State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lalita S. Naik vs Bhaskar Begari & Another on 24 October, 2017
1
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI - GOA
C.C. No. 38/2016
Smt. Lalita S. Naik,
Wife of Santosh Naik,
52 years of age, married, business,
R/o flat no. TF3, 3rd floor building 'A',
Lata residency, Agalli,
Margao, Salcete Taluka, Goa. .... Complainant
V/s.
1. Shri. Bhaskar Begari,
s/o Narasppa Begari, 37 years of age,
Married, businessman and his wife;
2. Smt. Padmalata Begari
alias Padma Bhaskar Begari,
Wife of Bhaskar Begari, 33 years of age,
Housewife.
Both resident of House No. 174,
Near Ganpati temple,
Aquem Bixo,
Navelim, Salcete, Goa. .... Opposite Parties
Adv. Shri. Arjun F. Naik for the Complainant.
None present for the Opposite Parties.
Coram: Shri. Justice U. V. Bakre, President
Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member
Dated: 24/10/2017
JUDGMENT
[Per Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre, President] This Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (OPs, for short) praying for various reliefs.
2. Case of the Complainant is as follows:
2Vide agreement for construction and sale dated 22/12/2011 and the deed of rectification cum correction dated 05/01/2012, which agreements were registered before the Sub Registrar of Salcete, the OPs had agreed to sell to the Complainant and the Complainant had agreed to purchase from the OPs , a residential flat No. TF-3, admeasuring 88 square metres, to be constructed on the 3rd Floor of the Building "A", Lata Residency Apartments, situated at Agalli, Margao, Goa, along with the car parking slot bearing no. TF-3, admeasuring 18 square metres (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit flat', for the sake of convenience) for a total consideration of Rs. 23,00,000/-. The Complainant made part payments to the OPs from time to time for which the OPs issued receipts. The Complainant made the payments from her saving fund and by availing loan. However, in respect of some cash payments made by the Complainant to the OPs, the OPs have not issued any receipts. In terms of the said agreement, the OPs had to complete the construction of the suit flat within 12 months from the date of execution of the agreement subject to an extension of additional one month, provided the entire amount under the agreement was paid by the Complainant to the OPs. In other words, the OPs had to deliver the possession of the suit flat to the Complainant within a maximum period of 13 months from the date of execution of the said agreement. The extension period was subject to payment of compensation of Rs. 7,000/-per month. In spite of having paid the entire consideration amount as set in the agreement, the OPs failed to complete the work of the suit flat and deliver possession of the same to the Complainant in time. After lapse of the period of handing over possession of the flats, the Complainant and other prospective buyers held a meeting with OPs pursuant to which the OPs issued a declaration cum undertaking dated 02/05/2014 under which the OPs undertook to do as follows: to give possession of the flat on or before 01/08/2014; to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the 3 Complainant if the OPs failed to give possession of the flat on or before 01/08/2014; to pay overall losses caused to the Complainant towards delay in giving possession of the flat and to adequately compensate her and to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards losses suffered by the Complainant for availing loan facilities towards purchase of suit flat. The OPs were notified by issuing notice to them that in spite of the declaration dated 02/05/2014, as on July, 2014, they had not completed the work of internal plastering, fixing of internal tiles, plastering and painting of the flat, fixing of doors and windows, fixing of bathroom/WC wash basins, providing of cooking platform and water tank, though the plumbing and sewerage work was started, making arrangements to provide electricity and water supply and work of lift facility which was not even started. The Complainant has been put in an embarrassing position. The Complainant was residing in a rental flat and the rent in Margao is very high. The Complainant and other occupants had sent a notice dated 10/09/2015 to the OPs calling upon them to complete the incomplete works. After personal meetings and discussions, and upon fear of legal consequences, finally the OPs handed over the possession of the suit flat to the Complainant on 15/11/2015 and the Complainant took the possession though the following works were not completed:- Internal work was not completed and the Complainant was compelled to get the said