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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more