Builders very often carry out sub-standard construction work. As a result, there are leakages seen in building(s). When a flat buyer complains about the leakage, builders not only avoid taking remedial action, but even try to blame the buyer, saying the leakage is due to damage caused while carrying out the interior designing of the flat by the buyer. In a recent judgment, the National Commission has held the builder cannot escape his liability by coming up with such excuses.
On November 16, 2005, Harish and Dinesh Raghani entered into an agreement for the purchase of a flat in a building constructed by Merridian Promoters. The total amount was Rs 35 lakh. In June 2007, the Raghani brothers complained to the builder about water seepage in their master bedroom and bathroom. The builders carried out some superficial repairs at their cost.
After some time, the seepage recurred. The Raghanis complained again. However, this time, the builder replied that the problem was investigated and found to be due to certain internal work carried out by the Raghanis. When correspondence and legal notices failed to resolve the grievance, the Raghanis filed a complaint before the district consumer forum at Visakhapatnam. They wanted the forum to direct the builder to either rectify the seepage or compensate for the same.
The builder contested the complaint. After hearing both the parties, the forum ruled in favour of the Raghanis and directed the builder to get the defects rectified at their own cost within three months, and in case of failure to do so, pay Rs 1 lakh with an interest of nine per cent per annum from the date of the order till its compliance. In addition, the forum also granted compensation of Rs 50,000.
The builder appealed against this order to the Andhra Pradesh State Commission, which partly allowed the appeal. The penalty of Rs 1 lakh with a nine per cent interest was upheld, but the compensation was reduced to Rs 25,000.
The builder filed a revision petition before the National Commission, challenging the orders of the lower fora. The main contention was that at the time of taking possession of the flat, the Raghanis had signed and executed a document stating the possession given was to their satisfaction, and so they could not backtrack and now allege defects in the flat. The builder reiterated that the problem had cropped up because the Raghanis had got some internal work carried out.
The National Commission over-ruled these objections, saying that such submissions of the builder could not be countenanced or given any importance. It held that the correspondence made it evident that there had been continuous and repeated complaints about seepage of water.
More From This Section
The Commission noted that the Raghanis’ claim was supported by report of a chartered engineer, assessing the value of the damage caused and evaluating it at Rs 92,195. On the other hand, there was nothing to substantiate the vague allegation made by the builder that leakage was due to certain internal work carried out by the Raghanis. The Commission, therefore, rejected the revision petition filed by the builder.
Thus, when there is an opinion of an expert, it helps the forum to adjudicate the dispute and quantify the compensation. On the other hand, vague and unsubstantiated allegations will not help a party.
The author is a consumer activist