Consumer Act can be invoked for deficient8217; housing services

From the time of booking to the actual possession of the flat, the consumer comes across a number of problems, such as unreasonable delay in providing the promised accommodation, refusal to give possession till the increased amount on account of escalation of cost is paid by theconsumer, defect in construction affecting the use, non-furnishing of material promised to be provided, non-availability of surrounding facilities as indicated at the time of booking, allotment of less carpet area, demand of more than prescribed advance of the cost of flat without entering into any agreement as required under the relevant state laws, non payment of interest while refunding the deposit amount in case of cancellation of the scheme. Also, because of inordinate delays in construction, if the consumer is compelled to purchase new flat at the market rate, the refund of deposit with 9 per cent interest will not be sufficient. In such cases, can a consumer claim compensation, in addition to interest on deposit?

Prior to the enactment of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the consumer had no remedy except to seek relief from the regular courts. This was both expensive and time consuming. Fortunately, now the consumer disputes redressal agencies all over the country have taken the view that providing ofaccommodation on payment, be it permanent or temporary, is a service8217; rendered. Any shortfall in the contract for accommodation, creating difficulty in its use amounts to deficiency8217; in service under the CPA.

In a landmark judgment the Mumbai district consumer court on August 13, 1999, has ordered a builder to pay compensation ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 3 lakhs individually to 288 flat buyers who were deprived of shelter for the last eight years as they neither got possession of their tenements nor refund of the booking amount. The verdict is a trend-setter because it is for the first time in the country that a consumer court has ordered compensation taking into account the prevailing rates which the aggrieved persons may have to pay to buy property. The court also directed the Paranjpe Construction Company to refund within two months principal amount with 9 per cent interest per annum to flat owners of the proposed JP Nagar Housing Project, besides paying compensation of Rs 5.45 crore. The builder hasalso been asked to pay costs of Rs 200 to each complainant and Rs 300 per consumer to the Panchayat, which filed the case. The district forum also held the company guilty for accepting deposit more than 20 per cent of cost of the flat without entering into any agreement as required under the state law. In a number of cases, consumer courts have provided relief to the consumers for deficiency8217; in service in the housing and construction sector. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in Rakesh Mahindroo vs M/s Pushpa Builders Ltd held that failure to provide the flat by the builder to the complainant who booked the same in Pushpa, Aakash Apartments, Vaishali Complex, Ghaziabad, long after the expiry of the promised time limit and instead offering him an incomplete and inhabitable flat in some other block, constituted deficiency in service. The complainant was entitled to refund of deposit amount with interest from the date of deposit.

In the case between UP Housing Development Board vsGarima Shukla and others, the National Commission ruled that Housing Board was clearly engaged in rendering service for a consideration to the public. The allottees of plots or houses from the board are clearly consumers falling within the definition of the term services8217;. In the case, Mrs Shah Chaddha Vs DDA the National Commission held that petitioner who was an allottee of a flat from DDA was a consumer and entitled to seek redress under the CPA. The Delhi State Commission in another case held that consumer courts have jurisdiction to entertain consumers complaints against private builders. In yet another significant judgment, the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Goa, Panjim in the case between Janta Auto Sales and Madhuri Investment and Trading Private Ltd. held that construction of non-residential premises also fell within the purview of CPA. From the above, it is clear that the consumer has reasonable opportunity to seek redress from the consumer courts for any deficiency on the part ofGovernment agencies in the housing sector.

Author8217;s email: marchbol.net.in