HEMANTA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. UTKAL REALTORS PVT.LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned complaints have been filed by the different complainants against the same opposite party u/s 12 read with sec. 17 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) seeking direction from this Commission to the OP to immediately provide the facilities as promised in the brochure and agreement, awarding compensation, not to charge maintenance charge till such type of facilities are not available and to pay litigation cost. Since all the complaints have got similar prayer against the OP Developer, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainants is that in the year 2010, the OP floated an advertisement in local Daily's inviting application from the prospective buyer for allotment of Flat in "UTKAL HEIGHT" near Pahala in between twin City of Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. The OP at the time of booking had indicated the price of the Flat and payment schedule till delivery of possession. The OP has promised in the advertisement to provide swimming pool, jogging track, air- conditioned double height Community Hall, Gymnasium, Health Court, Library, Cafteria, Air-conditioned well decorated entrance lobby, Power Backup, Sewerage Treatment Plan, Grocery and Stationary Shop, Medical Shop, ATM Facilities. In addition to this the OP has promised that 80% land shall be marked open and left as open space. Being allured by the promise, aforesaid complainants Hemanta Kumar Nayak, Mr Sanat Misra, Mr Manaswee Kumar Samal and Mrs Smita Samal, Rajendra Kumar, Anil Kumar Jena, Mr Jagdish Chandra Pattnayak, Mr Ranjan Kumar Padhi and Mrs Rashmi Mohaptra, Mr Mani Bhusan Sinha and Mrs Mamata Srivastava and Mr Navin Kumar Chandgothia applied to purchase Flats and accordingly Flat Nos. C - 111, C - Block, C-101, C - Block, A/41, Type - 3, C- 153, C - Block, D-64, A-74, A - Block, A/82, A - Block, E-62, E - Block and 113, 11th Floor, B - Block were allotted respectively in "Utkal Height".

(3.) It is alleged inter alia that after allotment of Flats the complainants had paid the entire cost of the Flats including the registration charges to the OP. Also the Flats in question were delivered to the complainants but at the time of delivery of the Flats, the complainants found that the project has not been completed in all respect including the basic amenities/important features such as :-