Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is further alleged by the Complainant as follows:-

After shifting to the said flats, the Complainant faced the problems of seepages, leakages, plumbing and electrical aspects and he was forced to get them fixed at his own costs, since the OPs failed and neglected to take active measures. Though the OPs held out to have obtained the Occupancy Certificate, however, they had not completed the flats, the building has not been constructed according to the plans shown to the Complainant and his wife and inter alia, even the roofing has been changed from sloping roof to a flat slab roofing style. The requests to install the elevator/lift met with no success. The OPs neglected to get the lift installed. The OPs had always held out that common area of the plot behind the building would be converted into a garden sit out, but no steps have been taken even to clean the place with the result that bushes/undergrowth have made the area a mess. Till the date of filing of the Complaint the Complainant had spent over Rs. 60,000/- to put the said flats in habitable condition and towards repairs/rectifications. In January 2010 when the Complainant broached the subject of final possession and sale deed, the OP No. 1 tried to stall by giving various excuses. The Complainant finally addressed a notice dated 8th March 2010 to the OPs by registered post A/D asking the OPs to complete all the pending works, to clear the parking slots, to clear the dogs menace and also called upon the OPs to execute the sale deed and to install a fully functional lift and provide the sloping roof as shown in the approved plans. The Complainant got the building and the flats inspected by a structural Engineer, Mr. M. S. Chauhan, former Superintending Engineer of Government of Goa and sought his written expert opinion and he gave the report dated 28/04/2010. For completion of the required works, a sum of Rs. 7,03,500/- will be required as per the estimate of the expert. Hence the Complaint.

16. The fourth prayer (d) in the Complaint is regarding removal of materials stacked and landscaping of the area and providing garden in the front and rear portion of the open area of the said plot. There is no pleading in the Complaint that there was an agreement for providing a garden in the front portion of the open area of the plot. The Complainant has pleaded in paragraph 19 of the Complaint that the OPs had held out that the common area of the plot behind the building would be converted into a garden sit out but this has not been done. However, the OPs have denied the above in their written version by adding that the said portion of land behind the building does not form part of the area, the proportionate right of which was agreed to be transferred in favour of the Complainant. The expert, Mr. M. S. Chauhan, in his report has vaguely stated that land scaping/garden is yet to be done. He has not mentioned as to which clause of the agreement provides for the same or whether the approved plan shows the same. Though in clause No. 16 of the agreement it is stated that the Complainant agrees to contribute an amount, inter alia, towards maintenance of garden, however, we do not find any clause in the said agreement or in any schedule saying that a garden shall be provided by the OPs either in the front or in the rear portion of the open area of the said plot. Lr. Counsel for the Complainant could not show to us any agreement in this regard. There is area statement in the approved plan. We were not shown any garden area on the approved plan. We are of the view that the claim made vide prayer (d) in the Complaint was not proved and hence rightly not granted by the Forum.