Skip to main content

Construction must be defect-free, rules consumer commission

Upholding Additional District Forum's verdict, the Nagpur bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked a private builder to rectify defects as claimed by the residents or pay compensation. The residents of Wathoda-based Indira Town had alleged substandard construction that led to cracks and seepage of water in their new tenements.

A bench of presiding member BA Sheikh and Jayashree Yengal, while delivering the order, made it clear that "it's always obligatory on the part of developer/builder to make construction without any defect... The construction firm cannot claim cost of repairing when the leakage or seepage occurred. Even if the possession of homes was taken over by the residents, in current case that didn't absolve the builder from rectifying defects," the judges observed.

According to residents, their township was launched in 2004 and builder Sarju Constructions had allegedly taken maintenance amount of some Rs 4.25 lakh towards facilities from them apart from Rs 10.5 lakh towards cost of tenement. After monsoon, the problems started on account of poor maintenance. They claimed even the safety wall constructed on the southern side was below the specified height and the construction was not as promised by the builder in the brochure.

As Sarju Construction refused to take action, the residents moved Additional District Forum in the city alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and demanded Rs 20 lakh compensation towards damage to each of the complainant. They also demanded to equalize plinth level of all rows of the apartments in the township under the supervision of a qualified architect.

The construction firm contended that the forum did not have jurisdiction over such complaints and they could not be decided under Consumer Protection Act. The lower forum, while partly allowing the residents' prayer, directed the builder to rectify defects and finish incomplete work or pay compensation to each complainant. The forum relied on the report of a commissioner appointed by it to verify the allegations.

The forum told the firm maintenance amount collected by it should be kept in account of the residents in the name of - Indiradevi Township Association. The builder challenged this order in the State Commission which upheld the findings of lower forum. The commission observed the sale deed could not exonerate the builder from removal of defects in the construction. It also rejected residents' demand to reappoint new commissioner for inspection of defects.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Construction-must-be-defect-free-rules-consumer-commission/articleshow/45210569.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more