internal work done at his own cost by incurring expenses of more than Rs. 4,00,000/-; separate electricity connection to the individual flat is not provided and the electricity connection is provided through common electricity point; no water tap connection is provided and the occupants including the Complainant have constructed a well and are using the water from that well for which the Complainant has to incur expenses of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards engaging labour; staircase and lift work has not been completed; society has not been formed and sale deed in respect of the suit flat has not been executed. The OPs are intending to disconnect the electricity 4 connection to the said building. The electricity bill is paid jointly by the Complainant and other occupiers of the said building. The Complainant is entitled to the expenses incurred by her towards internal work. The Complainant is also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs, 7,000/- per month from the date of expiry of the time of delivery of possession for the last about 34 months till the date of handing over of possession of the flat on 15/11/2015, on account of delay in delivery of possession. By letters dated 30/09/2015 and 08/01/2016, the OP No. 1 has sought time of six to seven months to execute the sale deed and to pay the amount as undertaken to pay besides compensation on account of harassment which is calculated at Rs. 10,00,000/-. Upon expiry of nine months, the Complainant and other prospective buyers in the said building contacted the OP No. 1 on 15/10/2016 and questioned him as when he will comply with the execution of the sale deed and payment of compensation. The OP No. 1, however, told them to do whatever they can. The Complainant is entitled to receive a total amount of Rs. 16,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the OPs, as compensation on account of harassment, hardship, inconvenience and mental torture suffered by him..
3. The Complainant relied upon the copies of the agreement for construction and sale dated 22/12/2011, deed of rectification and correction dated 05/01/2012, 11 receipts issued by Padma Constructions, statement of loan account, letter dated 02/05/2014 addressed by the OPs to one Sanjay R. Naik, letter dated 30/09/2015 by OP No. 1 to the Complainant and others, letter dated 08/01/2016 by OP No. 1 to the Complainant and others and two electricity bills in the name of OP No. 1.
4. By way of written version, the OP No. 1 alleged that the Complaint is barred by law of limitation. He stated that the OPs have already put the Complainant in possession of the suit flat on 15/11/2015 and there is no deficiency in service and hence the 5 Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP No. 1 admitted the agreement dated 22/12/2012 and the deed of rectification dated 05/01/2012 between the Complainant and OPs for construction and sale of the suit flat. According to the OP No. 1, he has issued receipts to the Complainant on behalf of M/s Padma Constructions for whatever payments made in respect of the suit flat. The OP No. 1 stated that there was some delay in handing over possession of the suit flat to the Complainant but the same was subject to the understanding. According to the OP No. 1 the declaration cum understanding was limited to handing over possession of the suit flat and once the possession was handed over, it had no effect and cannot be enforced. The OP No. 1 denied that the Complainant was residing in rented flat. He alleged that the suit flat has been handed over to the Complainant after completing the same in all respects. He further added that the entire consideration amount has not been paid by the Complainant due to which the sale deed cannot not be executed. The OP No. 1 admitted that no separate electricity connection and water connection to the individual flat has been provided but alleged that the Complainant is responsible for the same. The OP No. 1 admitted that the Complainant has constructed a well in the said property for the use of the Complainant and other flat owners but denied that the Complainant has to fetch water by engaging labour costing Rs. 2,500/- per month. The OP No. 1 denied that the OPs are avoiding to form the society and to execute sale deed in respect of the suit flat. The OP No. 1 stated that the existing electricity connection is of commercial nature and the OPs had, in advance, informed the Complainant that the OP No. 1 has instructed the electricity department to disconnect the said electricity connection. The OP No. 1 denied that the Complainant had done any internal work at his own cost. He denied that the Complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed.
