Mumbai: Observing that a builder is duty-bound to provide its promised facilities, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directed Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company to provide its premium consumers with the promised facilities, which were printed in its project’s advertising brochure.
The commission has thus directed the company to provide the consumer with the facilities of a spa, a gymnasium, a half-basket ball court, and a badminton court within the tower’s premises. The commission has further directed the developer to provide the amenities within a period of six months from the date the order was passed, which is July 2024.
Nitin Agarwal, a resident of Springs, Naigaon Dadar, had filed a complaint against the developer firm, its managing director, Jeh Wadia, and the then joint managing director, Durgesh Mehta. As per the complaint, Agarwal claimed that he was considered one of the cream de la cream group from Mumbai, and thus an invitation letter was sent to Agarwal in September 2006 to purchase a flat in a very elite high-standard premium residential project in its 38-story tower named ‘Springs-1‘.
As per the complaint copy, the apartment was provided with all the possible luxury fittings, like a jacuzzi, a rain shower, walk-in wardrobes, a modular kitchen, and many others. “ Agarwal was issued a sale agreement dated May 8, 2008, allotting 4- BHK on the 23rd floor. He, had deposited the booking amount for the same.
The complainant in his complaint noted several issues, like the delayed possession, failure to provide the parking space. The complaint copy read that the common amenities and facilities promised in the brochure have neither been developed nor provided. The developer did not provide a basketball court, a badminton court, three rooms for various recreation purposes, or rooms for activities, leisure, and recreation, such as a gymnasium, spa, etc.
The developers stated in their reply that various reliefs claimed in the complaint can only be granted by the civil court. “Jeh Wadia, the managing director, and a joint managing director, Durgesh Mehta, have been wrongly implicated in the complaint, although there was no privity of contract with them,” the reply said . It further added that there was no deficiency on the part of the developer.
With regard to the delay in handling the possession of the flat, the developer firm said that the consumer was kept in loop about the delay through e mails. The project was under some litigation, and thus it required time to seek legal remedy for the same, hence the delay in handling the possession, said the developer firm in its response.
The commission, however, refused to entertain any other civil claims but directed the developer to provide the promised amenities.
