VITHAL M RANE Vs. MILAN CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties alleging defects and deficiencies in the construction of the building known as "sai Shradha" at New Vaddem, Vasco, and have prayed for directions to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to remove the various defects and deficiencies set out or alternatively to pay an amount of Rs.7,12,000/- and for further direction to the said O. P. to form a Co-operative Society or any other legal entity for the building.

(2.) The complaint in short is that the complainants by various individual identical agreements agreed to purchase from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 a flat in the building "sai Shradha" constructed on the land belonging to opposite party Nos.3 to 7. Upon completion of the flats and obtaining occupancy certificate, possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant between January, 1995 and October, 1995. After taking possession of the flat and within the passage of the monsoon, the complainants noticed certain defects and deficiencies which were common in nature, and are set out in para 8 of the complaint. The complainants obtained an expert's report from Mr. K. Karunakaran who quantified the expenses for remedying the defect and deficiencies at Rs.7,12,000/-. The complainants also alleged that it was mandatory for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to form a Cooperative House Society and that this had not been done thereby causing hardships in the maintenance.

(3.) Upon being noticed, the opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that the complaint did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and that a civil suit ought to have been filed. It was alleged that some of the complainants' signatures were fraudulently obtained and that the complaint was filed on the instigation of two complainants in order to wreck personal vengeance against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The opposite parties alleged that the complainant carried out major changes in their respective flats and the seepage of water may have been on account of these changes. Open balconies were amalgamated with the adjacent room by removing the partition walls. The complainants inspected their flats for any defects or shortcomings and took possession after being satisfied with the same. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 did not form a Housing Co-operative Society as some of the complainants had not cleared their dues and also six of the purchasers had expressed their desire to execute Sale Deed in accordance with the agreement. The opposite parties denied that there were any defects and submitted that the buildings were constructed in accordance with approved plan. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.