Umiya Habitat Co Operative Housing Society Limited vs M/s Umiya Builders And Developers

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member

Heard Mr. Suresh Raikar, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. R.S. Banerjee, Advocate for the opposite party.

Umiya Habitat Co-operative Hosing Society Ltd. has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) cure the defects pointed out by M/s. Casta Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vasco da Gama; (ii) adopt the suggestions and recommendations made by Goa State Pollution Control Board; (iii) honour the joint inspection report; (iv) set up a sewage treatment plant with sufficient capacity for the entire complex so that no foul odor is emitted and the waste water is discharged; (v) obtain a water connection to the complex from the PWD; (vi) pay Rs.14250000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (vii) pay Rs.7125000 as compensation to 285 tenements of the project; (viii) pay Rs.200000 as litigation costs; and (ix) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The complainant stated that M/s. Umiya Builders and Developers was a proprietorship concern and doing business of development and construction of group housing project. M/s. Umiya Builders and Developers entered into a development agreement dated 05.10.2009 with the owner of the land of survey No.117/1-A of Sancoale Village, Taluka, Sub District of Mormugao, District of South Goa, State of Goa, for developing group housing project. Under the said agreement total 6 blocks consisting 275 flats and 10 shops have been constructed. The opposite party advertised the project, on which, the members of the complainant entered into the agreement for sale with the opposite party on different dates, in the year 2010. The opposite party completed the construction and obtained occupation certificate on 16.04.2013 and handed over possession to the members of the complainant. Thereafter, the home buyers formed Umiya Habitat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and get it registered under the provisions of Goa Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 2001, vide registration No.HSG-(b)-942/South Goa/2014 on 19.11.2014. The complainant found that the sewage treatment plant, as constructed by the opposing party was not of the capacity to treat the sewage water generated after full occupancy in all the flats. It was not functioning properly, inasmuch as, the treated water had bad odor and there was not provision for absorbing entire treating water, as 50 per cent of the treated water was being utilized for gardening and flushing the toilets. But remaining 50 per cent of treated water was being flowed upon the adjoining open land. The complainant, therefore, made a complaint to Goa State Pollution Control Board in this respect on 26.06.2014. Goa State Pollution Control Board issued show cause notice to the opposite party on 13.08.2014, on three points namely (i) the final treated water from STP was seen discharged outside the unit premises. (ii) the final treated STP water which is used for toilet flushing gives foul odor. (iii) the unit has not been provided flow meter for STP outlet. The officials inspected the spot with due notice to the opposite party and took sample of the treated water for chemical examination. After chemical examination, the treated water was found not of the prescribed standard. Thereafter, a joint meeting was held on 13.01.2015 with the officers of Goa State Pollution Control Board, members of the complainant society and the opposite party. In which an agenda of meeting was prepared and the opposite party had agreed to remove the deficiency as pointed out in the meeting. But in spite of the assurance given by the opposite party, the deficiencies were not removed. For supply of potable water, the opposite party has sunk two bore wells from where the water is being pumped to the complex. After lifting the water from bore-wells, it was treated but the treatment plant was not properly functioning and the opposite party has been supplying potable water without treating it. As the opposite party was flowing the sewerage treated water upon ground, it percolates into the sub soil thus contaminating the ground water which is being supplied as potable water to the project. Out of two bore wells, one bore well has dried and non-functional. The existing bore well is not sufficient to meet out the requirements of the entire complex. The opposite party is required to take water connection from PWD to meet out the requirement of potable water. Instead of taking permanent water connection from PWD, the opposite party is procuring water in tankers in the summer season. The entire complex suffers from various deficiencies in construction. The complainant obtained a report from Casta Engineers Pvt. Ltd., dated 05.04.2015 which pointed out following constructional defects:-

“(a) The column width is not as per IS code recommendation, the minimum cover to be provided is 40 mm, the provided width of column is 200 mm and after deducting both covers (40+40 mm) available effective width (200-80 mm =120 mm) is very less for this 8 storied building. Also it has been noticed due to improper clear cover to reinforcement it is resulting into corrosion to reinenforcement and concrete is started to delaminated.

(b) The Grade of concrete used in RCC structure Below M20, as per IS code, the minimum grade should be M20. At many places, the RCC columns are not in plumb and line, there is about 10 cm difference in plumb from one floor to another.

(C) Stilt parking height is not as per the standard norms drainage pipes are hanging in the parking area, electrical cables are hanging below stilt slab at all blocks without considering good engineering practices and safety which will result in major accident in future.

