ANKUSH RAMCHANDRA NAIK Vs. SUBHASH B AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint in question came out for final hearing and the Commission has passed the detailed order on 11.1.1999. The applicants have filed the present Misc. Application under Sec.27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the opponent failed to comply with the order of the Commission referred to herein above. The Commission has directed the opponent to comply with the following issues : (1) Compliance of report of United Engineers dated 20.7.1998 in respect of flats in A and B Wings. The deficiencies were to be completed within a period of one month after the flat purchasers make payment of Rs.3,000/-. (2) Obtain Occupation Certificate within 3 months from the completion of the deficiencies. (3) Flat purchasers to be put in possession after completing the deficiencies. In default of completing any of the directions referred to above, the opponent would be liable to pay fine of Rs.100/- per day to the complainants in lump sum. The same thing will be applicable in respect of Occupation Certificate also. Both the Advocates argued at length. Pleadings furnished by both the parties were carefully perused.

(2.) As regards deficiency mentioned in United Engineer's Report, the opponent has clarified that the applicants were put in possession of the respective flats in January, 1999. Each flat purchaser has given the possession receipt, which indicates that the main grievance is about the Municipal water supply and the Occupation Certificate. None of the flat purchaser has pointed out any deficiency in respect of the flat. The opponent, therefore, vehemently argued that the flat purchasers at this stage cannot claim about any repairs or any deficiency in respect of the flat or the building as above.

(3.) As regards Municipal water supply is concerned the opponent's Advocate pointed out that the agreement was completed in the year 1990, where there is no mention of pipe water supply. There was a provision of providing water stand post. Advocate has also pointed out that except provision of Municipal water or pipe water supply opponent has provided water storage tanks etc. , in the said premises and he has pointed out that as per the agreement referred to above, the water supply tank was not made available. He further pointed out that the rate of construction charged from the flat purchasers was much less because the pipe water supply was not to be made available. It was also pointed out that in December, 1990 opponent wrote a letter to the flat purchasers indicating about provision for transformer for electric connection on demand by MSEB and also that water stand post would be provided at the cost of the opponent.