|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN the absence of a regulator to protect consumer interest in the housing sector, people continue to be victims of realtors’ machinations. What adds to their woes is the tortuous legal process to get justice. A recent case decided by the apex court is typical. In this case, filed by the owners of a housing complex, the issue centred around a 25 KVA generator that had to be provided by the builder as part of the contract. Despite collecting money from the house owners for it, he failed to fulfil this part of the contract, forcing the residents to wage a long legal battle. Even though the construction was completed and handed over to the owners in 1995, till 2001, they kept on corresponding with the builder to provide the promised generator. The delay tactics he used were also typical. First he said the residents were demanding a 75 KVA generator instead of the 25 KVA agreed upon, and so first each of them had to pay an additional amount of Rs 3,000. When the housing owners’ association wrote back, saying that he should stick to the promised 25 KVA, he said he was ready to instal 10 KVA generator. Next, he claimed that 1or 2 KVA generator was adequate to provide power backup for common areas of 74 apartments in four separate blocks. Then, exasperated by these tactics, when the residents’ association filed a consumer complaint, the realtor argued that the complaint was time-barred (There is a time limit of two years for filing complaints under the Consumer Protection Act). The district consumer disputes redressal forum dismissed that argument, saying that the cause for lodging the complaint arose only when it became clear that the builder was not going to stick to his part of the contract. So calculated from that time, the complaint was well within the time limit. The forum, therefore, asked the builder to provide the 25 KVA generator without delay. It did not, however, award the compensation of Rs 50,000 sought by the association. Even at this stage, the builder was unwilling to comply, and instead appealed before the state consumer disputes redressal commission, and later the national consumer disputes redressal commission. In its order of September 6, the national commission ordered the builder to provide a 25 KVA generator within four weeks, and pay costs of Rs 5000 (Suvidha Realtors and Constructions, Hubli, vs Suvidha Annex Apartment Owners, Hubli , RP No 3012 of 2006). In fact the Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K.Gupta (CA No 6237 of 1990 decided on 5-11-1993), had said that the damages awarded by the courts should not only recompense the consumer, but also help in bringing about an attitudinal change in the service provider. Unfortunately, this dictum of the apex court was not followed by the courts in this case. If only we had a regulator to strictly monitor and regulate the activities of land developers and builders in the private as well as the public sector, and also provide an alternate redress mechanism like an Ombudsman for quick resolution of disputes, people would not be facing these kinds of problems from realtors in the first place. It is for this reason
that consumer groups have for long been demanding a stringent law to
protect them from problems such as construction delays, unfair trade
practices, one-sided contracts and poor quality construction.
|
|||
|
|
|||