65. The Complainant had also filed an application for temporary and mandatory injunction praying to restrain the OPs from creating any third party right in respect of the suit flat, the building and the said property or from disturbing the possession of the Complainant in respect of the suit flat or from disconnecting the electricity connection to the suit flat and the building. The Complainant had also made alternative prayers for certain directions to the electricity department. The OP No. 1 had filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 09/12/2016 to the said application thereby giving an undertaking that he shall not create any third party right in the suit flat, building and the property, till the disposal of the Complaint and further giving no objection to the prayer of the Complainant to give directions to the electricity department, as prayed by the Complainant. The OPs also filed an application dated 25/01/2017 stating that after the filing of written version, there was a joint meeting between the parties to settle the matter and that it is agreed between the parties to settle the matter on the understanding arrived at between the Complainant and the OPs subject to prior release of electricity and water connection to the suit flat in order to avoid any further delay so also the legal technicality. The OPs further stated that after release of electricity and water connection to the suit flat, the parties shall file the compromise terms in the main matter. However, the OPs started remaining absent after 25/01/2017. The question of giving any directions to the electricity department did not arise since the said department is not a party to the Complaint and there are no allegations of deficiency or otherwise any other allegations against it. By order dated 25/01/2017, passed in the Roznama, the said application for temporary/mandatory injunction was disposed of by directing the OPs not to create any third party right in respect of the suit flat, building and said property in any manner till the disposal of the Complaint and to take steps in accordance with law to provide independent domestic electricity 7 connection and water connection to the suit flat at the cost of the Complainant.
6. The OP No. 1 has not relied upon any documents. The OP No. 2 has not filed any written version.
7. The Complainant has filed her own affidavit-in-evidence. The OPs started remaining absent after 25/01/2017. Several opportunities were given to the OPs to file affidavit-in-evidence but the OPs remained absent. The case of the OPs was closed. The matter was fixed for filing written submissions as well as for advancing oral arguments on 28/09/2017. However, the OPs were absent as usual. Lr Counsel for the Complainant has filed written arguments on 10/10/2017, in Consumer Complaint No. 28/2016 and has prayed that the same be considered as written submissions for the purpose of this case also. On 12/10/2017, oral arguments have been advanced by learned Counsel for the Complainant. We have gone through the entire material on record.
8. As per the agreement, the total consideration for the suit flat was Rs. 23,00,000/. The Complainant has produced 11 receipts dated 18/05/2012, 06/10/2012, 10/12/2011, 10/12/2011, 09/12/2011, 28/11/2011, 04/01/2012, 06/10/2012, 04/05/2013, 10/01/2013 an06/03/2012, for Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 35000/-, Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 35000/-, Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/-, respectively (total Rs. 23,00,000/-) issued by Padma Constructions. The Complainant has produced the statement of account in respect of loan taken by her form Shri Laxmi Narcinva Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. showing that she had availed loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 06/03/2012. In paragraph 9 of the Complaint, the Complainant has pleaded that in spite of having effected payment of the total consideration amount as set out in the said agreement to the OPs, the OPs have failed to complete the work of the suit flat and the building in all respects and to 8 deliver possession of the suit flat, on time. In the written version the OP No. 1 has not specifically denied the receipt of the total consideration amount as set out in the agreement. However, the OP No. 1 has denied that in spite of said payment, he failed to complete the work of the said flat in all respects and to deliver possession of the same to the Complainant. The Complainant has filed affidavit- in-evidence wherein she has reiterated the same thing as stated in paragraph 9 of the Complaint but the OPs have not filed affidavit-in- evidence to counter the said statement and to prove their own case as pleaded in the written version. In such circumstances, we hold that the entire consideration amount towards the purchase of the suit flat has been paid by the Complainant to the OPs.
9. As per clause 3 of the agreement, the OPs had to deliver possession of the said flat to the Complainant within a period of twelve months from 22/12/2011 subject to an extension of one month provided all the amounts under the agreement are paid by the Complainant. Since the entire consideration amount had been paid by the Complainant to the OPs, the OPs had to deliver possession of the suit flat to her soon thereafter. But the OPs could not deliver the possession even after receiving the entire consideration amount. The Complainant has produced on record a declaration dated 02/05/2014, written by the OP No. 1, for self and for his wife as her power of attorney, with a special adhesive stamp of Rs. 100/- affixed to it, to one of the flat owners namely Shri Sanjay R. Naik, in the presence of two witnesses, by which the OPs, undertook to do the following things:-
(a) to give possession of the flat to the said Shri Sanjay R. Naik on or before 01/08/2014;
(b) to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the said Shri Sanjay R. Naik, till possession is given, if the OPs failed to give possession of the flat due to any reasons whatsoever.9
(c) to pay overall losses caused to the said Shri Sanjay R. Naik towards delay in giving possession of the flat and to adequately compensate him;
(d) to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- towards losses suffered by the Complainant for availing loan facilities towards purchase of flat.
