APURBA K. BARUAH Vs. LARICA ESTATES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Manish Paul, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) 8 Sets of home buyers have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) deliver possession of the mini township project "Larica Green Hamlet", complete in all respect; as per specifications, advertised in Brochure and mentioned in agreements of the home buyers; (ii) pay compensation to all the home buyers in the form of interest @18% per annum on their deposit, for the delayed period of possession; (iii) pay compensation @Rs. 1.00 per sq.ft. per month of the entire constructed area for a period of two years into maintenance escrow fund, for upkeep of the project; (iv) carryout maintenance and upkeep activities of the project in terms of the agreement; (v) pay costs of the litigation; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Commission, vide order dtd. 4/1/2018, granted permission to file the complaint in representative capacity under Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the notices were published in newspapers.

(3.) The complainants stated that Larica Estates Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a mini township project, consisting group housing complex, commercial complex, bunglow, cottage and row houses etc., over an area of 68 bigha 18 lachha land, in the name of "Larica Green Hamlet" at village Bongara, mouza Chayani near Mirza, district Kamrup, Assam, at a distance of 30 K.M. from Guwahati, in the year 2010 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities through electronic and print media. The opposite party represented that first 100 allottees would get free membership of the club worth Rs. one lac. Induced with the rosy pictures of the project and believing upon the representations and promises of the opposite party, above 8 complainants and other home buyers entered into an agreement for sale on different dates in between 2011 to 2014, for purchasing their individual unit. The agreement provides payment plan as "construction link payment plan", in which, total consideration was payable in 10 instalments. As per demand, the home buyers including the complainants deposited the instalments in time but possession was delayed to them from one year to four years. Clause-14 of the agreement provides 24 months period from the date of the agreement, for handing over possession. Under clause-13 of the agreement, the opposite party undertook to develop the amenities, facilities and common part/area. Under clause-20(a), the opposite party undertook to indemnify the customers for all losses, damages, costs etc. due to non-fulfilment of its obligation. In the brochure, the opposite party promised as follows:- (i) Land fully developed with independent boundary, gates etc. (ii) over 70% open area green. (iii) Each home with its own garden and car park. (iv) Exclusive shopping mall. (v) Departmental store. (vi) 24 hours drinking water. (vii) Round the clock security. (viii) ATM facility. (ix) Doorstep maintenance. (x) Club house. (xi) Car parking for guest. (xii) Club consisting of gym, swimming pool, spa, tennis courts, restaurant, cafeteria. The opposite party advertised in newspaper on 10/4/2010, that (a) Fully developed land with row house/bunglow. (b) No loss of common space. (c) Each plot with own garden. (d) Compound wall and independent gate. (e) Private terrace. (f) Personal garden. The opposite party has committed following deficiency in service:- (i) Delivery of possession to the home buyers of their unit has been delayed for a period of one year to four year but the opposite party has not provided any compensation for delay. (ii) The opposite party started construction of boundary wall 6 years ago but it is still incomplete and at some places, its height is less than five feet and at some places only fencing was there. (iii) The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 20/10/2011, informed the home buyers that ASEB Ltd. has agreed to provide necessary power to the project, on set up of sub-station/transformers. The opposite party charged Rs. 40/- per sq.ft., for installation of sub-station and development of external electrification infrastructure. But the opposite party installed only one transformer, which is insufficient for the load of the town. Due to which, there is incessant fluctuations in power supply, making it unstable and unsafe for all electric equipment. Street light in the lanes are tied precariously from short bamboo poles and flexible wires going through bunglow to bunglow. Wiring system laid out by the opposite party is unprofessional and hazardous. (iv) The construction of road was started six years back but is still incomplete. Thickness of concrete block and the sub-base is inadequate. (v) Drains are uncovered and not connected with sewage pipeline. The opposite party has not installed sewage treatment plant. Open drains used to be blocked and over flow at the places. (vi) The opposite party has not constructed overhead tank for water supply. The peoples are residing in about 350 houses and water supply is highly inadequate. (vii) The opposite party has not developed green area, garden and landscaping. The opposite party is constructing bunglow at the places which were shown as open area/garden in the building plan and thereby reducing green area. (viii) Shopping mall, Departmental store and ATM have not been constructed due to which, the residents have to go 3 km away for purchasing daily use things. (ix) The residents are facing difficulty for disposal of garbage etc. as the opposite party has not made any arrangement for it. (x) Club and club related facilities have not been developed till today. (xi) Residents are facing with the problems of the beams and columns are not in plumb, cracks in walls, walls are uneven, defective plumbing and defects in door and windows, due to defective and sub-standard construction. The home buyers made several complaints individually and collectively in respect of above deficiencies and various meeting were held with the officials of the opposite party in respect of these deficiencies but it were not been made good. Then this complaint was filed on 27/3/2017, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.