Failure To Provide Breakdown Of Maintenance Expenses, Goa State Commission Holds Total Securities Builders Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainants purchased three residential units from Total Securities Pvt. Ltd. (“Total Securities”) for their personal use and enjoyment. These units included two villas and one flat in the residential complex known as "Serenity at Varca." At the time of executing the Sale Deeds, the Complainants were informed that they needed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- each for the two villas, and the flat. This deposit was meant to cover necessary monthly expenses, including electricity charges for the staircase block, replacement of fused bulbs and other fixtures, water charges, lift maintenance, generator costs, and other common expenses.

The Complainants deposited a total of Rs. 3,00,000/-. However, later they were shocked to receive three bills from Total Securities, which called upon the Complainants to pay certain dues for the services listed. The amounts in the bills appeared arbitrary and lacked detailed breakdowns, invoices, or documentary evidence of the expenditures incurred by Total Securities. Total Securities charged the Complainants Rs. 8,217/- in each bill for alleged internal upkeep of the flat and villas, even though the Complainants were not residing in these properties and had not requested such services. Additionally, Total Securities charged them house tax for the villas and flats.

The Complainants questioned Total Securities about these bills, and it promised to provide a detailed breakdown of all alleged expenditures. However, no such information was ever provided. Later, Total Securities sent three more bills to the Complainants. The Complainants sent an email to Total Securities requesting a proper breakdown and details of the payments, but the Director of Total Securities replied that they could not provide such details.

The Complainants travelled to Goa to inquire about the payments in person, but the Director refused to entertain their queries or provide details about the bills. The Complainants also requested the Directors to change the name on the electricity meter from Total Securities to their names, but this request was ignored.

The Complainants issued a legal notice, demanding all necessary details and a breakdown of the amounts mentioned in the bills. Total Securities failed to respond to this notice. Further legal notices were issued on two further occasions, but again, there was no response from Total Securities. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa (“District Commission”). The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed Total Securities to refund Rs. 2,07,259/- to the Complainants along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs. It was also directed to facilitate the change in the name of the electric meter. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Commission, Total Securities filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa (“State Commission”).

Contentions of Total Securities:

Total Securities contended that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each deposited by the Complainants was as per clause No. 5 of the Sale Deed, making it binding on them. It argued that the bills issued for the three premises were correctly done in accordance with clause No. 4 of the Deed of Sale, and the Complainants were liable to pay them. Further, the maintenance charges were for the upkeep of the entire complex and were proportionately charged to all purchasers based on the area of their premises, including the Complainants. Thus, it did not matter whether the Complainants were residing in the flat or villas, as maintenance was required throughout the complex. It was also the Complainants' responsibility to get the electricity meters transferred to their names, and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Total Securities was not required.

Observations of the Commission:

The State Commission observed that Total Securities claimed that the maintenance charges were meant for the upkeep of the entire complex. However, it failed to prove the time period for which the Complainants were charged for these services. Total Securities also failed to provide breakups explaining the expenses incurred. It did not reply to the email sent by the Complainants, and the payments demanded were without any supporting bills or detailed breakdowns. Additionally, it did not specify the time period for which the charges applied to the two bungalows and one flat.

Total Securities also failed to provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) despite repeated requests from the Complainants, causing them significant hardship. Furthermore, it did not reply to the legal notice sent by the Complainants, which demonstrated its negligent behaviour.

It was held that the District Commission correctly observed that the Complainants' grievance about not receiving a breakdown of expenses was genuine. The Complainants were entitled to know the details and to ascertain whether the expenses included those incurred on behalf of the flat owners or villa owners who rented their properties for commercial purposes. Total Securities could not arbitrarily include expenses exclusively for the upkeep of the flats and villas intended for renting out.

This clearly showed a deficiency in service on the part of Total Securities. The Complainants suffered significantly due to their negligent actions. It was noted that builders often take advantage of consumers, showing no transparency or commitment post-sale and lacking business ethics or responsibility. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Total Securities Pvt. Limited and Others vs New Pachisia and Anr.

Case No.: First Appeal 49 of 2015

Date of Pronouncement: 20/06/2024