GOWRAMMA vs Bangalore Development Authority

IN this complaint the complainant has sought for a direction to the opposite party - B.D.A. to remove the defects in House No. 303, Rajmahal Vilas, II Stage Layout, Bangalore and to deliver possession and also sought compensation by way of interest on the amount deposited by her.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows: THE opposite party is the Bangalore Development Authority. THE complainant was allotted a house by the opposite party on 1.12.1982 as per Ex. C.2. THE opposite party by its letter dated 9.8.1985 as per Ex. C.3 asked the complainant to pay the revised cost at Rs. 4,75,000/-, though as per its letter Ex. C.2 it was informed that the cost of the house would be only a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/-. THE opposite party by its letter Ex. C3 informed the complainant that the house would be ready for occupation by December 1986. The house was not ready for occupation by December, 1986. The complainant by 30th Jan. 1992 made payment in all a sum of Rs. 4,75,508 /-. The opposite party by its letter dated 7-4-1992 as per Ex. C.4 informed the complainant that the house No. 303 allotted to the complainant was completed and ready for occupation. It also informed that the full value of the house has been received and so it would issue the possession certificate and also execute necessary documents.

The complainant on receipt of this letter inspected the house and found several defects as Teakwood doors were not provided; electrical wiring was to be done; window glass panes were to be provided; water taps and pipes were to be provided; sanitary fittings were to be provided in all the bath rooms; plastering was to be done in the bed room; mosaic tiles laid in the front varandah were found broken; power connection from the K.E.B. was not taken and electric meter was to be installed and water connection was also to be given. So the complainant wrote a letter as per Ex. C.5 to the opposite party to remove the defects found and complete the construction and make it ready for occupation and living. But the opposite party failed to rectify the defects and failed to deliver possession of the house in a condition fit to occupy it. The complainant on the basis of these averments sought the reliefs, as narrated above.

THE opposite party filed its version admitting the fact of allotment and receipt of full value of the house from the complainant as averred by the complainant. It also admitted the fact of certain deficiency found in the construction of the house as averred by the complainant but it submitted that the door and window shutters, would be fixed on taking possession of the house by the complainant. It also submitted that the electric wiring and sanitary fittings would be done only after the complainant takes possession of the flat. It also further admitted that all the necessary repairs would be effected only after the complainant takes possession of the house. During enquiry the complainant filed his affidavit and got Exs. C.1 to C.5 marked in evidence. The opposite party did not file any affidavit. During enquiry a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the house and make a report regarding the condition of the house. The Commissioner inspected the house on 16-9-1994 in the presence of both the parties and made a report regarding the condition of the house. The said report reads as under : "COMMISSIONER''S REPORT The Court Commissioner in the above complaint gave the report as under:- 1. It is submitted that, as per the orders of this Hon''ble Forum, dated 5.9.94 the Court Commissioner inspected the house No. 303 at Raj Mahal Vilas, 2nd Stage Layout, Bangalore, the Counsel for complainant and the officials of the Respondent authority were present on 16.9.94 at about 1.00 p.m. The Commissioner commenced inspection of the premises in terms of the directions of this Hon''ble Court and noticed the following aspects: (a) Structurally the building has been completed and it appears about 5 years old. (b) The doors, windows, frames are fixed and the iron rods also fixed. (c) The door and window shutters are not fixed. (d) Staircase is open and there in no cover. (e) One bed room and bath room is not properly plastered. (f) There are no fittings in the bath room like wash basin, commode etc., Bath room etc. was in a state dis-used. (g) No electrical fittings were seen, the switch plates/Board etc., are not fixed. (h) There is no electricity. (i) There are no water taps provided. In the light of the above observations made, the Commissioner respectfully submits that the premises is not in a position of being occupied. Bangalore, Sd/- Dt. 24-9-94. Court Commissioner."

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The fact of allotment of a house to the complainant and recovery of its full value from the complainant by the opp. party is admitted. The opp. party in its version has admitted certain deficiency found in the construction of the house. The Commissioner who made inspection of the house on 16.9.1994 in the presence of the representative of the opp. party and the learned Counsel for the complainant found the door and window shutters not fixed; no cover to the staircase; one bed and bath rooms not properly plastered; no fittings in the bath room like wash basin, commode etc., no electrical fittings were found and no sanitary and water pipes were provided. The Commissioner as having found all these deficiencies in the building finally observed thus: "In the light of the above observations made the Commissioner respectfully submits that the premises is not in a position of being occupied." Having regard to these facts, in our opinion, the services rendered by the Opp. party-B.D.A. is clearly deficient in nature and this is due to the negligence on the part of the Opp. party-B.D.A. The opp. party, as it is evident, had recovered whole of the value of the house i.e., nearly Rs. 4,75,000/- by the end of 1988. The complainant made payment of a further sum of Rs. 1,008/- on 30th January, 1992. Even then in the month of September, 1994 as per the report of the Commissioner several defects were found in the house and the premises was not found to be in a position to be occupied. These circumstances revealed a glaring negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of the opp. party-B.D.A. The complainant paid huge sum of money by the end of 1988. Thereafter he went on demanding delivery of the possession of the house. But the opp. party-B.D.A. offered to deliver the possession of the house only in the month of April, 1992, that too the house was found to be not fit for occupation. These facts would clearly go to show that the complainant is entitled for the interest claimed on the said amount. The complainant has claimed interest at 11% per annum.

IN the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. The Opp. party-B.D,A. is directed to rectify the defects found in the building as per the report of the Commissioner and complete the construction work and make it fit for occupation and hand over possession of the same to die Complainant The Opp. party is directed to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 4,75,508/- paid by the complainant at 11% per annum, from 30.1.1992 till the date of delivery of the possession of the house to the complainant after fully constructed, and free from defects. The opp. party shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards the costs of the proceedings of mis complaint to the complainant. The opposite party shall pay the sums so awarded within a period of two months from this day. Complaint allowed with costs.