Independent Expert Assessment Needs To Be Provided To Support Allegations Of Substandard Work: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker, held that an independent expert assessment needs to be provided by the complainant to support allegations of substandard work against the builder.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a residential flat with Sabari Construction/builder at SF 3B, 2nd Floor of 'Sabari Nest'. An Agreement to Sale was executed for a total consideration of Rs. 35,50,000, with the sale transaction set to be completed within three months. The complainant paid the full amount, and an absolute Sale Deed was registered afterward, allowing the complainant to take possession of the flat. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission of Karnataka, alleging several shortcomings and deficiencies related to the quality and specifications of the construction. The State Commission allowed the complaint, ordering a refund with interest and additional compensation due to the builder's deficiencies.
Contentions of the builder
The builder argued that the complainant took possession of the flat before the project was completed due to personal circumstances and later alleged that the project was incomplete and had various deficiencies. The builder noted that the absolute Sale Deed, executed by the vendor, confirmed that the building plan was sanctioned by the local authority. Additionally, a General Power of Attorney was granted to the developer, indicating that the issues raised by the complainant were not significant. The builder contended that the complaints pertained to maintenance issues, which the Sale Deed specified would be managed by the Association of Owners. Therefore, the builder asserted that the State Commission erred in ruling in favor of the complainant and ordering a refund for a flat that the complainant had occupied for nearly two years while raising allegations of deficiency in service.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the complainants provided photographs indicating that the builder failed to provide basic amenities like a lift and cited various deficiencies in construction quality and unfinished work as evidence of deficiency in service. It was noted that the complainants executed the Sale Deed and occupied the flat, but later moved for personal reasons. According to the Sale Agreement, the builder's liability for structural defects was limited to 12 months, and maintenance responsibilities were to be shared among all flat owners. The Sale Deed confirmed that the builder obtained the necessary approvals for the apartment complex, indicating that the complainants accepted the flat in its existing condition. It was observed that the complaint was filed nearly two years after the Sale Deed was executed, suggesting that the complainants accepted the possession without contesting the quality of construction. Additionally, maintenance of common facilities was a collective responsibility, and no evidence was presented to show the existence of an association or the complainants' membership in it. Without an independent expert assessment to support allegations of substandard work, the State Commission's conclusions were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the findings of the State Commission were not upheld, and its order, including findings of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, was set aside. The appeal was upheld, and the order of the State Commission was annulled, with each party bearing its own costs.
Case Title: M/S. Sabari Construction Vs. R. Lakshminarasimha & Anr.
Case Number: F.A. No. 163/2022