm house with adjunct land, garden area in possession of the complainant and conveyed so as to facilitate the payment of the land revenue and local Taxes, cesses applicable proportionately to the joint undivided or divided share of the Complainant-Member / user in the entire Farm houses scheme. Separate mutation be effected by the Revenue authority upon application by the Complainant / Member user in respect of the Farm house used and possessed by the complainant so as to recover the revenues proportionately payable in respect of the Farm house, but separately recoverable from the Complainant / Member-Co-Owner in the scheme .
(ii) OP shall pay the amount of the interest on the sum advanced in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum during the delayed period from 1st January, 1999 to 31st December, 2000 payable on account of use of the advance amount paid by the Complainant beyond agreed time.
The amount of Compensation and costs awarded being reasonable and just in our opinion is confirmed the sum of Rs.8,000/- + Rs.2,000/-.
(iv) Cost of the appeal is quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/- payable by the OP to the Complainant.
(v) The Order be executed accordingly within three months from the date of the receipt/communication of the same.
Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
As far as limitation is concerned, the complainant has a continuing cause of action, till the facilities and amenities provided by the petitioner are not provided. Therefore, the complainant was within the prescribed limitation.
It is not in dispute that the construction of the farm house was not completed within the agreed period and that the possession of the same was delivered to the complainant only in January 2000. Therefore, payment of compensation agreed between the parties was fully justified.
The District Forum appointed a Court Commissioner to carry out an inspection. The report of the Court Commissioner reads as under:-
· " The site did not have a proper entrance.
· No properly constructed roads.
· No security guard present on site.
· No compound wall to the premises only a fence broken at places.
· All dry grass and needs grown here and there.
· A deserted site.
· No restaurant facilities on site.
· No resort.
· No swimming pool facilities.
· No bore well provided to individual farm house, only a common well sited.
· No lawn, no fruit plants grown or even planted on site.
· No rose garden in front of the farm house. Only wild trees and plants were grown.
· Sprinkler and drift system not installed.
· No provision of a legal electrical connection on site.
· The water supply connections were not done.
· The overhead water tank missing from site.
· The farm house has crack developed.
· The doors and windows has started deteriorating.
· The staircase towers has cracks (V & H) in corners.
· Cracks below the lintel found (v) above the entrance.
· Cracks in fins.
· Kitchen areas shows cracking in walls, at corners, at junction of column and walls.
· Cracks in bedroom wallson side and back (V & H)
Considering the report of the Court Commissioner, the directions given by the State Commission were justified and do not call for interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It can hardly be disputed that the petitioner was required to provide internal roads since the farm house cannot be accessed without internal roads. Similarly, the electricity and drift or sprinklers for the plants, as per the agreement between the parties and the brochure issued by the petitioner, were required to be provided. The lawn and planation as well as facility of water to the loft tank from the bore-well and dish antenna were also required to be provided but were not provided. The direction for repair/replacement of the defective doors, windows, walls etc. also cannot be disputed. As far as common amenities like restaurant, swimming pool, club etc. are concerned, the State Commission has not directed the petitioner to provide the same but has only directed that in the event of the said amenities being provided, the complainant, being a member of the scheme, would be entitled to use the same on payment of prescribed charges. The compensation awarded by the State Commission is only a token amount of Rs.8,000/- and so is the cost of litigation.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, no ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is made out. The revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.