LexTULIP PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD . versus M/S. SAIOVERSEAS IMPORT AND EXPORT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... TULIP PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD . A v. MIS. SAi OVERSEAS IMPORT AND EXPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(g), 2(o)-Deficiency in service-Housing construction-Appellant alleging short fall in saleable area by developer-Claim for refund-Original Claim rejected by National Commission-Building constructed as per sanctioned plan-Agreement by C Appellant not to raise any dispute regarding saleable area-Whether any deficiency in service-Held, No. The Appellant filed a complaint before tJte National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the Respondent alleging deficiency in service D rendered ip the housing construction. The Appellant contended that the Respondent failed to provide 34361 sq.ft. of the area as per terms of contract, there was a shortfall of 4572.66 sq.ft. in the constructed area and sought for a refund of Rs. 28,80, 776/-. As per the agreement between the Appellant and Respondent a declaration was made by the Respondent-builder that the building is sanctioned as per Bombay Municipal Corporation. The agreement E specifically recorded that there will be no dispute on the saleable area by the purchasers on any grounds and on any reasons. The building was constructed as per the sanctioned plan and each flat had the area as given in the plan annexed to the agreement. The Appellant-Complainant filed a certificate and an affidavit by its F architect mentioning that the saleable area is only 29,788.34 sq.ft. The National Commission dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service. Dismissing the Appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Orders of the National Commission rejecting the prayer of the Complainant is upheld. There is no deficiency in service in "housing construction" provided by the respondent, considering the fact that G the building was constructed as per the sanctioned plan and each flat has the area as given in the agreement and the complainant had agreed not to raise H 377 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A any dispute regarding saleable area, particularly when permitted area of construction was to the extent of 34361 sq.ft. (381-D] 1.2. The report of the architect is bereft of particulars. The National · Commission is right in rejecting the report. (381-C] B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13417 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.96 of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in O.P. No. 111 of 1994. C S.S. Javali and Rustom B. Hathikhanawala for the Appellant. D Joseph Vellapally, R. Narain, Ashok Sagar, Ms. Punita Singh and Amitabh Marwah for the Respondent for JBD & Co. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. Appellant was complainant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'National Commission'). Proceedings were initiated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under which National Commission has been constituted to entertain complaints where value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed E exceeds Rs. 20 lacs. National Commission is also an Appellate Authority. It hears the appeals from orders of the State Commission. The complainant, a co-operative housing society, had complained short- fall in services rendered by the respondent, a builder and developer, which had agreed to construct and sell 64 flats to the complainant in a building F called Tulip Park. The complainant is not happy with the order dated June 21, 1996 of the National Commission in one aspect and it is that while under the agreement dated May 10, 1990 respondent had agreed to construct the flats having total saleable area measuring 34, 361 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 630 per sq. ft. but the saleable area actually measured comes to 29,788. 34 sq. ft. There G being thus short fall of 4,572.66 sq. ft. in the constructed area. Since complainant had paid the price for the area of 34, 361 sq. ·ft. and it got only 29,788.34 sq. ft. it claimed refund from the respondent of an amount of Rs. 28,80,776 (4, 572.66 sq. ft. x Rs. 630 per sq. ft.). The National Commission did not agree with the complainant. In this appeal by the complainant we are called upon to decide on, what the appellant says, if there is any deficiency in services H provided by the respondent, the builder. '-.. - TULIP PARK CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. SAi OV
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.