Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.       We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at some length and have also perused the material available on record as well as the Written Submissions filed by the parties.

12.       Learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board submitted that the Housing Board was formed with the objective of providing residential houses to the serving Air Force and Navel Personnel and widows of these Service only on "No Profit and No Loss" basis under Self-Financed Housing Scheme. They offered the subject Dwelling Units to the Complainants as per terms & conditions laid down in 097IG message. The area of the offered Flats and the corresponding Cost was enhanced after considering several requests and representations from the allottees to expand the living space and improvements suggested by the allottees. That no specific date for completion of the Building was given by them, however, as per Clause 9 of the Allotment Letter, the Dwelling Units were expected to be ready for possession by October, 1998. They imposed the condition of penalty on withdrawals because they had already invested huge money on purchase of land and construction thereon and, at that stage, they could not afford the withdrawal being a non-profit organization. The Parking Space Charges were levied by them in accordance with the earlier precedence set out for its earlier Projects and as a result of the majority opinion poll. They charged interest on delayed payments from the Complainants to bring them at par with the allottees who had paid in time. The interest so received was also credited to the Project in Project Fund. The Housing Board asked the Opposite Party No.3 Builder to keep its maintenance team ready to rectify any defects reported during the Defect Liability Period, free of cost, and first such work was done in Sept./Oct.2002. Second such collective work was done during May/June, 2003. The Housing Board also carried out the painting work of the Gulab Building in October/November, 2002. That the Opposite Party No.1 carried out the inspection of the building in consultation with Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 in terms of its RCC structure stability and the consultations had given a satisfactory reply. The Housing Board was committed to rectify the defects only for two years according to the Defect Liability Period and the same was done. The amount collected towards Long Term Maintenance Fund to the tune of ₹1,76,96,000/- with interest was paid to the Allottees' Society, which is responsible for maintenance, upkeep, repairs, etc., after the Defect Liability Period of two years. He further submitted that the construction of the Building was as per ISI standards as certified by the Architect and structural integrity has been reassessed and found to be satisfactory. Out of the 112 Allottees of Gulab Building, there was are 33 Allottees who had filed the Complaint. If there would have been major structural defects in the Gulab Building then all the 112 allottees would have filed the Complaint. Finally, he contended that the Complaint filed in the year 2005 is time barred and deserved to be dismissed on that ground.

ii)         Most of the members are facing the external leakage problem from their external facing walls (mainly from dead wall).   Most of the Members are facing internal leakage from upper floor W.C. bath and kitchen.  Various cracks like shear cracks, separation cracks, thermal expansion cracks and structural cracks are major defects in plaster; also in most of the place plumbing pipe's joints are fail that is causing of external and internal leakages problem to the members.