A consumer disputes redressal commission directed a construction company to pay compensation between ₹15,000 and ₹50,000 each to complainants, complete the construction of amenities, rectify defects and furnish occupancy certificates.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, was dealing with a clutch of complaints filed by flat owners of Vasantha Happy Homes Apartments in Keesara. The opposite parties were Vasantha Engineers and its managing partner Alluguvelly Srinivas Reddy.
The complainants paid different sums of money for the flats and stated that the those were to be completed in 2019. They claimed that the builder used poor-quality construction material which led to defects, and amenities as mentioned on the brochure were not completed.
The builders had a meeting with flat owners and said that they would complete the pending work within a stipulated time frame. However, that did not happen, the complainants stated.
The Commission noted there was enough time for the opposite parties to place evidence on record and complete some of the pending work. While a representative of the opposite parties met the complainants and acknowledged the problems and agreed to finish the incomplete works, it did not happen. The Commission also noted that given the evidence the complainants filed before them, the workmanship was “not up to the mark” and that the opposite parties are liable for using defective material. The opposite parties are also liable for not providing an occupancy certificate to the home-owners.
Coming down heavily on errant builders, the Commission stated, “The general practice of the builders is to fleece the public at large by grabbing their hard-earned money by promising to give them luxury flats. If the builder fails to obtain an occupancy certificate, then the project will be considered incomplete, and only “paper possession” will be observed even if the flats are handed over to the buyers.”
The Commission pointed out that the opposite parties, despite receiving payment, neither rectified the defects in the building nor provided the promised amenities. They also failed to hand over occupancy certificates. This, the Commission pointed out, amounts to a deficiency in service.
