Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Structural defects in M/S. Nancy Lake Homes Co. Op. Housing ... vs Nancy Icon Builders And Developers & ... on 1 December, 2025Matching Fragments
7. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and submissions placed on record. Mr. Sant has, taking us through the relevant paras of the complaint and the documents referred to therein, reiterated the same and urged that the inadequate and defective common amenities as pleaded is a a serious deficiency for which based on a qualified architect's report the compensation of Rs. 205 lacs has rightly been claimed. The OP builder, having collected the maintenance charges in lump sum at Rs. 1 per sq ft per month for 3 years from the allottees, has not handed over the "unutilised" pro-rata amounts for the allottees whose occupation of unit after taking possession, and hence expendable maintenance charges for such lesser period is less than 3-year amount actually paid by the allottees. Such balance "unconsumed" amount of Rs. 50.75 lacs (pg 197) should have been handed over to the society at the time the "charge" of maintenance was handed over to the society. Similarly the amount of Rs. 33.15 lacs is claimed because, allegedly, the builder had unsold 65 flats for which the 3-year advance at stipulated rate would come to this amount which should have been put by developer into the common maintenance fund. The Complainant has primarily alleged several deficiencies in the construction quality, non-provision of agreed amenities, improper maintenance accounts, structural defects, incomplete fire-fighting system, and irregularities in the handover process, as detailed in the deficiency chart. The Opposite Parties, on the other hand, have categorically denied each of these allegations in their Written Statement and have contended that all amenities were provided as per sanctioned plans, that no structural or functional defects exist, that proper handover along with accounts was completed, and that the Society is raising false and baseless grievances. The defense taken by the Opposite Parties against each allegation has been summarized in the corresponding reply table:
Sr. Category of Specific Deficiency
Details / Evidence Referred
No. Deficiency Alleged
Repeated complaints on 31.05.2010,
1 Structural Defects Leakage from podium
05.06.2010, 09.06.2010; not rectified.
Pool remains non-functional; poor
2 Structural Defects Leakage in swimming pool
construction quality.______________
General leakage and Raised repeatedly; developer failed to
3 Structural Defects
seepage in buildings_____ take action._____________________
Fire-fighting system Major components missing; not
4 Fire Safety System
incomplete installed as per sanctioned plan.
No fire pumps, hoses, alarms; serious
5 Fire Safety System Fire system non-functional
safety violation.
Proposed and promised
Deviation in Promised Developer failed to deliver amenities
6 amenities not provided as
Amenities listed in registered agreements.
per Schedule-ll
Actual amenities provided were below
7 Amenities Deviation Inferior quality of amenities
agreed standard.
Failure to demonstrate how
Opponents gave only denials, no
8 Amenities Deviation provided amenities meet
justification.
Society needs___________
Developer withheld
Maintenance Account Documents at serial nos. 92-97;
9 ?50,75,207/- maintenance
Issues pages 129-133; admissions in letters.
amount________________
Instead falsely demanded Opponent's letter dated 21.07.2010
10 Maintenance Issues
^24,73,106/- from Society calling it "excess payment"._____ _
Developer issued "fake" Letter dated 18.11.2010; figures
11 Maintenance Issues
maintenance accounts manipulated and incorrect.
No proper handover of
Correspondence shows avoidance
12 Maintenance Issues accounts despite repeated
and concealment.
demands_______________
False claim that charge of Complainant denies -- no
13 Handover Process
building was handed over conveyance deed executed.
Handover letter dated
No legal transfer or compliance of due
14 Handover Process 15.06.2010 is only a "paper
process.
formality"_______________
Developer claimed Phase-ll
Misrepresentation & First time stated in letter dated
15 residents will use same
Unfair Practice 09.11.2010; mala fide intent.
amenities_______________
Sharing inadeguate
Amenities already insufficient for
16 Misrepresentation amenities with Phase-ll is
existing 383 flats.
illegal__________________
False assurances made in
Actual delivery did not match
17 Misrepresentation brochures and verbal claims
representations.
during booking___________
Conduct During Developer giving only bald
18 No documentary proof offered.
Litigation denials in Written Statement
Developer claims complaint Complainant denies; no change in
19 Procedural Misconduct
is afterthought & baseless pleadings; filed within limitation.
Developer concealed true Rejoinder specifically denies their
20 Procedural Misconduct
and correct facts in WS false averments.
Developers' replies in their Written Statement corresponding to each deficiency alleged by the Complainant.
Sr. No. (Linked to Deficiency Alleged by Reply / Defence of Opposite Parties (as per Written Deficiency Complainant Statement) Table)
Opponents deny allegations; claim podium is constructed as per 1 Leakage from podium approved plans and no structural defects exist._______________ Leakage in swimming Opponents deny any leakage; claim pool was built as per pool_______________ specifications and was functional at handover._______________ General building Opponents deny; state no complaints were raised at the time of leakages___________ possession and allegations are exaggerated.________________ Fire-fighting system Opponents state system is installed as per PMC norms; any incomplete__________ missing items are due to Society's poor maintenance._________ Fire system Opponents deny; claim full fire system was handed over and non-functional_______ faults (if any) developed later due to non-maintenance by Society.
7.1 The learned counsel for the Complainant further submitted that despite having paid the entire consideration amount for 242 flats, the Opposite Parties (OPs) failed to fulfil their contractual and statutory obligations and delivered defective construction with several deficiencies in common amenities, structural defects, and leakage problems throughout the complex. The Complainant contended that after possession was handed over on 15.06.2010, numerous complaints regarding leakage/seepage from podium, parking area, terrace, and flats were reported, and significant structural repairs and waterproofing works became necessary almost immediately, indicating poor workmanship. It was further argued that the builder failed to provide promised amenities as per brochure and sanctioned plan, such as proper swimming pool, STR system, compound wall, complete parking, clubhouse, podium garden, etc., and that even the facilities provided are merely superficial. Reliance was placed on the expert report filed at Pg. 113-114 of the complaint compilation, estimating repair cost and documenting construction defects. The complainant further alleged misrepresentation and breach of trust committed by the OPs and cited deficiencies observed by PMC authorities and documents relating to repeated leakage complaints and communication via multiple letters and notices. The learned counsel for the Complainant further submitted that OPs acknowledged leakage concerns themselves by issuing a letter dated 15.12.2010 to flat owners with acknowledgment list at Pg. 304-311, highlighting illegal installation of water tanks in bathroom ducts causing leakage and structural damage, proving that serious defects existed within months of possession. It was also argued that completion certificates granted by PMC dated 14.03.2008, 07.05.2008 and 30.03.2010 (Pg. 298-303) do not absolve the OPs from liability for deficiency and poor quality workmanship. It is further contended that the society and members were compelled to spend a huge amount for repairs, indicating continuing deficiency. The Complainant urged that the cause of action still survives due to continuing wrong and that delay cannot defeat substantive justice. The Complainant argued that the OPs failed to provide legally promised amenities and therefore are liable to compensate the society for expenses incurred and mental harassment.