.jpg)
An Analysis of
the said Judgment the passed by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum by Adv. R. P. Rathod.
In a Landmark
judgment the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum fined the builders Rs. 5 Lakhs, but the complainant is no
more. His Family continued his fight against the developer who gave house
without any amenities.
WHEN the late
Pradip Roy drew up his retirement plans in 1997, little did he know that he was
in for a struggle that would last beyond his death. In 1997 Roy booked an Rs 16.5-lakh
flat in Gaurav Empire where Ravi Ashish Land Developers had promised amenities
such as a pool, garden, community hall, playground and jogging tracks.
As the scheduled
date of possession approached, the Roy’s realised that the flat was nowhere
near completion. “The project area was occupied by slum dwellers; the building
had no access road. The entry to the site as depicted in the plan did not exist
and there was only one pathway leading to the building from the adjacent road,”
said Roy in his complaint.
Roy and his son
Anirban waited 13 months for completion of work and were then forced to shift
to an ‘uninhabitable’ house. “Since
our previous landlord asked us to move out in July 1998, we had no option but
to shift to this flat. It was neither inhabitable nor as per agreement,” he
said in the petition. Citing the absence of an approach road, unavailability of
regular water supply, absence of BMC
Occupation Certificate and poor quality of construction and maintenance,
the Roys moved the consumer court in the year 2000.
After a
decade-long fight, recently the Roys were finally compensated when the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
observed the developer had severely erred and failed to provide promised
amenities even 13 years after the promised date of possession. Compensating the
Roys for the “shame of living in such a
house”, and “mental harassment”,
the state commission ordered the builder to pay Rs 5 lakh to Roys in addition
to Rs 1.48 lakh for the non-procurement of OC. The builder has also been asked
to pay Rs 25,000 towards litigation cost.
Roy passed away
in 2009 at the age of 76 with his son and daughter-in-law was
still pursuing the consumer case. “After
my father-in-law took ill, we promptly followed up with the matter”. said the
complainant’s daughter-in-law and counsel in the case. “For a decade we hoped
the builder would give us what was promised, but all our efforts were in vain.
We are glad the court has at least held the developers accountable for false
promises.”
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)