Builder fined 6.5 L for not giving amenities

In a report appearing in Times of India dated 6-1-2011 filed by Rebecca Samervel, a builder has been fined Rs 6,50,000 for deficiency in providing promised amenities and not securing the Occupation Certificate of the Building.

The report is reproduced below;

Mumbai: A consumer court order has cheered scores of home-buyers who are misled or even duped by builders. In 1997, a retired IOC executive and his son booked a flat in Goregaon (east) in a project advertised as “exclusive homes for exclusives” and which promised various amenities. However, not only have they not got most of the promised amenities but their complex is still surrounded by hutments and they do not even have an occupation certificate (OC).

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has now asked Ravi Ashish Land Developers to pay the Roys Rs 5 lakh for mental harassment and agony plus Rs 1,000 per month from August 1998 till the procurement of the OC.

FLAT MISERY

In 1997, the builder had promoted his project in Goregaon (E) as “exclusive homes for exclusives”

Flat buyers were promised a proper approach road, a swimming pool, garden, a playground, a nursery for kids, club house and jogging tracks

However, even after moving in, the complainant found no sign of amenities or proper approach road. Neither had the building been given an OC HOUSE WOES ‘Builder must obtain occupancy cert’

This amounts to nearly Rs 1.48 lakh. The builder will also have to pay the Roys Rs 25,000 towards the cost of litigation.

The Roys, father Pradip Kumar and son Anirban (a lawyer), claimed that they had paid the entire cost of the 825-sq ft super built-up area of the flat amounting to Rs16.5 lakh to the builder within five months from the date of issuance of allotment letter on March 5, 1997. According to the Roys, the builder had assured them that there would be a seven-storey building with three wings, Arpan, Darpan and Samarpan, and three towers, namely, Deep, Darshan and Maharaja Retreat, and 12 row houses in the Gaurav Empire Housing Complex and there would be a proper road and amenities like adequate street lights, a flowerdecked landscaped garden, a club house and a community hall, playgrounds and a kindergarten school, jogging tracks, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a library, surrounded by a compound wall with a security gate at the main entrance of the layout. They were assured their flat would be ready by June 1997.

However, even after 13 months of the originally promised date, they
failed to get legal possession and the promised amenities were nowhere in sight. Since their landlord asked the Roys to move out of their premises in July 1998, they had no option but to shift to the flat when, according to them, it was neither habitable nor did it conform to the agreement. Citing deficiencies in the complex, the Roys complained against the absence of an approach road, non-availability of regular water supply from BMC, absence of an OC, poor quality of construction and poor maintenance.

They claimed a refund of the paid amount and also a difference arising from the current market rate of the flat and filed a complaint with the state commission on January 8, 2000. The builders filed a reply stating that they never promised the Roys that the entire housing complex would be completed by June 1997. Denying the charges levelled by the Roys, the builders also stated that construction had been delayed on account of various factors, like a sudden and a continuous slump in the estate market and dealings with about 900 slum dwellers with several litigations and orders of injunction. They also stated that the liability of the flat purchasers in the building was to the tune of Rs 27 lakh and only upon payment of that liability amount together with current property tax, if any, would the municipal corporation issue an OC.

The commission observed that there was no evidence to prove that the flat owners had outstanding liabilities. Further, it stated that it was a statutory as well as contractual obligation on the part of the builder to procure an OC. Regarding the promised amenities, the commission stated that even after 13 years all that the builder had managed to do was barely construct two buildings; there was only one road leading to these buildings from the nearby municipal road. “In any view of the matter, we find that the state of affairs of the present building of the complainants (Roys), which is seen from the photographs and which is admittedly surrounded by the hutments and slum dwellers, cannot be said to be a dream house which was advertised by the builder and therefore, there is deficiency in service.”