Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. The learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that almost all the towers had problem of seepage and water logging since the inception because of structural defects and poor quality of construction. It had not only affected the value of the flats but also had structural and safety issues. It was argued that the Architect Report showed that the quality of plumbing work done in the complex was of inferior quality, resulting in seepage and would have damaging effect on the structure. Learned Counsel submitted that Complainant No.1 had engaged an Architect firm to evaluate the condition of the towers. The Architect firm in its report had noted various flaws in construction and had suggested various steps to deal with the problem of seepage. The report under the heading "Common Areas" has computed a figure of Rs.9.05 crores that would be required to deal with the problem of seepage of all the towers. At the time of offer of possession, the residents were forced by Opposite Party No.1 to pay Contingency Fund for potential increase in External Development Charges. This interest free amount at the rate of Rs.50 per sq. ft was around Rs.1 lakh for each resident. The residents were not told about any such funds at the time of booking of the flats and were informed about this charge only at the time of signing of flat buyer's agreement. It was further argued that the amount collected by Opposite Party No.1 towards the External Development Charges, apart from the Contingency Fund, was in excess to the amount deposited by Opposite Party No.1 towards the External Development Charges. Opposite Party No.1 collected the External Development Charges at the rate of Rs.90 per sq. ft. totaling Rs.9,34,32,060/- for all the residents and as per RTI response dated 17.5.2013 from Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, the total sum deposited by Opposite Party No.1 with the Authority towards External Development Charges was only Rs.8,64,94,000 which comes to Rs.83.32 per sq. ft. Opposite Party No.1, therefore, was liable to return the excess amount with interest to the Complainant Association. Learned Counsel submitted that Opposite Party No.1 promised various facilities and amenities like additional DG sets to provide the promised power backup of 6.25 KVA per flat, Water Harvesting Equipment, Fire Safety Equipment, Amphitheater, Community Center at the time of booking of the flats. However, none of these facilities were provided. Learned Counsel further submitted that in direct contravention to Rule 3 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987, requiring developers to disclose "built up area" in Form of Declaration, Opposite Party No.1 filed an improper Deed of Declaration Form and disclosed only "Approx. Super Area" in the sale. It was stated that Opposite Party No.1 cheated the Residents by subsequently changing the definition of Super Area. Clause 3.1 of the Flat Buyer's agreement did not have balcony in the definition of super area but was included in the sale deed. It was further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 coerced the Residents to sign a Maintenance Agreement with its sister concern/Opposite Party No.2. The total amount collected from the Residents as Interest Free Maintenance Security Deposit was approximately Rs.5 crores. Even the Maintenance Agreement which was for a period of 3 years had expired. The Residents requested Opposite Party No.2 several times to handover the maintenance to Complainant No.1 alongwith the Security Deposit. However, Opposite Party No.2 had not handed over the maintenance charge alongwith the Security Deposit to Complainant No.1 and is continuing under an expired Maintenance Agreement with increased maintenance charges. It was further argued that Opposite Party No.1 charged Club Membership Fee of Rs.50,000/- per head and had failed to return this amount to the Complainants. Opposite Party No.1 failed to provide the DG sets as promised to meet out the power back up. It was submitted that Opposite Party No.1 had collected preferential location charges from the Residents of L and M block Towers of JMD Gardens, who purchased units in lower floors on the basis of the assurance given by Opposite Party No.1 that the front area would be an open area. However, after collecting preferential location charges, Opposite Party No.1 started constructing new towers which had blocked air and sun light and caused inconvenience. The maintenance provided by Opposite Party No.2 was of extremely poor quality.

6.       Learned Counsel submitted that Opposite Party No.1 taken PLC in terms of the Agreement. Opposite Party No.2 was handling the maintenance effectively. Complainant Association forcefully took the maintenance charge from Opposite Party No.2. The Learned Counsel rested the argument in denial of all the allegations in the Complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the same with litigation cost.

