RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE complainant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has been formed by the allottees of the LIG Flats in Pocket-B, C & D Nand Nagri, New Delhi for the welfare of the residents. THE complaint has been filed by Shri S.K Mishra, who is the General Secretary of the Society, for and on behalf of 140 members (hereinafter referred to as ''THE Members''). THE respondent in 1985 floated a special Housing Registration Scheme, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "THE Scheme'') for the retired and/retiring public servants with a view to provide different categories of residential flats to them on no profit no loss basis. Under the scheme 3 categories of flats, namely LIG, MIG and Janta were proposed to be constructed by them.

THE members in pursuance to that scheme, got themselves registered in the LIG category. In 1988 the flats were allotted and the possession was given to them from May, 1989 onwards. At the time of delivery of possession, it was found that the construction of the flats was incomplete, that they were in bad condition, and had various defects. It is alleged that the roof work was not properly done on account of which there was seepage, grills were not provided in the balconies, grills in stair-cases were not painted, water tanks were in broken condition, electric wires were lying loose in the meter room etc., etc. It is further pleaded that at the time of handing over the possession of the flats, the allottees had been assured that all works would be completed in a short period, an they could not be completed because of the disputes between them and the contractors. Some of the contractors had left the work incomplete. The complainant in view of the assurance of the officers of the respondent took possession of the flats in incomplete condition.

It is next pleaded that the respondent was duty bound to remove the defects/short comings in the flats but that has not been done till date. Consequently, they filed the present complaint. The list of defects is given in Annexure-II, annexed with the complaint, which is attached herewith as Annexure ''A''.

AT the time of arguments the Counsel for the complainant gave up the claim regarding Item Nos. 10, 12, 13 & 14. He also made a statement to that effect on 9th March, 1992. The complaint has been contested by the respondent, they have inter-alia pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer. On merits they have pleaded that the work was carried on no profit no loss basis. The flats were given to the allottees completed in all respects and all the amenities were provided in them. The allottees did not point-out any defect at the time of taking over physical possession of the flats and therefore they cannot file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the flats in question do not suffer from the defects as alleged by the complainant.

THE question that a rises for determination is whether the flats suffer from the defects pointed out in Annexure ''A''. The complainant in order to prove that there were defect sin the house as given in Annexure ''A'' has produced various photographs of the building, the affidavit of Shri S.K. Mishra and estimate from Shri S.K. Mehta, Architect, Mr. Mehta has given an estimate of Rs. 9,90,000/- for rectifying the defects. In addition to the said affidavit the complainant has produced a letter dated 19.4.90 written by the Executive Engineer to Shri S.K. Mishra, Genl. Secretary of the complainant. It is stated in the letter that the agency of M/s. Chander Kant & Co. was not doing any work at the site inspite of their best efforts. The Executive Engineer assured that the work would be got completed and thereafter the possession would be handed over to the allottees. The complainant served interrogatories on the respondent. In quetion ''I'', it was enquired whether according to the rules, insurance of completion certificate by the D.D.A. to the contractors was mandatory. In question ''J'' a further question was asked, whether a completion certificate had been issued to the contractor by the D.D.A. In reply to these questions it was stated that the question, whether the completion certificate was issued or not to the contractor was an internal matter between the department and him. They admitted that the completion certificate had not been issued as some work had not been completed by him. From the aforesaid evidence it is evident that the contractor had not done complete work in the flats. It is not possible to find out exactly which defects were left by him and how much amount is required for rectifying these defects. However, taking into condiseration the general defect in each house, we grant Rs. 2,500/- to each of the allottee. With that amount they can get the defects rectified themselves individually or collectively. The total amount comes to Rs. 3,50,000/ -. Consequently, we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the complainant, within a period of 3 months, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,000,00. Complaint allowed with costs.