Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

PER HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate, for Opposite Parties. The present consumer complaint arises out of alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices committed by M/s Tarunika Gaur Housing & Construction Ltd. (hereinafter "OP") in connection with the housing project Arunima Palace, situated at Plot No. GH-4, Sector-4, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. The complainant, Arunima Palace Residents Welfare Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1881, for safeguarding the interests of its members who are the residents and allottees of flats in the said project. Complainant has approximately 180 members, all of whom purchased flats in the project. Shri H.L. Bhandari, the Secretary of the Complainant Society, has been duly authorized under its bye-laws as well as through an Executive Body Resolution dated 10.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) to file this complaint. In 2007, OP builder widely advertised and launched the booking for its residential project, promising modern amenities, recreational facilities, green open spaces, and a healthy living environment. During 2007-2008, the members of the Complainant-society, lured by the attractive brochure and layout plan, booked their flats under various payment plans. It was represented that the project would consist of well-developed infrastructure, including a community centre, swimming pool, poolside restaurant, guest houses, health club, library, sports facilities, jogging tracks, children's play area, and uninterrupted power and water supply. The OP got its layout plan sanctioned from U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad, and subsequently, on 25.02.2010, the compounded map was approved after payment of regularization charges. As per the sanctioned plan, the plot area measured 7,559.26 sq. mtrs. with an FAR of 1.5, and an additional 0.5 FAR was purchasable, bringing the total saleable area to 14,353.90 sq. mtrs. The building plan sanction as approved permitted construction of only 151 units, but the OP allegedly constructed 180 flats, thus breaching statutory norms. Despite handing over possession of flats during 2009-2010, OP failed to develop the promised amenities, did not complete statutory obligations such as obtaining completion certificate, and also engaged in unauthorized construction and encroachment on open areas, fire escape zones, and parking spaces.

2.2 As pleaded in the complaint, OP failed to provide the promised community facilities such as a fully functional swimming pool, club house, sports courts, guest houses, jogging tracks, children's park, library, gym, fire safety measures, proper lighting, marble flooring in common areas, and adequate power backup despite having charged buyers for these amenities. Additionally, there are issues of safety and legality i.e. substandard lifts, exposed electrical cables, non-approval of basement and stilt constructions, and encroachment on common open spaces and fire-tender movement areas. OP's conduct amounts to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it has failed to provide what was promised and has caused immense mental agony, harassment, and financial loss to the residents. Complainant filed the present complaint on 09.09.2013 with the following prayer:

3.1 OP builder also disputes the factual allegations of deficiency and non-provision of facilities. It denies constructing 180 flats and clarifies that the total number of constructed flats is 160, which is within the approved limit and as per approved plan. It claims that the complainant has selectively relied on promotional brochure, which were tentative in nature and not binding, as the binding terms are contained in the Allotment Letter and related agreements. The builder cites clauses from the Allotment Letter which, as per him, allowed modifications in layout plans, reserved the builder's rights over club, open spaces, and amenities, and clearly mentioned that drawings displayed were provisional and subject to changes by the builder or sanctioning authorities. It is asserted that community facilities of health club, swimming pool, silent DG sets, CCTV cameras, elevators (six in number from ECE brand), and landscaping were duly provided, but the complainant society, after taking over maintenance from 2011 failed to maintain these facilities, causing their present state. OP claims that the centralized RO plant was not part of the "standard"

17. That the contents of para 17 are wrong and specifically denied. It is denied that answering respondent has encroached parking space, open green space and further not provided the community facility as promised in the brochure. It is stated that the submissions are reputable nature hence the contents of preceding paras may be read as reply of the instant paras as the contents of the same are not being repeated here further sake of brevity.

18. With regard to contents of para 18 it is submitted that Silent DG Set is installed in the society to provide electricity round the clock to the resident of the society. Rest of the contents are wrong and specifically denied. It is denied that the capacity and infrastructure as developed by respondent have been insufficient.