7.       Facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.1 developed and sold the flats to the members of Complainant No.1. Under Clause 2.3 of the Flat Buyer Agreement, the construction of flats was to be completed within three and half years from the date of sanction of the building plans. The residents were handed over the possession of their respective flats on various dates between July 2010 and August 2012. The dispute is that the Developer, contrary to clause 3.1 of the flat buyer's agreement, included balcony in the super area and encroached the original common area by constructing new towers, in violation of the sanctioned building plan approved by DTCP, C+ handigarh, Haryana. It was also disputed that quality of construction and services provided were of inferior quality and not as promised. It was alleged that the most of the towers were suffering from serious structural defects and almost all the flats of all towers have seepage issue since the inception. It was also disputed that the map shown by the Developer to the Residents prior to the construction, represented that the servant room would be accessible from kitchen balcony. However, no such access had been provided, which rendered the servant room unusable. The Opposite Party promised in the Sales Brochure, that bathrooms would be fitted with bath tub and geyser. It was stated that the bathrooms of the flats allotted to the Residents were not as per the promised specifications. The Developer had charged a significant amount of money for various facilities and amenities like amphitheater, School, Shopping Complex etc., as per the conditions of approval for the building plan granted by DTCP, Chandigarh, Haryana. However, these facilities were not provided to the Residents. The Complainants deposited an interest free sum ranging from Rs.50 per square ft to Rs.70 per square ft in the form of a Contingency Fund for any potential increase in External Development Charges. The same had not been returned after the External Development charges were fixed. Opposite Party No.1 had taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- as Club Membership Fee from every Resident at the time of handing over possession. The said amount had not been transferred to the Complainant i.e., the Residents Welfare Association who is running the club. Further it was alleged that Opposite Party No 1 had installed DG set with capacity of only 2520 KVA in place of the required capacity of 3030 KVA, accordingly the power produced by them was significantly lower than what was promised in the sales brochure. Further the lifts which were installed were not connected with an intercom line or any emergency hotline and also lifts are not maintained properly by Opposite Party No.1. The Automatic Rescue Devices (ARD) in the lifts was either not installed or faulty. It was stated that the Fire Safety equipment installed by the Developer in the 'JMD Gardens' were nonfunctional and the Developer had also not installed Public announcement system (Public Addressing System) required to alert the Residents in the event of fire to evacuate the building. There was severe rusting in the fire pipes and water seeps continuously through the same. Before handing over possession of the flat, Residents signed a maintenance agreement with Opposite Party No.-2, i.e., JMD Maintenance Services Private Limited, who failed to provide accounts of the maintenance expenses. As per the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act the common area is owned by the association of the flat owners and only the association of the flat owners can authorize any agency for maintenance. It is not disputed that the Complainant Association, vide legal notice dated 12.11.2013, highlighted various defects and deficiencies in service with regard to 'JMD Gardens' and requested Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to rectify the deficiencies and also hand over the maintenance to Complainant No.1. The Opposite Parties failed to take any steps to address the grievances of the Complainants.

          Apart from the above, the Architect also observed that plastering had not been done on brick walls at various places specially the shafts. Almost all the plumbing shafts were un-plastered, due to which the seepage was even more. It was also observed by the Architect that concrete had come out at some locations, exposing the reinforcement. Regarding electrical work, the Architect observed that at many places the electrical wires and cables were put in a very haphazard way. Some of the joints of electrical wire were left open, which were dangerous. Regarding firefighting system, the Architect observed that the pipes had been repaired at some locations by welding. The repairing was not done properly. At many places due to seepage of water, the firefighting pipes were rusted. Regarding external development, it was observed that the external development was in a very bad shape and the maintenance was very poor. I was also observed that the soft water tank placed in the pump room was damaged from the bottom due to which lot of water was getting waster. The maintenance of the transformer was poor. Due to lack of proper cooling system for the transformer, the doors of the transformer cover were kept open making it prone to accident. There was no provision to restrict the entry in the transformer room, which could lead to fatal accident.

14.     The Complainants submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.9,34,32,060/- towards external development charges and the total sum deposited by Opposite Party No.1 with the concerned Authorities towards external development charges was Rs.8,64,94,000/-. It was submitted on behalf of the Opposite Parties that Opposite Party No.1 had charged Rs.846.720 lakhs from the allottees. It is admitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 that the Authorities have charged Rs.869.975 lakhs towards external development charges. The Complainant Association is directed to submit the proof of payment of Rs.9,34,32,060/- with Opposite Party No.1. On submission of proof of payment, Opposite Party No.1 shall return the excess amount to the Complainant Association with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment.