CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



Date of Filing: 15/02/1999

Consumer Complaint No.74/1999

Date of Order: 04/06/2009



Ms.Savita A.Gupta, Complainant

8, Kanta,

5, Little Gibbs Road,

Malabar Hill,

Mumbai- 400 006.

V/S

City and Industrial Development Opposite party

Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

(C.I.D.C.O),

Nirmal, 2nd floor,

Nairman Point,

Mumbai- 400 021.



Corum : Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present: Shri Jahangir Gai/Authorised Representative for complainant.

Adv.Shri P.B.Kadam forOpp.Party.



:- ORDER :-

Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

Complainant/Savita A.Gupta had booked a flat under a scheme Demand Registration Survey (DRS). She was accordingly allotted a flat bearing no.F-15/2:2 on the second floor of building bearing no.F-15 situated at Sector 22, Koper Khairane, Navi Mumbai and the area of the said flat was 71.41 sq.mtrs. consideration for said flat paid by the complainant is Rs.8,83,627/-. The Agreement for Sale dated 20/02/1997 was accordingly executed in favour of the complainant by opposite party. As per the agreement, it is the complainant, who is to take energy connection from Maharashtra State Electricity Board at her own costs. She had taken it sometime in the month of December-1997 and thereafter, she complained about bad quality of construction of the flat, about leakages in the monsoon of 1998 as well as of the following year. She further made a grievance that her complaints about repairs were not properly attended and as such, further asserting that she does not want a defective flat, claimed back consideration paid along with stamp duty with interest @18% p.a. with effect from 28/02/1997. Consumer complaint is filed to recover such monetary claim.

This complaint is opposed by opp.party as per its written statement dated 28/07/2004. They have denied the allegations made against them regarding deficiency in service on their part as well as the allegations about bad quality of construction of the flat. They specifically state that they had made water proofing of ceiling through reputed contractor, who had given 10 years warranty for the same and therefore, out of courtesy, on receipt of the complaint of leakage from the complainant, they had arranged meeting of the complainant with said contractor firstly on 04/12/1998 and then on 09/12/1998. But neither complainant nor her representative attended the meeting and as such, the contractor could not inspect the flat of the complainant to attend the complaint of leakage. Opp.party cannot be blamed for the situation. With this they asked to dismiss the complainant.

We heard Shri Jahangir Gai/Authorised Representative of the complainant and Adv.Shri P.B.Kadam for opp.party. Perused the record.

At the first instance in fact the complainant desires to terminate or cancel the Agreement for Sale and claimed back the consideration for the flat paid by her along with expenses incurred on account of stamp duty. Therefore, such relief will not fall within ambit of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, no consumer complaint of this nature could be entertained by Consumer Fora. This complaint is therefore not tenable.

As per the agreement dated 20/02/1997, the complainant agreed to obtain electricity connection after completing necessary formalities at her own cost. If she delayed in taking energy connection to her flat then she has to blame herself and not the opposite party. As per clause 19 of said Agreement for Sale, after the receipt of possession, it is the responsibility of the complainant to maintain the flat at her own costs in good habitable repaired condition. Whether she had discharged her said obligation properly before making any grievance about opposite party is not made clear from the material placed before us and the Complainant has not laid any evidence to answer the same. It is made clear from the written reply supported by affidavit that opposite party claimed to have done good job of water proofing of the ceiling of a flat or building. Their water proofing contractor also gave warranty of 10 years. Therefore, when the complaint regarding leakages was received, they asked the said water proofing contractor to attend the same. It is the complainant, who failed to give any response. She herself or her representative did not attend the meeting arranged for that purpose and did not allow the inspection of the flat in the background of the complaint. There is no material or evidence placed by the complainant about bad quality of construction work, to substantiate the fact of leakage due to bad quality of construction work and the damage caused their from. Under the circumstances, grievances made in her complaint covering these areas are not at all established.

For the reasons stated above, we find complaint is not tenable and also on merit deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

:-ORDER-:



1. Complaint stands dismissed with subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.



(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member