The Supreme Court has ruled that flat owners who are frequently obliged by circumstances to take possession of apartments even though the facilities promised by the builder are not supplied do not lose their right to seek such services from the builder.
The Supreme Court has ruled that flat-owners who are frequently compelled by circumstances to take possession of apartments even though the facilities promised by the builder are not supplied do not lose their right to seek such services from the builder.
A panel of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta chastised the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for rejecting the disgruntled flat-owners’ demand for compensation on the grounds that they had taken possession.
The panel was hearing an appeal filed by homeowners against the NCDRC’s dismissal of their petitions against RNR Enterprise, a builder located in Kolkata.
Their complaints ranged from the builder failing to provide “completion certificates” to failing to deliver on common amenities and facilities such as a playground, 33-foot wide concrete road, community hall-cum-office room, water supply, generator, landscape gardening, multi-gymnasium, gas pipeline, and water filtration plant. Despite finding the builder guilty of unfair trading practises, the NCDRC denied redress to the buyers, stating that their claims had not been substantiated.
Taking a critical view of the NCDRC’s “casual approach”, the Supreme Court stated that the NCDRC’s argument that the flat-buyers can’t protest after they purchasing the flats with the flaws, “defies logic”.
The Court emphasised that in most situations, the authority of NCDRC is asserted “post-purchase”. The Court further criticised the NCDRC’s “perfunctory attitude” in not examining the appellants’ complaint about the builder failing to get a completion certificate. After studying the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, the Court remarked that “it is the responsibility of the person intending to establish a structure or to perform works to apply for completion certificate in accordance with the regulations”.
The Court also chastised the NCDRC for delaying more than ten months to issue the ruling after concluding the hearings in the 2008 case.
With the foregoing considerations, the Court remitted the case to the NCDRC for further review. The Court explained that it is not initiating a claim for Rs.1.8 million in compensation made by the buyers since they failed to provide particulars and the grounds for their claim.
For latest Bollywood Update Follow us on Instagram & Watch on Youtube
