HOUSING DECISIONS.

By: Anju D. Aggarwal.

Posted on 20 March 2001
 

Many readers of Accommodation Times have telephoned to know the latest trend about housing problems in the consumer courts. Accordingly, the following recent decisions of various State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission ) are given below:-

• In a case decided by the Bihar State Commission on 2^nd April 1993 (Commission Case No. 52/91), section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act was invoked .The complainant was allotted a house in 1966 but possession had not been given even till the date of the order. As a result of the complaint filed, the Commission ordered that another house of a similar type be allotted to the complainant. The Commission also directed that the complainant to be further compensated by the Housing Board for the rental paid by him for accommodation hired by him after retirement.

• The Delhi State commission vide its order dated 9^th March 1993 (C-145 of 1992 ) has held in this case that where a person had purchased a flat from a builder and possession was not given by the promised date, a complaint can be filed in the consumer fora because the purchaser of the flat is consumer. The purchaser had deposited various instalments towards cost of the flat with the builder. The possession of the flat was not delivered . In this case, the builder had not even taken the possession of the plot on which flats were to be constructed . In these circumstances, it was held that the purchasers are entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them with builder alongwith interests at 18 per cent.

• There is an interesting case decided by the Delhi State Commission where the purchaser of a flat had filed a complaint for rectification of cracks in roof. The purchaser was allotted a flat in 1985. At the time of hearing of this complaint, the builder contended that no grievance was made of this defect at the time of delivery of possession . It has been held by the Delhi State Commission in its order dated 23^rd March 1993 in Case No. a-174 of 1992 that it was not possible to point out defect at the time of the delivery of possession . It is only after use that the defect can be found. The State Commission also came to the conclusion that a complainant cannot be allowed to suffer because of negligence on the part of the builder.

• The Tamil Nadu State Commission has also come to the conclusion in its order dated 10^th June 1993 (O.P.No.288 of 1991) that where a flat is not constructed by the due date, that will amount to a deficiency in service under section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act. In this case, the purchaser had paid the entire amount of Rs. 75,000 in various instalments . Subsequently , he paid another by the builder . The builder has not completed the flat so far . The learned President and Members of the said Commission took a very strict view of this deficiency and came to the conclusion that the builder is liable to refund that entire amount of Rs.1,09,000 with 18^th per cent interests and the builder is also liable to pay Rs.1 lakh as further compensation .

• A case has also been decided in favour of the builder . This is vide decision dated 21^st May 1993 of the Delhi State Commission in Case No. C-161 of 1992. In this case, a person had booked a flat with a builder. This person did not make payment of instalments as contemplated and filed a complaint for refund of money deposited. She had earlier written to builder that she was in need of amount to honour domestic problems. It was not her case that she was asking for the refund of the amount for the flat not being completed. In these circumstances . the State Commission held that she cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the contract.

• The Karnataka State Commission has also given a decision on 10^th May 1993 in Complaint No. 203 of 1991 where section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act relating to’ deficiency in service’ has been interpreted. In this case, a person had applied for the purchase of a flat but the builder did not give the possession as promised . In the proceedings before the Karnataka State Commission, the builder averred that contraction could not be completed for reasons beyond his control . The builder, however neither produced any material in support of his contention nor led any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his contention before the Commission. The Commission accordingly held that the averments made by the builder giving various reasons for the delay in the construction of flats have remained only at the stage of allegations . Accordingly , it came to the conclusion that the builder has failed to complete the construction and deliver possession of the flat without any valid reason whatsoever . Accordingly, it held that there was ‘ deficiency in rendering service’ under section 2(1)(g) and directed to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from 1.1.1987 till the date of delivery of possession of the flat to the purchaser in a condition fit to occupy the same .A sum of Rs.2,500 was also awarded by way of cost.

• An interesting case about jurisdiction has been decided by the Uttar Pradesh State Commission on3rd June 1993 in Case No. 188/SC/1991. The complainant in this case had booked a house with Ghaziabad Development Authority. This authority subsequently increased the cost of the house by Rs.84,000. The complaint was opposed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. They contended that since the dispute related only to Rs. 84,000 which is the enhanced cost of the amount of the house, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint can be filed only before the District Forum. The State Commission made a reference to the provisions of section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act which shows that to determine the financial jurisdiction of the claim , the value of the house in this case was Rs. 3.86 lakhs. As such, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the complaint is well within the financial jurisdiction of the Commission .

• Even West Bengal State Commission has not remained behind in interpreting section 2(1)(g) in the manner it has been interpreted by it’s sister Commissions. It decided a case on 8^th June 1993 in S.C. Case No. 909 of 1992. In this case, the possession of the flat was to be delivered by March 1991 . However, due to the failure of the builder the flat was not delivered within the time period. This was held as definitely ‘deficiency in service’ as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Accordingly , the said State Commission awarded interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on Rs. 1,10,000(Which was the amount paid ) on and from April 1,1991 until delivery of the flat . A sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation was also awarded on account of harassment, mental agony and torture suffered by the failure of the builder in handing over possession inspite of full payment having been made for the flat.

Further queries can be clarified from the writer at telephone: 8056188 on Mondays and Thursday.