Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.3 The complainants, Jayashree Padmakar and others, owners of property CTS Nos.1465/1 and 1465/2, 'C' Ward, Kolhapur, had entered into a Development Agreement dated 30.07.1996 with the opposite party. According to the agreement, the complainants were entitled to receive eight residential flats and Rs.6,50,000/- as consideration. Allegedly, the opposite party failed to fulfill the payment obligations, resulting in payment of a balance amount and accruing interest at 18% per annum with effect from 01.04.1997. The complainants alleged breaches of the agreement, including deviations from sanctioned plan, non-construction of a compound wall impacting parking and issues regarding access and unauthorized constructions beyond sanctioned plan, subsequently sold to third parties. They also noted defects in the building construction, such as cracks, in the building, terrace work being not completed and the absence of provision for electricity meters. Despite notices issued by the complainants, the opposite party denied the allegations asserting that the complainants owed them Rs.8,60,000/- for construction and amenities.

rectification of construction defects; completion of pending work and the provision of essential amenities as initially agreed upon. 2.5 In his version, the original opposite party disputed the existence of any consumer relationship, denied breaches and argued for the resolution of contractual disputes through the civil court. The opposite party claimed that the complaint was time- barred and sought its dismissal with compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2.6 The District Consumer Forum at Kolhapur, vide order dated 16.10.2006, on perusal of various supporting documents, including the Development Agreement, building plans, notices, replies, certificates, estimates, receipts and affidavits partly allowed the Consumer Complaint No.184 of 2005 filed against the opposite party. The District Forum observed that as per the Development Agreement between the parties, the transaction between the parties was not one of sale and purchase of property but of development of property. Since the services regarding construction are covered by the Consumer Protection Act, the dispute was held to be a consumer dispute. Further, the District Forum refused to take into consideration the points raised by the complainants regarding defects in construction, amenities and facilities due to lack of evidence provided in that regard. However, the opposite party was found to be liable to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. l,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 01.05.1997 till payment; an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 31.08.1997 till payment; and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of conveyance. 2.7 Both the parties challenged the order of the District Forum before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai (for short, “the State Commission”). The State Commission, vide its common judgment dated 08.04.2008 in First Appeal Nos.2570 of 2006 and 1115 of 2007, partly modified the order of the District Forum by setting aside the directions to pay Rs. 1.85 lakhs and Rs. 1.65 lakhs as the said claims were held to be time-barred but upheld the direction to pay Rs. 1.5 lakhs. However, the State Commission placed reliance on some other clauses of the Development Agreement such as clause 4(k), to hold that the building was incomplete and that the opposite party was liable to get the construction of the compound wall and give separate access in terms of Schedule-II of the Development Agreement. The opposite party was further directed to obtain and handover the Completion Certificate to the complainants; to execute the Conveyance Deed and to give electricity connections to the complainants for which they had already paid Rs.15,000/- to the developer-opposite party.