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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

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