(d) The STP installed is not sufficient according to the strength of the inhabitants in society. According to OP's reply only three persons in single bed and five persons in double bed flat is considered for designing the STP which is not showing any practical sense. There are 10 shops having individual toilets. Also there are common toilets for the shop staff which is not considered in the design calculation.

(e) Terrace waterproofing has completely failed. The roof of A to F block has been leaking considering heavy rain in Goa.

(f) The internal and external plaster is very poor in quality. Many cracks have developed on the surface.

(g)The quality of main door shutter for all 275 number of flats is very poor. The shutters provided are made of paper material called cardboard.

(h) Garbage disposal arrangement is not provided.

(i) Considering surrounding area, compound wall İs not as per good/standard engineering practices. Compound wall substructure is very weak, plastering done on only single side. Chain link frames provided are highly unsafe and unsecured.

(j) Fire hydrant system is poor in quality.

(k) The drainage pipeline work is not done properly, water drips through pipe joints in stilt parking at many places. This has been causing hygiene problem to the residents. Due to this there is rusting of vehicle metal surfaces.

(l) A temporary GI shed is provided to DG as well as DG Control panel. It is an unsafe act and has created an unsafe condition which can culminate in accidents in future.

(m) Number of parking available is not sufficient for all flat owners.

(n) Common areas civil finish i.e. lifts room, duct room, staircase areas and terrace is not as per good engineering practice.

(o) The OP has constructed two nos. underground tanks, one for fire water tank and the other is for raw water tank which after having been treated is supplied to the complex. The water from both the tanks leak into the pump room. The electric panels get inundated and can result in electrocution of the staff. The entry to the pump room is inadequate and hazardous. The sump does not have proper locking system.

These defects were pointed out to the opposite party. But they are not ready to remove the defects. The complainant gave a legal notice to the opposite party for removing the defects as pointed out in the report of Goa State Pollution Control Board as well as the constructional defects as pointed out in the report dated 05.04.2015. In spite of service of the notice, the opposite party has failed to remove the defects. Then this complaint was filed on 22.09.2015, alleging deficiency in srvice. There was considerable delay of more than one year in obtaining Occupancy Certificate and delivering possession. Many of the members of the complainant who were in utter need of housing, had to take possession of the premises in incomplete or near incomplete possession due to urgency and delay in delivery of possession. Despite the delay and additional time available to the opposite party, the work has not been completed properly and till date works are incomplete. The opposite party has completely failed in providing services as per the agreements and the members of the complainant are left stranded and forced to occupy flats in a complex which is stinking, where the purity of the water supply is suspected, structure of the buildings of dubious strength, the STP malfunctioning and every aspect of the complex is questionable.

The complaint was admitted by the order dated 09.09.2019. The notice issued by this Commission was served upon the opposite party on 11.07.2022 and written reply was filed on 29.08.2022. Therefore, this Commission by order dated 26.12.2022 declined to condone the delay in filing the written reply and rejected the written reply. The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence. Both the parties have filed their Written Submissions.

We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as the allegations regarding defects in construction are concerned, it is admitted that Development Authorities have issued “completion certificate” and thereafter, the Gram Panchayat Sancoale has granted permission for occupation on 16.04.2013. None of the home buyers have ever raised any objection in construction at the time of taking possession. After formation of the society, the complainant has obtained a report from Casta Engineers Pvt. Ltd. on 05.04.2015. Affidavit of the Engineer, who prepared this report, has not been filed. If the statutory authority has issued “completion certificate” and “occupation certificate”, then after about two years, it cannot be questioned. The complainant has not given the period for which the repair liability was upon the opposite party. The complainant was filed for 285 members but an affidavit of 186 members only was filed. After formation of Co-operative Society, the complainant is responsible to maintain the building. In such circumstances, the relief in respect of the deficiency in construction, as alleged, cannot be granted.

So far as, sewage treatment plant is concerned, all the deficiencies have been made good by the opposite party and Goa State Pollution Control Board, vide letter dated 01.08.2018, directed the complainant to take over it.

So far as water connection from PWD is concerned, in the agreement there was no clause for taking water connection from the PWD. The project situated in rural side as such the water from the PWD as well as sewerage connection may not be available in the vicinity in the project. In the absence of any contractual obligation, no direction can be issued to the opposite party to take water connection from PWD. It is admitted that the portable water was being supplied from two bore wells if one bore well was not functioning for time being, then it is for the maintenance agency to take care of it.

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is dismissed.