10. The Complainant has produced a letter dated 30/09/2015 written by the OP No. 1 to all the owners of the premises in the building, including the Complainant wherein the OP No. 1 has stated that he had agreed to give possession of the flats in the month of August 2014 but due to financial problem, some internal work and the painting work could not be completed and therefore the handing over of possession of the flats will be delayed further and the same shall be subject to their understanding and agreement and that the undertaking dated 02/05/2014 given to Mr. Sanjay Naik shall be applicable to all. The OP No.1, by this letter, had further undertaken to give possession of the flats on 15/11/2015 and that if the internal work is not completed by the end of 14/11/2015, then the flat owners may take the possession as they are and he will complete the rest of the work within the stipulated time period and thereafter the sale deed would be executed. In the above letters, the OPs have not at all alleged that the Complainant has not cleared the entire consideration and therefore the sale deed cannot be executed. The OPs have not produced any evidence to prove that any amount is still outstanding.
11. Admittedly, the possession of the suit flat has been handed over to the Complainant on 15/11/2015. It is true that clause no. 10 of the agreement for construction and sale dated 22/12/2011 provides that upon taking possession of the suit flat being delivered by the Owner-Cum-Builder to the Purchaser, she shall be entitled to use and occupy the said flat and the Purchaser having taken possession 10 of the said flat shall have no claim against the Owner-Cum-Builder in respect of any item of work in the said flat which is alleged not to have been carried out or completed. However, subsequent to delivery of possession, by letter dated 08/01/2016, addressed to all the flat owners, including the Complainant, the OP No. 1. has tendered apology for not having completed the entire internal work within the stipulated time period as set out in the agreement and understanding. The OP No. 1 has further stated in this letter that his representative has told him that the Complainant has taken possession of the flat and has undertaken the balance finishing work including the internal painting work to make the flat habitable. The OP No. 1 has undertaken to repay the Complainant for the said work undertaken by the Complainant and/or to adjust the said amount towards the balance consideration amount in respect of the flat at the time of execution of the sale deed. By this letter, the OP No. 1 has further undertaken to give effect to letter dated 02/05/2014. With the above position of facts, let us now consider the prayers of the Complainant.
12. Prayer (a) in the Complaint is to direct the opposite parties to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit flat. The entire sale consideration has been received by the OPs and possession of the suit flat has been given to the Complainant. However, no sale deed has been executed though by letter dated 08/01/2016, the OP No. 1 had undertaken to execute the sale deed within six to seven months from 08/01/2016. The Complainant is entitled to the relief of direction to the OPs to execute the sale deed, in respect of the suit flat, in favour of the Complainant.
