In a major setback to Nashik-based Prakash Phulkar, the state consumer disputes redressal commission dismissed his appeal regarding an alleged deficiency in service against builder Sahebrao Kadam. Mr Phulkar had also sought monetary relief. The forum had earlier taken exception in an order passed by the Nashik consumer forum and set aside the partial relief granted in the impugned order. Mr Phulkar had, however, appealed against it.
Mr Phulkar alleged that the builder did not provide all the amenities as agreed after the possession of the flat and possession was delayed. He further alleged that the occupancy certificate was not obtained and, therefore, he filed a consumer complaint claiming the relief to get reimbursement of an amount of `1,00,000, which he spent to get the work completed. Further, an amount of `1,00,000 was claimed by way of compensation toward mental torture and inconvenience, besides a cost of `50,000. The Nashik forum had then partly allowed the complaint and directed the builder to pay the complainant an amount of `3,500 towards the arrears of energy consumption bill and further directed to refund the amount of excess payment made towards consideration upon adjusting from it the miscellaneous expenses mentioned in the agreement and further directed to pay `5,000 as compensation for mental torture.
The builder filed an appeal against the impugned order and it was modified by an order dated May 13, 2013 passed by this commission. Accordingly, direction about refund of excess amount paid towards consideration was set aside.
“As pointed out earlier, copy of the complaint filed with appeal memo does not incorporate this relief. We find that the builder in his written version supported by an affidavit in evidence clearly submitted that the complainant closed their balconies and there were unauthorised constructions and, therefore, occupancy certificate could not be obtained. The factual aspect of unauthorised construction is not disputed by the complainant,” it said.
Dismissing the appeal, the commission ruled that the relief claimed for the reimbursement of an amount of `1,00,000, which he spent to complete the work and electricity connection, did not fall in the ambit of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.