Builder told to dismantle and relocate STP in society, refund Rs 4 lakh extra charged to buyer

The total price of the flat was fixed at Rs 58,55,800, including Rs 4 lakh as the PLC.

The complainants alleged when they visited the construction site, they found an STP plant close to their flat. They alleged that despite sending numerous emails to the builder, the STP plant was not removed.

After taking possession on August 26, 2019, they started living in the flat amid foul smell and gases emanating from the STP, they said. The complainants said they even served legal notice on the builder and the Zirakpur Municipal Council in this connection but to no avail.

Filing a consumer complaint before the District Commission, the complainant stated, “As per the approved layout plan, the location of STP was away from the flat in H-tower but the builder violated the conditions of approved layout plan approved by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Municipal Council Zirakpur, and GMADA.”

Sushma Buildtech Limited replied that the STP was already functional at the time of booking the flat by the complainants. The complainants had visited the site before booking and before the execution of the buyer’s agreement and as such the location of the STP plant was well in their knowledge.

The builder denied that “the STP emits any foul smell or causes any noise pollution as it has been constructed with the latest technology, and is a state-of-art construction.” “The STP is duly approved by the requisite authorities and confers the highest standard of living as per the set parameters and is of highest standards,” the builder said, denying “the STP is constructed in violation of any law in force”.

Allowing the complaint, the District Consumer Commission directed builder Sushma Buildtech to refund Rs 4 lakh (paid by complainants as PLC charges) to the complainants with Rs 20,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as litigation charges. The complainants, however, filed an appeal against the District Consumer Commission’s direction at the State Consumer Commission.

The State Commission on hearing the matter held that “the appellants/complainants had purchased their unit with the expectation of a superior living environment due to the preferential location, yet the sudden introduction of an STP in proximity to their home severely disrupted their living conditions. The STP’s relocation has definitely deteriorated the quality of life of the appellants/complainants. Instead of enjoying a clean, green, and peaceful environment with nearby markets and parks, the appellants/complainants were subjected to the constant disturbance caused by the STP”.

“The noise from the motor, combined with the foul odour emitted by the plant, became a source of continuous discomfort and stress for the residents. This situation highlights the breach of trust and the failure of Sushma Buildtech to deliver what was initially promised. The appellants/complainants were entitled to believe that the preferential location they paid extra for would enhance their living experience, not degrade it”, said the State Commission.

The Commission added that “issuing appropriate directions to the builder to dismantle and relocate the STP to its originally designated location as depicted in the original layout plan would serve the ends of justice. Restoring the STP to its original location is not merely a corrective measure but a necessary action to rectify the harm caused by the builder’s unilateral and unjustified alteration of the layout plan”.

The State Commission, thus, modifying the order of the District Commission ordered the builder (Sushma Buildtech Limited) to “dismantle and relocate the STP to its originally designated location, as depicted in the original layout plan, and to refund to the complainants an amount of Rs 4 lakh paid by them as PLC charges, with Rs 1.50 lakh as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them and also Rs 50,000 as litigation expenses”.