13. Prayer (b) in the Complaint is to direct the OPs to take required steps to install electricity transformer within the precinct of the building premises in the space reserved for the independent electricity connection to the suit flat and on failure to do so to direct the electricity department to provide electricity connection to the 11 suit flat within 15 days time period. Prayer (f) seeks a direction to the OPs to provide water connection independently to the flat of the Complainant with the facilities of underground sump and overhead water tank. Prayer (i) requires the opposite parties to forthwith provide the independent electric connection with fitting fixtures above the staircase for the use and benefit of the Complainant. The agreement for construction and sale dated 22/12/2011 does not say that steps shall be taken by the OPs to install electricity transformer within the precinct of the building or to provide independent electricity and water connection with the facilities of underground sump and overhead water tank, to the suit flat or independent electric connection above the staircase. In the Complaint, there is no pleading to the effect that some space is reserved for electricity transformer within the precinct of the building and that the OPs had agreed to take steps to install the electricity transformer there. The approved plan annexed to the agreement for construction and sale does not show any space specially reserved for electricity transformer. In the Complaint, it has been alleged that though the OPs have put the Complainant in possession of the suit flat, however, separate electricity connection and water connection has not been provided. The electricity connection has been provided by the OPs through the common electricity point, which is commercial. The agreement for construction and sale, in the building specification, only mentions about plumbing work and electrical works in the suit flat to be done by the OPs., at their cost, for the suit flat and to keep one light point at the staircase. The said agreement further speaks about a PVC water tank of size 3000 litres to be provided above staircase for all the co-owners. In the letter dated 08/01/2016, the OP No. 1 has not undertaken to take steps for installing the electricity transformer or to obtain separate electricity and water connection to the suit flat and independent electric connection above the staircase. The OPs have only permitted the Complainant to use the common electricity connection taken by him, 12 which is commercial. However, it is an admitted fact that there is no independent electricity and water connection to the suit flat and above the staircase. We are unable to direct the electricity department to provide for electricity transformer or electricity connection to the suit flat and also we cannot direct the water department to give tap water connection to the suit flat, as prayed for by the Lr. Counsel for the Complainant, during the course of the oral arguments. It is not known whether the OP has obtained occupancy certificate or not. The electricity and the water department is not a party to these proceedings and there is no grievance of deficiency in service against the said departments. The question of directing the electricity department to provide electricity transformer within the precinct of the building and electricity connection to the suit flat and the water department to give tap water connection to the suit flat does not arise. In the written submissions, the Complainant has stated that the OPs have left the office and their whereabouts are not known. She has relied upon certain citations and has submitted that considering the changed circumstances, the Court has power to mould the relief claimed. We have perused the said citations. No relief can be granted against anybody who is not a party to the proceedings and against whom there are no pleadings. None of the citations relied upon by the Complainant is applicable to the present case. By order dated 25/01/2017, passed on the application for interim reliefs, we have already directed the OPs to take steps, in accordance with law, to provide independent domestic electricity and water connection to the suit flat, at the cost of the Complainant. The above order is required to be made absolute. The OPs shall not disconnect the common electricity connection to the suit flat provided the Complainant regularly pays his share of electricity charges, till the independent domestic electricity connection is given to the Complainant.
1314. Prayer (c) of the Complaint is to direct the opposite parties to carry out the external painting of the building, compound wall and also to provide main iron gate to the compound at their own cost. The agreement for construction and sale, in clause no. 4, says that the Owner-Cum-Builder shall construct the said flat as per the approved plans of the construction and specification appended to the agreement, both forming part of the agreement. The said approved plan shows the details of the compound wall and the gate. Though the Complainant has already taken possession of the suit flat, however, the work of external painting of the building, compound wall and a gate to it has not yet been completed. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to prayer (c) of the Complaint.
15. Prayer (d) of the Complaint is to direct the OPs to form the society of the purchasers of the flats in the said building. Clause 16 of the agreement for construction and sale provides that the purchaser shall assist the Owner-Cum-Builder and other premises holders in forming Co-operative Society or an association of the persons or such other entity for maintaining the said portion and the said building scheme, it shall be entirely at the discretion of the Owner-Cum-Builder to decide whether to form a Co-operative Society or any other association of persons or any other entity (the Owner-Cum-Builder takes his decision in this matter) and the purchaser shall sign all forms, applications/deeds and/or other documents as may be required for the formation of the Society. In view of the above, the OPs can be directed to take decision as per clause 16 above and take steps accordingly and the Complainant shall assist the OPs in the same.
