Mumbai builder ordered to pay Rs 7.39 lakh for delivering 41.54 square feet less flat area

The commission directed the developer to clear structural and planning objections with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority within four months. (Image generated using AI)

The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission has ordered a Mumbai developer to pay Rs 6.64 lakh to a flat owner for delivering a flat that was 41.54 sq ft smaller than the 560 sq ft carpet area promised in the 2016 agreement. Nearly 10 years after possession was handed over, the commission also awarded Rs 50,000 for mental agony and Rs 25,000 towards legal expenses, and directed the developer to complete pending building compliances within four months.

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presiding member Poonam V Maharshi and member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan were hearing a complaint filed by one T Muraleedharan Nair against Milan Builders & Developer and its proprietor Chinnapan Anthony. The dispute concerned a flat 302 in Shree Balaji Ashirwad, Malad (West), and also involved the developer’s failure to obtain a complete ‘Occupation Certificate’ (OC) and form a co-operative housing society.

“The Opposite Parties (Builder and proprietor) cannot unilaterally reduce the agreed-upon living space without a corresponding reduction in consideration or express written consent from the purchaser,” the commission said on September 2, holding that the failure to provide the promised carpet area amounted to deficiency in service.

The dispute began with a registered agreement for sale for the flat, which was executed on January 11, 2016 and the possession was handed over on November 22, 2016.

Flat measured 41.54 sq ft less

Under the agreement, the developer had agreed to provide 560 sq ft of carpet area. After taking possession, Nair got the flat measured by a registered architect. The measurement relied upon by the commission found the carpet area to be 518.46 square feet, 41.54 square feet less than the area specified in the agreement.

Nair valued the shortfall at Rs 16,000 per square feet and sought Rs 6,64,640 as compensation. He also sought damages for mental agony and harassment and reimbursement of legal expenses. The developer disputed the architect’s report and described it as false. The commission, however, noted that the developer had not produced an independent expert measurement or counter-survey to contradict it. It therefore accepted the registered architect’s measurement.

The commission held that delivering less carpet area than specifically promised in a registered agreement for sale constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. It said the developer could not unilaterally reduce the agreed area without a corresponding reduction in consideration or the purchaser’s express written consent.

Story continues below this ad

Part occupation certificate

Nair had also complained that the developer had obtained only a ‘Part Occupation Certificate’ and had not formed the co-operative housing society. The commission recorded that the ‘Part Occupation Certificate’ issued by the ‘Slum Rehabilitation Authority’ on November 11, 2016, covered the second to 16th floors. It also recorded structural deviations concerning the ground and first floors, including conversion of stilt parking into an office and alteration of the first-floor area that had been represented as a health club and common area.

The commission held that the developer’s obligations did not end with possession or a ‘Part Occupation Certificate’. It found that the failure to obtain a complete OC and form the society was continuing in nature and rejected the developer’s limitation objection.

The developer had argued that Nair was a landowner rather than a consumer. The commission rejected the contention, holding that where a landowner receives a constructed apartment as part of the consideration under a development arrangement, the developer provides construction services. Since Nair had received the flat for residential use and taken possession, the commission held that he qualified as a consumer in relation to structural deficiencies and statutory non-compliance.

The commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the developer and its proprietor to jointly pay Rs 6,64,640 for the area shortfall, with 9 per cent simple interest from the filing date until realisation. It also awarded Rs 50,000 for mental agony, stress and harassment and Rs 25,000 towards legal expenses, taking the fixed relief to Rs 7,39,640, plus interest.

Story continues below this ad

Takeaway

Check the actual carpet area of a flat at possession against the registered agreement. Independent measurement of the flat can help establish any shortfall, while a developer’s statutory obligations may continue even after possession.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Maharashtra contact: 022 22821810, 22821770) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Do not miss out on these stories

Rs 100 premium delay costs SBI Rs 2 lakh after customer dies in road accident

Covid treatment claim rejected over 15-bed rule, Delhi man wins Rs 2 lakh from insurer

Story continues below this ad

Piling rig crash: NCDRC orders Rs 2.2 crore insurance payout to private construction firm

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express (Digital), where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More