State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarosh Ardeshir Kolah & Another vs Bharat Developers & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on 28 April, 2015
1
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANAJI - GOA
C.C. No.03/2015
1. Mr. Sarosh Ardeshir Kolah
aged 58 years, Indian National,
and his wife;
2. Mrs. Gulshan Kolah,
aged 56 years, Indian National,
Both residents of:
R-5/K-2, Cusrow Baug,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai - 400 039. ... Complainants
v/s
Bharat Developers & Realtors Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company duly registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, and having its
Registered Office at C-002, Ruby Residency,
Behind Bhagayat Bazaar, Chawdi,
Canancona-Goa.
and having its branch office at
269, Satra Plaza, Sector-19 D, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai - 400 706. ...Opposite Party
Complainants are represented by Adv. Shri. N. Noronha.
OP is represented by Adv. Shri. A. Apte.
Coram: Shri. Justice N.A. Britto, President.
Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member.
Dated: 28/04/2015
ORDER
2 [Per Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President] This order shall disposed off the consumer complaint filed by the complainants on 9/1/15.
2. The complainant No. 2 is the wife of complainant No. 1 and complainant No. 1 is a retired serviceman, both being residents of Mumbai. In this complaint they seek to recover from the OP, a sum of Rs. 76,77,807 with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 4/1/14 until payment or in the alternative they seek that the OP should construct a similar flat and give the same to them alongwith a sum of Rs. 31,77,807/- with the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the same date.
3. To cut a long story short, the complainants entered into an agreement with the OP dated 22/09/10, styled as an agreement of construction and sale, by which the OP agreed to construct for the complainants a flat bearing No. H-8706 having a super built up area of 80.94 sq.mts. on the 4th floor of H-wing, in plot-D, in their project to be known as Ruby Residency at Canacona for a sum of Rs. 17,29,440/- The complainants paid in all a sum of Rs. 16,91,089/- and in addition paid another sum of Rs. 53,750/- for special windows. The said flat was to be delivered to the complainants within 24 months i.e. on or before 21/9/12.
4. The complainants say that on 4/1/14, while the complainants were watching television, they learnt from the news that the building in the said project Ruby Residency had collapsed resulting in the loss of 31 human lives but weren't sure whether their wing was included in the said building. The complainants say that they tried to get in touch with the office of the OP but could not contact anyone. They, therefore, made a trip to Goa, to the registered office of the OP Company spending another sum of Rs. 1,27,807/-. As per the complainants the collapse of the building of Ruby Residency cannot 3 be attributed to an act of god but to the faulty construction engineering and substandard construction material used for the construction of the said building.
5. The OP contested the complaint by filing a written version, and, stated that as regards the collapse of the said building the Government has appointed the Jha Commission who has submitted its report to the State Government which has not yet been made public. The OP says that they had entrusted the construction of the building to M/s. Coastal Builders on a turnkey basis, etc. The OP says that the complainant has not established deficiency of service on the part of the OP. According to them, the OP had carried out the said construction after obtaining necessary permissions from the Authorities and as such it cannot be inferred that a reputed Company would be reckless in doing the construction. The OPs also stated that Mr. Ranbir Singh Birring, the brother of the former Director of the Company, Mr. Pradeep Singh Birring, also owned a flat in the collapsed portion and in case the material used was of inferior quality Mr. Pradeep Singh Birring would not allow his brother to purchase a flat in the said building.
6. This is a 10th consumer complaint filed in connection with the collapse of one of the buildings of the said Ruby Residency. Nine complaints were disposed off by this State Commission by common order dated 6/2/15 and one of the nine complaints was filed by Vernon Anthony Fernandes.
7. We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties.
8. Shri. Noronha, the lr. advocate of the complainants, would submit that the complainants would be happy in case they are granted the relief, in terms of the common order dated 6/2/15. Lr. advocate 4 submits that in view of the said common order the complainants would not press for the reliefs sought for by them in the complaints. Lr. advocate submits that the complainants had also to incur additional expenditure of Rs. 1,27,807/- and Rs. 50,000/- which should also be ordered to be paid to them.
9. On the other hand, Shri. A.A. Apte, the lr. advocate of the OP, would submit that the said common order dated 6/2/15 is now in appeal before the National Commission. Lr. advocate submits that the OP cannot be saddled with the liability of Rs. 1,27,807/- in case the complainants spent the same to come to Goa.
10. We are not impressed with the submissions made by Shri. Apte, the lr. advocate of the OP. Only because the OP have preferred an appeal against our common order dated 6/2/15, we cannot hold back the decision of this complaint which is required to be disposed of in terms of Sub Section (3A) of Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 or for that matter follow different logic or law in deciding the same. In our common order dated 6/2/15, we had concluded that the building collapsed because it was structurally unsound, with improper foundation and that OP could not point out its fingers to Coastal Builders and Engineers stating that the actual construction was done by them. We had also concluded that the OP, as principal, was bound by the acts of its agent, the said Coastal Builders and Engineers. We had also noted that the expected economic life of a RCC framed construction, under normal occupancy and maintenance conditions, is 75 years and here we had a case where one of the buildings collapsed, even before it was occupied, and the only inference which could be drawn was that the building collapsed because it lacked good foundation or was otherwise structurally unsound. The events following the collapse of the said building were recorded in para 11 5 of our common order dated 6/2/15. Although the Government of Goa suspended some of the Government officers in connection with the collapse of the said building, they were subsequently reinstated. The Jha Commission report submitted to the Government, is still under wraps. Nothing is expected to come out from it sooner or in near future. Charge sheet in Cr. No. 1/14 has now been filed against 11 persons under Section 304, 336, 337, 338 IPC read with Section 120- B IPC, as reported by Navhind Times dated 20/4/15. Mr. Jugdeep K. Sehgal, Pradeep Singh Birring, directors of OP and Vishwas Desai, proprietor of M/s. Coastal Builders and Engineers are the accused among the said 11 persons. Our entire common order dated 6/2/15 can be taken as reproduced herein to form part of this order.
11. Accepting the submissions made by Shri. Noronha and following the ratio of our common Order dated 6/2/15 we allow the complaint partly. In our view the complainants are also entitled to receive from the OP Rs. 1,27,807/- which they had to spent in connection with the collapse of the said building. This is incidental expenditure on account of the collapse of the building. No proof is placed on record regarding the additional expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- We therefore direct the OP to pay to the complainants the sums of Rs. 16,91,089/-, Rs. 53,750/- and Rs. 1,27,807/- with pending and future interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment of the respective instalments, within a period of 30 days. The complainants are also held entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension and costs of Rs. 10,000/-. This order shall be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days.
[Smt.Vidhya R. Gurav] [Justice Shri. N. A. Britto]
Member President
/-sp