Metro Builders Held Liable For Unfulfilled Amenities: NCDRC Directs Completion Of Swimming Pool Within 3 Months, Impose Costs Of Rs 2 Lakh

While acknowledging the construction of other amenities, the Commission observed that the swimming pool was yet to be constructed and hence partly allowed the complaint. The Commission directed Metro Builders (Orissa) to complete the swimming pool within three months from the date of the decision. Additionally, they were directed to pay interest on the amount collected for the swimming pool's construction, acknowledging the failure to deliver this specific amenity as promised.

Brief Facts

Around 42 flat buyers of the "Metro Satellite City-I" project filed a complaint against Metro Builders (Orissa) and Falcon Real Estate, alleging various unfulfilled promises. The buyers claimed that Metro Builders (Orissa) had extensively advertised their project in 2009, enticing them with modern facilities and essentials like a sewage treatment plant, club, auditorium, medical dispensary, swimming pool, gymnasium, open space, and indoor game space. Believing these assurances, buyers booked flats from 2009 onwards, paying approximately Rs. 30 lakhs for duplexes. After buyers took possession of their flats in November 2010, the builders asked for more money from each buyer for promised amenities. But when these amenities weren't provided as assured, the flat owners formed the "Metro Satellite City Welfare Society." They sent legal notices asking for the amenities, but the builders refused. This refusal led to the buyers filing a consumer complaint.

In response to this consumer complaint, Metro Builders (Orissa) contended that buyers had signed an Indemnity Bond during possession, acknowledging that all promised amenities were provided as per the agreement. The builders claimed that after possession, buyers obstructed further development. They also highlighted that some buyers filed criminal complaints, resulting in FIRs against the builders. However, an investigation by the Assistant Commissioner of Police revealed completion of several facilities like electricity transformers and sewage lines. They argued that the complaint concealed critical facts and was time-barred as possession was taken in 2010-2011, while the complaint was filed in 2017, exceeding the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Observations of the Commission

The Commission disagreed with the builders' argument about the time limit for filing the complaint, highlighting that unless the builders expressly deny providing the assured amenities, the time limit for filing a complaint doesn't start. Therefore, the complaint was not barred by limitation.

With regard to the promised amenities, the Commission observed that some amenities had already been provided, notably supported by the builder's evidence, but the swimming pool remained unconstructed. Acknowledging this lapse, the Commission partially allowed the complaint. They directed the builder to construct the swimming pool within three months. Additionally, the builder was directed to pay 6% annual interest on the amount collected for the swimming pool from the time it was realized until its completion. To cover the costs incurred during the case, the builder was also directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Case Title: Tapas Kumar Mohapatra & Ors. vs. M/S Metro Builders (Orissa) & Ors.

Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Advocate

Click here to Read/Download the Order