It is common to find builders committing breach of contract. Here is a case of several violations being committed by one builder in the case of a specific project. Yet, the consumers in this case were not left helpless. One consumer complaint was enough for them to get relief against the entire gamut of illegal acts.
Nav Indraprastha Co-operative Housing Society along with 11 flat, shop buyers who were its members, filed a joint complaint against Nikhil Builders and its partners. They had agreed to purchase units in a building to be constructed by a builder. According to the original approved plan, the proposed building was to have four shops and a flat on the ground floor, three residential flats from the first to the third floors and two terrace flats on the fourth floor. Possession was to be given within a year. However, this was delayed till 1989 on various pretexts.
Then began the woes of the flat-buyers. Soon, leakages and defects were noticed, for which a representation was sent to the builder in April 1990. The builder assured these would be rectified, but did not do so. The architect who was appointed by the flat-buyers estimated the cost of rectification at Rs 11.5 lakh. The builder also defaulted in clearing the municipal taxes payable till the date of possession, for which the municipality issued notices to the flat-buyers, demanding over Rs 50,000 and threatened to disconnect their water supply, as well as auction the building. Ultimately, the flat-buyers had to pay the property taxes.
The builder also failed to form a co-operative society. Again, the flat owners were forced to get together and get a society registered at their own expense. Though the builder had collected money from the flat-buyers to instal electricity metres and get these transferred to their names, he did not do so. Some flats remained unsold and were in the possession of the builder, for which he refused to pay maintenance charges. Due to various breaches, the builder could not obtain an Occupation Certificate for the entire building. For this violation, flat-buyers were charged additional sewage tax and not provided permanent water connections.
In his defence, the builder claimed the cause of action had arisen in 1991 whereas the complaint was filed in 1996, so it was time-barred. He also claimed the plans shown to the flat-buyers were provisional and he had the right to alter these if the municipal corporation permitted the changes.
The State Commission held the cause of action would be continuing since neither the Occupation Certificate for the entire building had been obtained nor had the Conveyance Deed been executed. These breaches resulted in contractual as well as statutory deficiency in service. Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint.
The builder was directed to remove the unauthorised construction put up by him and hand over the vacated space to the society. The Commission also directed the electricity meters be transferred to the names of the flat owners by the builder at his expense. Directions were also given to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the local authority. The builder was ordered to reimburse Rs 24,000 incurred as additional levy on sewage tax. Likewise, the builder was directed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the members for formation of the society. The builder was held liable to pay his proportionate maintenance charges for the flats which had not been sold and retained by him. He was also ordered to execute the Conveyance Deed within two months. In addition, a compensation of Rs 10,000 and costs of Rs 2,000 were ordered to be paid to each flat owner.
The wide gamut of reliefs granted shows the Consumer Protection Act has the requisite muscle to fight the might of builders.
The writer is a consumer activist
