MUKESH PARIKH Vs. KETANKUMAR SIDDHARTHBHAI GAJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this complaint, the complainants have prayed for following reliefs against the opponents. " (a) The opponent should reimburse Rs.5,70,000 being the cost purchase of flat with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase of flat. (b) Rs.5,00,000 on account of compensation for great deal of inconvenience, mental agony, suffering of victimization and pain stacking trouble on account of weak construction of flat with defective specifications of flat provided to the complainant, which is deficiency of service, and mental torture till receiving compensation. (c) The opponent should pay Rs.3,00,000 being difference of price escalation on account of future construction of flats. (d) To pay the interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.13,85,000 (Rupees thirteen lacs eighty-five thousand only) from the date of purchase of flat of defective specification. (e) The Hon'ble Commission may please be order to pay Rs.15,000 for the cost of legal expenses and filing this complaint to the complainant Nos.1 and 2 separately".

(2.) Brief case set up by the complainants in the complaint may be noted: Complainant No.2 is the consumer represented by complainant No.1 consumer organisation as per the particulars set out in the complaint. Complainant No.2 is referred to as the 'complainant' hereafter.

(3.) The complainant purchased Flat No.101 on the 1st floor of Sharanam Apartment of Upvan (Vasna) Association (NTC ). Opponent Nos.1 and 2 are stated to be the partners of the builder and opponent No.4 is stated to be builder associates. Opponent No.3 is the representative of the aforesaid association. It has been asserted that on account of deficiency in rendition of construction service, the building in which the flat that was allotted to the complainant had collapsed in the devastating earthquake that shook the State of Gujarat on 26.1.2001. The complainants approached the 1st opponent in respect of the loss sustained by the complainant and 1st opponent admitted the liability with regard to weak construction/structure of the building in question. The opponents, however, demanded extra amount of Rs.1,50,000 for new construction at the same place without giving any guarantee of standard design or structure. Under such circumstances total cost of the flat which was in the sum of Rs.3,50,000 including land cost invested by the complainant is required to be refunded by the concerned opponent to the complainant. It had also been alleged that the complainant paid Rs.25,000 towards electricity charges and extra amount of Rs.2,00,000 on different occasions for flooring tiles, granite platform, wash basin full-fledged tiles on walls for lavatory/bath room, use of kota stones in rooms and other construction. It has also been alleged that complainant had paid in all Rs.5,70,000 as the cost of the flat in question. The complainant has finally alleged that on account of the weak construction resulting into collapsing of the building the complainant sustained a great deal of pain and hardship and he should be awarded appropriate compensation for which prayer has been made in the complaint. The opponents have been served with the summons and subsequent process as can be seen from the record of the case. Advocate Mr. Nishit P. Mehta appeared for opponent Nos.1, 2 and 4 as per his Vakalatnama dated 31.5.2001 along with application for adjournment filed on that day. Although the application and the Vakalatnama appear on the record of this file, there is no mention about the same in the Rojnama. However, we take note of appearance in view of the aforesaid papers appearing in the file.