16. Vide prayer clause (e), the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 16,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum towards balance work done including compensation/damages in respect of the inconvenience, hardship and mental torture suffered by the Complainant from the 14 date of the Complaint till the full and final payment is made to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the internal work of the suit flat was incomplete even after taking possession of the suit flat and that she got the same completed through labourers for which she had incurred total expenses of more than Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Complainant has alleged that she is entitled for the said amount besides the compensation towards harassment which he has calculated at Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Complainant ultimately has prayed for the said sum of Rs. 16,38,000/- towards the said balance work done and compensation for inconvenience, hardship and mental torture, without explaining as to how she has arrived at such a huge sum. The OPs, in their written version, have denied the above fact. Except a statement in the affidavit-in-evidence, the Complainant has not produced any evidence like receipts of payments made to any contractor or labourers, etc. The Complainant has also not filed affidavit of any contractor or labourer. Hence, it is not proved that the Complainant has spent more than Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the incomplete works. By letters dated 02/05/2014, 30/09/2015 and 08/01/2016, the OP No. 1 has undertaken to repay the Complainant for the balance finishing work including internal painting work got done by the Complainant. Since the Complainant has failed to prove as that the amount spent for getting the said unfinished work was Rs. 4,00,000/- but since the OP No. 1 has admitted that the Complainant has undertaken the balance finished works including the internal painting of the suit flat, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant towards the said work as we are of the considered opinion that the same is reasonable. The OP No. 1 has also undertaken to give effect to letter dated 02/05/2014. According to the Complainant, she is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs, 7,000/- per month from the date of expiry of the time of delivery of possession for the last about 34 months till the date of handing over of possession of the flat on 15/11/2015, on account of delay in delivery of possession. As per 15 the agreement, possession of the suit flat had to be delivered to the Complainant on or before 22/12/2012 or at least on or before 22/01/2013, subject to payment of compensation of Rs. 7,000/- per month. However, the Complaint has been filed on 10/11/2016, which is beyond two years from 22/01/2013. Vide the said letter dated 02/05/2014, the OP No. 1 has undertaken to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as from 01/08/2014 till the date of delivery of possession, for the losses suffered by the Complainant. The Complainant has not objected to the contents of the said letter. The possession was delivered on 15/11/2015. Hence the delay is of fifteen and half months. Therefore, the OPs are bound to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 1,08,500/- towards the said delay. By the same letter, the OP No. 1 has also undertaken to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation towards loan transfer. The compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards harassment as claimed by the Complainant is too high and unreasonable. In our view, the OPs should pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant as compensation towards harassment, inconvenience and mental torture. Hence the OPs have to pay to the Complainant a total amount of Rs. 4,08,900/- towards the internal works carried out by the Complainant to the suit flat and for compensation under different heads, as above. The above amount should be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as from the date of filing of the Complaint till payment.
17. In terms of prayer clause (g), the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OPs to provide for soak pit and septic tank of required size proportionate to the size of the building along with vent pipe. The building specification in the agreement provides that all plumbing will be done with half inch PVC pipes and SWR pipes will be of 10 cms. with appropriate number of inspection chambers, septic tanks and soak pit. Thus, it is the responsibility of the OPs to provide for appropriate number of septic tanks and soak pit. The correspondence on record reveals that some work has remained 16 incomplete though possession of the suit flat was handed over to the Complainant. The OPs should provide for the said septic tank and soak pit of required size proportionate to the size of the building and the vent pipe.
18. Vide prayer clause (h) of the Complaint, the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to comply with the amenities sketched out in the approved plan by the South Goa Planning and Development Authority and the Margao Municipal Council such as parking place, open space and approach road without any third party interference along with the demarcation of the plot. There is no pleading in the Complaint that open space and approach road as provided in the approved plan is not kept or that certain amenities have been sketched out in the approved plan by the South Goa Planning and Development Authority and the Margao Municipal Council and if yes what are they and that such amenities have not been provided. Clause no. 22 of the agreement for construction and sale dated 22/12/2011 provides that the Owner-Cum-Builder shall provide to the purchaser one parking slot on the stilt floor with an area of 18 square metres (being parking no. TF-3) which shall be exclusively reserved for parking. Thus, the Complainant has purchased the said flat along with parking slot (i.e. the suit flat) and she is entitled to have it. Prayer (h), therefore, should be partly granted, insofar as the parking slot is concerned.
19. Vide prayer clause (j), the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to handover the completion certificate so also other NOCs from the authorities like SGPDA, Municipality, etc. within 30 days and on failure to do so, this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to direct the SGPDA and Margao Municipality to issue necessary NOCs as required to complete legal formalities and perfect the title of the Complainant in the suit flat and on failure of the authorities, the order of the Hon'ble Commission be deemed to be considered as the NOCs for all purpose of law. As already stated above, various 17 authorities like SGPDA, Margao Municipality, etc. are not parties to the proceedings and there are no pleadings regarding these authorities. Hence there is no question of giving any directions to the said authorities. However, the OPs are bound to obtain such NOCs and hand them over to the Complainant for completing the legal formalities like execution of the sale deed, obtaining electric and water connection, etc. Therefore, part of the prayer clause (j) can be granted as above.
