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.
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