State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Surekha Nagesha S Rao vs M/S Dra Project Pvt Ltd on 12 February, 2026
sc/ze/A/14s0/2023
Filed on: 28.07.2023
Disposed on: 72.02.2026
BEFORE THE KARNATAI{A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU
(ADDTTTONAL BENCHI
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY,20/26
CORAM: HON,BLE SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
and
HON'BLE SMT. SI'NITA CIIANNABASAPPA BAGEqIADI - LADY MEMBER
sct29tAtL450 12023
BE?IWEEN:
Smt.Surekaha Nagesh S Rao,
W/o Late Nagesha Rao,
Aged Major,
Flat No.C-33, Ranka Aqua Greens,
Railway Station Road,
Harsha Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 060.
--- Appellant
(Rep, bg Mr.Ashok N Malebennur, Adoocate)
AND:
1. M/s.DRA Project Pvt., Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
lB, Ranka Chambers,
31, Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru - 560 052,
Represented by its Director
Sri.Nishant Ranka.
2. Smt.Pramila.K.G.,
W/o D.C.Tammanna,
No.2421,l"t Main Road,
2"a Stage, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 040.
3. Ranks Aqua Green Owners Association
Rep by its Secretary,
sc/2e /Al14s0 /2023
Ranka Aqua Green Apartments,
Railway Station Road, Harsha Layout Kengeri,
Bengaluru - 560 060.
--- Respondent/s
(R-1 Rep. bg Mr.Sunll Patll, Adtncate)
(R-2 Nottce settted absent)
(R- 3 appeared Inperson)
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI. LADY MEMBER:
This appeal is liled by the Appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the Order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the I Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru 1n CC.No.08/2021 and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission by allowing appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brieffacts of the case are as under;
The Opposite Party No.l is the builder and developer as M/s.DRA Projects (P) Limited who entered into Joint Development Agreement dated 02.06.2010 for executing a projects called Ranka Aqua Greens having Khata No.a577 l3l2B,3128,413D,414 measuring 1 acre and 31 guntas adjacent to Kengeri Lake on Railway Station Road, Bangalore with Smt.Pramila G W/o Mr.D.C.Thamanna. On L 2 sc/2e /A/74s0 /2023 O5.O4.2O12, the complainant booked 2 BHK flat No.A-21 measuring 1220 sq.ft. of super built-up area by paying Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance through cheque No.079154. Accordingly, both the parties entered into Construction Agreement and the Opposite Party No.1 promised to handover the possession of the apartment on or before 20.03.2013. Subsequently, even though the construction was incomplete, the Opposite Party No.l registered the Sale Deed in the name of the complainant on 25.07.2014 and handover the keys on 01.10.2014. The Opposite Party No.1 received the Occupancy Certificate on 03.04.2014. As per the construction agreement, the project should have completed the construction on or before 20.03 .2013, but it was not completed and Opposite Party No.l has not duly handed over all the common amenities to the Opposite Party No.3 with clear documents. Most of the service ducts not plastered, the service holes opening to the flats not filled properly, dritled/broken concrete slab areas in duct areas are not plastered, protective painting not done for any of the exposed ducts. Many places the sanitary lines leaking since the beginning. Further, though the Cauvery water line was available at the time of conception of the project, the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to provide the water 3 sc/2e /A/14s0/2023 connection, the sump is inadequate. Also the percentage of undivided share as shown in the sale deed of the individual flats has not matched to 100% of the total area accounting to I acre 31 guntas. Further, the Opposite Party provided 124 car park slots, out of which 84 are in the stilt remaining are provided outside the building. The visitor's car parking is also shown, but no such facility has been provided, not constructed the eastern compound wall. Further, in spite of receiving deposit towards the club house and GYM from each owner not constructed proportionate to the number of residents in 100 apartrnents. The Opposite Party No. I has given registration and stamp duty charges at the time of booking of Rs.94,184/- but the complainant was forced to pay the excess stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 1,57,2761- on account of delay in completion of the project. The Opposite party No. 1 failed to provide proper gas tube piping and gas meter inside the apartment as promised, but collected cost for the same which caused the mental agony, irreparable hardships to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed their 4 sc/2e / A/74s0/2023 respective version. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 admitted certain allegations of the complainant and denied all other allegations and contended that the complaint is not maintainable in law and hence liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party No.l & 2 further contended that inspite of many hurdles the Opposite Parties have constructed the apartments and delivered the same with OC from BBMP by April 2014 to the complainant. Further, on 30.05.2014 registered sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant. The issuance of OC was clear proof of projects being completed as OC is only issued once all aspects of the project are complete.
4. The Opposite Party No.3 contended that Opposite Party No.l has sold the car parking to all flat owners and collected the club house deposit as per the UDA at the rate of Rs.50,000/- from each flat owners but failed to provide the copper gas piping to all 100 flats used the poor quality materials for construction of apartments. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 has not handover the common area to the Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.3 made the representation to the builder vide letter dated 08.10.2015 and also followed it by a legal notice on 21 .1 1.2015 in respect of 5 sc/2e / A/L4so/2023 deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and sought for a formal handing over of assets like lifts, generator, swimming pool, WTP, STP, GYM etc along with documents and approvals but the Opposite Party No.l did not respond to the Opposite Party No.3. AIso payment made by the flat owners towards water supply, sanitary connection was not credited by the Opposite Party No.1 to the BWSSB and all these lapses apparent on the face, the Opposite Party No.1 did not ca.re to workout remedy towards the same. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3.