20. Prayer clause (k) is to direct the OPs to complete or reconstruct or remedy faulty works inside the flat and or to pay the appropriate cost in respect of the said work for rectifying defective work. This prayer is totally vague. There is no pleading as to what are the faulty or defective works inside the suit flat. The Complainant has already got done the incomplete works of the suit flat after taking possession and he has been awarded compensation for the same. Hence, prayer
(k) cannot be granted.
21. Then, by prayer clause (l), the Complainant has prayed to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month from the 15/11/2015 i.e. the date of possession towards the labour charges to fetch the water from the well till the individual water connection is given to the Complainant. As already stated above, the agreement between the parties does not require the OPs to provide for individual tap water connection to the suit flat. The Complainant has pleaded that she and other occupants of the flats have constructed the well and are using the water from the said well by engaging labourer for which the Complainant is spending Rs. 2,500/- per month. The Complainant and other flat owners have got the well constructed at their own pleasure and cost. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that the Complainant is spending Rs. 2,500/- for fetching water from the well. Even otherwise, there is no question of directing the OPs to bear such amount, even if spent by the Complainant. Prayer (l), therefore cannot be granted.
1822. Vide prayer clause (m), the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to install two elevators in each building at their own cost and vide prayer clause (n), the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to beautify the surroundings of the building with pavers to the land and other beautification as per the understanding and as represented in the agreement between the parties. The approved plan annexed to the agreement shows that the building is five storied building. Lifts will have to be provided for such building. The approved plan shows two lifts to be provided, for which spaces have been kept. The Complainant has pleaded that the work of lift facilities has not even started. However, there is nothing in the said agreement regarding beautification of the surrounding with pavers, etc. There is also no evidence regarding any understanding between the parties to the effect that the OPs shall beautify the surrounding as prayed for. Hence prayer (m) can be partly granted as far as the lifts are concerned but prayer (n) cannot be granted.
23. Lastly, vide prayer clause (o), the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay a difference of sum of Rs. 6,500/- towards the rental loss suffered by the Complainant due to the delay in giving possession of flat. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the Complainant to establish that she was staying in rental premises and was paying rent of Rs. 2,500/- per month. No lease agreement is produced. No affidavit of any landlord has been filed and even the name of the landlord is not disclosed. Hence the above prayer cannot be granted.
24. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Complaint is partly allowed.19
(b) The OPs shall execute sale deed in respect of the suit flat in favour of the Complainant, within a period of 30 days from today.
(c) The OPs shall take required steps to obtain independent domestic electricity and tap water connection for the suit flat, at the cost of the Complainant at the earliest and at least within 60 days from today and the Complainant shall assist the OPs in all respects and till the connection is given, the OPs shall not disconnect the common electricity connection, provided the Complainant pays his share of electricity charges.
(d) The OPs shall carry out the work of external painting of the building, compound wall and door to it as per the approved plan, at their own cost, at the earliest and at least within a period of 60 days from today.
(e) The OPs shall take decision in terms of clause 16 of the agreement for construction and sale for formation of Co-
operative Society or an association of persons or such other entity for maintaining the said portion and the said building scheme, within a reasonable time.
(f) The OPs shall pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.
4,08,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as from the date of the Complaint till the date of payment of the entire amount.
(g) The OPs shall provide soak pit and septic tank of required size proportionate to the size of the building along with vent pipe.
(h) The OPs shall provide for the parking place to the Complainant as per the agreement.
(i) The OPs shall hand over to the Complainant the completion certificate as also other NOCs from the authorities like SGPDA, Municipality, etc. within a period of 30 days from today.
20(j) The OPs shall install two lifts in the building in which the suit flat is situated as per the approved plan, at their own cost.
(k) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of the litigation.
[Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav] [Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre]
Member President