MALTI SHREEKANT SHILOTRI Vs. SHIVAJI THORAT CIVIL CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Civil Contractor and an architect, namely, O.P.no.1 and O.P.no.2 to build a bungalow as per sanctioned plan and to obtain Completion certificate and which resulted into non-delivery of possession of the bungalow, as agreed; compensation is claimed to the extent of Rs.1,10,000/- for mental tension, agony and for disturbing peaceful life. Other claims made viz. direction against opposite parties to hand over possession after completing the construction work as per the sanctioned plan, damages for delay in handing over the possession, and remaining reliefs are not pressed at the time of arguments and are given up on behalf of the complainant since she has sold the property, as per submissions made by her counsel.

(2.) Undisputed facts are that complainant engaged services of O.P.no.1 Mr. Shivaji Thorat, a Civil Contractor to construct a bungalow at Nasik Road at plot no.33 situated at Ashvin Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Initially, agreement dated 27/1/1998 was executed between the complainant and O.P.no.1. After the plinth level, work was stopped for about a year and further construction work was started by entering into a fresh agreement dated 15/3/2000. The work was to be completed within 6 months from the said agreement. O.P.no.1 was to be paid charges @ Rs.330/- per sq.ft. for 1550 sq.ft. as per sanctioned plan, total amounting to Rs.5,11,000/-. Though delayed, the work was almost completed. However, Completion certificate could not be obtained since the Corporation raised objection to the effect that the work was not completed as per the sanctioned plan, particularly, the height of canopy to the terrace over the staircase exceeded the permissible limit of height.

(3.) It is case of the complainant that instead of 1550 sq.ft. area as per sanctioned plan, O.P.no.1 exceeded the limits and claimed to have made construction of total area 1616 sq.ft. Additional demand raised by O.P.no.1 for additional area of construction was, therefore, rejected and the claim towards it was denied by the complainant. When she came to know that the completion certificate could not be obtained on the ground of exceeding the height of the canopy over the stair case, she asked the O.P.no.1 as well as Architect engaged, namely, O.P.no.2-Mr.Dilip Kajale to demolish that extra height portion and also intimated that it is they who are responsible for that extra height since it was constructed not agreeing with the sanctioned plan. Dispute was even taken to the Municipal Commissioner. These events resulted in causing delay in getting possession of the bungalow and complainant had to face lot of mental torture, tension and anxiety and for which she claimed compensation, supra. She also claimed that she has paid all the price agreed i.e. total payment of Rs.5,30,000/- to O.P.no.1 and also paid fees of O.P.no.2 to obtain completion certificate.