Summary
The Court sustained findings of deficient common amenities in a housing complex but substituted Rs.60 lakh already deposited, with accrued interest, for directions to complete the systems years after handover. The builder also had to clear and deliver the clubhouse within two weeks. The amenities claim was timely because the builder’s own evidence showed continuing work within two years of the complaint. Separate claims for maintenance dues and other relief failed for distinct reasons, including limitation, inadequate proof and third-party interests. The association’s appeal was dismissed and the builder’s partly allowed.
Issues
- Whether the amenities complaint was within limitation and supported by the commissioner’s findings.
- Whether completion directions should be replaced by compensation after the long lapse of time.
- Whether the association established its additional claims for maintenance dues, terrace eviction and other relief.
Provisions considered
- Section 24-A(1), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The amenities cause continued at least until December 2005 according to the builder’s evidence, making the February 2007 complaint timely. The separate maintenance claim involved earlier payment obligations and was substantially time-barred. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 33, 34, 35)
Held
- The maintenance handover agreement did not end all obligations on its execution date. Different completion deadlines and the builder’s own affidavit and bills showed work continuing through December 2005. The amenities complaint filed in February 2007 was therefore within time. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- An independent architect’s inspection supported incomplete commissioning of the water-softening, fire-fighting, health-club and swimming-pool facilities and retention of the clubhouse as storage. The builder’s objections did not rebut the clubhouse finding or cost estimates. The findings of deficiency warranted no interference. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Given the 18-year lapse since handover and the nature of the fire-equipment deficiency, completion directions were replaced with the Rs.60 lakh deposit and accrued interest as full monetary compensation for the amenities reliefs. The builder separately had to remove stored material and hand over the clubhouse within two weeks. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 41, 42)
- The maintenance-dues claim lacked detailed calculation and adequate evidence, and a major portion was barred by limitation. Restriction on sale or letting of unsold flats was interim in character, the parking claim lacked evidence and additional harassment damages were unwarranted on the facts. Eviction of the terrace occupant involved a third party and remained for an appropriate forum. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- The association’s appeal was dismissed. The builder’s appeal was partly allowed by substituting the monetary and clubhouse directions; the complaint stood dismissed otherwise, with parties bearing their own appeal costs. (¶¶ 41, 42)
Result
Association’s appeal dismissed; builder’s appeal partly allowed. Association to receive Rs.60 lakh deposit with accrued interest, and clubhouse possession within two weeks after removal of stored materials. Other claims dismissed; parties bear own costs.