When Bhupati Shukla, who bought a flat in Ozone Evergreens in Bangalore, found the builder had failed to do as promised, he took up the matter with the Bangalore Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Holding Ozone Shelters (the builder) guilty of deficiency in service, the District Forum ordered it to pay around ₹4.4 lakh for delayed delivery of flat and ₹81,600 for reduction in the undivided share of land. It also ordered ₹35,000 towards legal costs incurred and as compensation for the mental agony caused.

The builder has decided to appeal to the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. While the final word on the matter is yet to be heard, we bring you the developments leading to the District Forum’s decision.

Case facts

Bhupati bought a flat in Ozone Evergreens in October 2009 for around ₹30 lakh. Later, the builder decided to make some modifications to the flat.

Bhupati then, unwillingly, entered into a new agreement in December 2011 under which the undivided share of land was reduced by 48 sq. ft. to 420 sq. ft. The size of the flat was increased by 54 sq. ft. to 1,255 sq. ft. by adding a balcony. The builder was supposed to complete the construction on or before May 2011 and deliver possession.

But the sale deed was finally executed in May 2013 and the possession was handed over in June 2013. As a result, Bhupati had to rent a house for about two years. Moreover, the builder refused to pay the penalty as agreed to, alleging that since Bhupati had delayed one of the payments for the flat he was not eligible for any compensation But, with the builder failing to give details of the allegedly delayed payment (such as when it was due and when it was actually paid), the court refused to accept that Bhupati had failed to make timely payments. In any case, the builder could charge him interest for payment delays but it could not refuse to compensate him for the delayed possession of the flat.

Weak arguments

With the builder simply stating that the delay was due to factors such as bedrock being encountered at the foundation level, time taken in getting approvals, and frequent strikes by suppliers, without substantiating how any of these were responsible, the court did not buy any of the arguments.

It accordingly ruled that Bhupati, who had been charged per sq ft for the undivided share in land, be compensated proportionately.

The court also refused to consider a letter (dated April 2013) produced by the builder, where Bhupati had agreed to not having “….any further financial claim against the builder/owner of the project…” With the letter having being signed even before the sale deed was executed, the court held it to be “hypothetical”, as it related to something that did not exist.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW