Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. On the issue of non-provision of services and facilities, the evidence led by the complainants before the State Commission is based substantially on the brochure and pamphlets issued by the OPs at the time of launch of the proposed township, Sahara States. They also filed evidence relating to defects in construction in the form of a technical expert report as well as evidence to show that the land earmarked in the project for a primary school had already been sold by the OPs to a third party namely, Kavya Educational Society.

ARGUMENTS OF THE TWO SIDES

21. Learned counsel for the appellants/OPs, Mr. Dial argued that the dispute raised by the complainants falls in two parts. The first carries allegations of defects/deficiencies in construction of individual dwelling units. The second revolves around the claims of owners/purchasers of these dwelling units, relating to the common areas and facilities. This term has been defined in Section 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act 1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Apartments Act). This provision provides a detailed listing of all that is included within the meaning of this term, but qualifies it by saying unless otherwise provided in the Declaration. As defined in Section 3(h), Declaration is an instrument by which the property is submitted to the provision of Chapter III. This Chapter deals with special facilities. He argued that the provision of Chapter III will not apply to the present case as no Declaration has been filed with the competent authority. In our view, the absence of a Declaration will not create a void. In the admitted absence of the declaration, the common areas and facilities, as per Section 3

d.   On the question of construction defects in the apartments the appellant/OPs have failed to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the relief granted to individual complainants in Bahar, Malhar and Vrindavani Apartments has to be upheld.

e.   The issue of insufficiency of potable water was eventually addressed by the OPs with their request for enhancement of allocation in 2007. However, this was long after the complaint had been filed before the State Commission in 2003.

f.     Most shocking is the case of the hospital. It was falsely claimed to be under construction and nearing completion in 2005, while the inescapable truth remains that until 2013 it had remained only as a proposal. Therefore, in our view the State Commission was right in holding the OPs/Sahara India responsible for this lapse.

35. In view of the detailed examination above, we hold that defects in construction of these apartments and long delays in provision of services like adequate potable water, external electrification, parks and gardens, amount to serious deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, the award of compensation to individual complainants in the impugned order is upheld. At the same time, the direction in the impugned order to hand over the maintenance and control over certain specific assets/facilities to the complainant Association (ambulance, club building, shopping plaza and school building) is set aside.