5. After trial the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the said order the Appellant/complainant preferred this Appeal.
7. Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard from both side.
8. Perused the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the Appellant has purchased 2 BHK flat No.A-2 1 measuring 1220 sq.ft. in a projects called Ranka Aqua Greens having Khata No.457713128, 3/28,413D,4/4 measuring 1 acre and 6 sc/29 /Al74s0 /2023 31 guntas adjacent to Kengeri Lake on Railway Station Road, Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that Appellant had paid full consideration amount and entered into a Sale Agreement and Construction Agreement with Respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that as per the Sale Agreement Respondent No.l was required to complete the project and handover the possession on or before 20.03.2013. It is also not in dispute that Respondent No.1 had executed sale agreement, delivered the OC and handover the possession of the flat to the Appellant on 03.04.2014. The dispute 1S that as per the Agreement Respondent had not delivered the flat to the Appellant and also not provided amenities as agreed. Further, even though the construction was incomplete i.e. the lift were not ready, uppermost floor partition walls not done, plastering was still in progress. Respondent No.1 forced the Appellant to register the sale deed. Hence, on 25.O7.2O 14 sale deed was executed. Further, percentage of UDS a shown in the sale deed of the individual flats has not matched to 100% of the total area, not provided slot car parking, not constructed the eastern compound wall, not constructed GYM, club house etc., but collected the excess amount from the flat owners for stamp duty charges, failed to provide proper gas tube piping and gas 7 sc/2e /A/74s0/2023 meter inside the apartment. Pre contra, Respondent in their version and also in appeal memo admitted the delay 1n handing over the possession of the flat to the Appellant and contended that inspite of many hurdles such as lorry strike, sand suppliers strike, granting sanction by the authorities, obtaining the modified plan from the authorities, getting the OC the said delay was caused. The delay is not intentional but an unavoidable circumstance.
9. Perused the order of the District Commission we noticed that the District Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that "The complainant has not raised any issues with regard to his own individual apartment but generalized the issues with regard to the entire apartment building which consists of 100 units on behalf of all the apartment owners. It is the look out of entire apartment building owners and Opposite Parties No.l & 3 who is the apartment owners association to resolve the issues. Further, with an intention to harass the Opposite Party No.1 the Appellant/complainant Iiled the complaint before this Commission". However, it is evident that the Appellant has raised issues which are common in nature and beneficial to all the flat owners. Such issues ordinarily ought to be raised through the flat owners 8 sc/2e/A/74s0/2023 association. However, one specific issue raised by the Appellant is the delay in handing over the possession of the flat and as per the construction agreement Respondent is liable to pay delay compensation. Since, in appeal memo and also in version before District Commission, Respondent No.1 admitted the delay about I year, Appellant is entitled to delay compensation at the rate of Rs.S/- per sq.ft. per month as per the Clause 7 of the construction agreement. It is well settled legal position that the developer if failed to handover the possession within agreed time amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the builder. In many cases, Honble Supreme Court held that if the purchaser suffers agony and harassment due to the developer's delay beyond the agreed date, the Consumer Commissions have jurisdiction to award just and reasonable compensation for such delay where the agreed compensation rate for delay is specified in the agreement. In the present case, the Respondent contended that the delay is not intentional but for an unavoidable circumstances. However, Respondent No.1 has not produced any document to substantiate the delay of nearly about one year. Moreover, in construction agreement there is a Clause 7 which reveals that 'if any delay 1n handing over the flat to the purchaser 9 sc/2e /A/r450/2023 compensation of Rs.5/- per Sq.Ft. per month will be paid to the flat owner till the flat is ready to be registered in the name of the flat owner". Further, Appellant produced some citations of this Commission against the same project in which this Commission has allowed the complaint in part. Further, Respondent No.3 i.e. the flat owners association also in their version stated that inspite of repeated requests, letters and legal notice, the Opposite Party No.l/Respondent No.1 not solved the problems of the flat owners. Moreover, there is no specific allegation of the Appellant against the Respondents No.2 & 3. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here we are of the opinion that the District Commission fails to appreciate one of the individual prayer made by the Appellant had dismissed the complaint which is not just and proper. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned Order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the I Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.O8 l2O2l is allowed as against Opposite Party No.1 only and complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 is hereby dismissed.
10
sc/29 /A/14s0/2023 The Respondent No.l/Opposite Party No.l is directed to pay delay compensation at the rate of Rs.S/- per Sq.Ft per month as per the clause 7 of the construction agreement from the agreed date of handing over the possession of the flat till the actual possession of the flat to the complainant/Appellant. Further, the Respondent No.l/Opposite Party No.l is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards deficiency of service and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost of litigation to the complainant/ Appellant.
The Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 shall comply the above said order within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which Respondent No.l/Opposite Party No.1 shall pay interest at the rate of 60/o p.a. on the above said amount till realization to the complainant/Appellant. Send a copy of this order to both parties as well concerned District Consumer Commission.
t, 0
^r
\0- \*\c-ote
(suMTA C.BA GEWAD4 (RA
LADY MDMBER JUDICUL MEMBER
.SJ-
1l