Decided on January 20,2009

V K SINGH Appellant


- (1.)THE main dispute between the parties is as to the covered area of a flat constructed by the opposite party (in short "OP") AWHO and purchased by the complainant. According to the complainant the covered area is 1269 sq. ft. whereas the OP has shown the total super area, i.e. covered area as 1,412 sq. ft. Vide order dated 21.9.2007 passed by this Commission in this complaint of the complainant seeking refund of the proportionate cost of covered area and compensation, the OP was given the following directions:
"(i) That the matter shall be referred to a technical expert committee for their opinion as to the covered area with regard to the balcony as well as the carpet area and if they agree to the view of the complainant the OP shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000.

(ii) As per the claim of the complainant and in view of the shortfall of the area, the OP shall refund the excess amount proportionately in accordance with the report of the technical committee."

(2.)PURSUANT to the aforesaid order, the complainant moved an application under the Right to Information Act to HUDA and received information that the area of the balcony is not shown as covered area in the sanctioned plan. The area of balcony has been shown as covered area for the purpose of cost of the flat by the OP. The Junior Engineer, HUDA, was summoned to clarify this aspect of the controversy and the Junior Engineer produced the regulations and stated that while sanctioning the plan the balcony area is not shown as covered area.
(3.)MAY be that the balcony is not shown as covered area like other area but it does not mean that the OP has to exclude this area while showing the super area, But at the same time the OP cannot be allowed to charge at the same rate as other covered area is charged. However, the counsel for the OP contends that if is the total cost of the flat including the covered area and other amounts like community centre, parks, parking area, etc. The mere fact that the balcony is used as covered area but not as carpet area or fully covered area and in view of the fact that the OP has not shown the break up of the cost of the flat segregating the rate of fully covered area and balcony lends credence to the contention of the complainant. Even if we assume that balcony area is not shown as covered area while sanctioning the plan still the fact remains that the flat owners have the facility of balcony which is not fully open.
Since the OP is a Housing Society and has built thousands of flats for Ex -Army Officers, the order for refunding the proportionate cost of covered area which is not assessable because of there being no criteria for assessing the cost in such a manner, we have awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000 to the complainant. In our view additional compensation for such discrepancies, if any, which is difficult to be ascertained and solved because of the facility of a flat or the area of a flat is to be taken as a whole for the purpose of living, we deem that for creating such a confusion amongst the flat owners, who are Ex -Army Officers and for whose welfare the OP had undertaken the construction activities; an additional compensation of Rs.25,000, over and above Rs.50,000 already awarded to the complainant, shall meet the ends of justice.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.