MADHURI RAVINDRA NERURKAR Vs. SREENATH ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Developer and Builder by not acting as per Deed of Settlement dated 26.5.1994. The complainant claims monetary compensation of Rs. 19,48,480 bifurcated as follows:

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are that Complainant, Mrs. Madhuri Ravindra Nerurkar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) was one of the owners of the property which they sold as per registered Sale Deed dated 26.5.1994 to the Developer, M/s. Steenath Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, the Opponent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Builder' for the sake of brevity). On the same day as per Deed of Settlement dated 26.5.1994, the Builder agreed to provide a shop (with a loft) admeasuring 400 sq. ft. in area or in the alternative a lock -up garage admeasuring 250 sq. ft. in built -up area. The shop was agreed to be priced @ Rs. 4,000 per sq. ft. In case, the shop could not be handed over for any reason, lock -up garage, supra, was to be made available @ Rs. 2,000 per sq. ft. and the difference of the price of the shop and the garage is to be paid to the Complainant (after adjusting the price payable for the shop @ Rs. 4,000 per sq. ft. against the price of the lock -up garage @ Rs. 2,000 per sq.ft.)

(3.) IT is the case of the Complainant that after completion of the building (which was completed beyond the period of two years as agreed) when she approached the Builder, she was informed that the shop premises which were intended to be allotted to the Complainant were already sold to one M/s. Gamine Traders. Thereafter, instead of offering the alternative accommodation of garage at the rear side of the building, the Complainant was offered 200 sq. ft. space in the basement. Feeling that she is left with no other alternative, the Complainant opted to settle for something concrete rather than nothing at all and thus, accepted the basement offer and the possession of which was taken on 5.4.1998. The Complainant's son renovated and furnished the basement to start computer classes. However, soon thereafter Thane Municipal Corporation demolished the renovated basement on 23.12.1999 on the ground that it was an unauthorized construction. Thus, the Complainant complained that she had incurred heavy losses due to deficiency in service on the part of the Builder who never gave any space as agreed and space finally allotted to her was an unauthorized construction.