Facilities are builder’s onus

The construction industry may be booming, but if facilities provided by a builder are not up to the mark, the builder is liable, says the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in KK Miglani vs Asst Engineer, I-T, Sub-Division.

Miglani, a government employee, purchased a flat entitled to him from the government quota from the Department of Estates, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. Miglani noted that the outer wooden doors of his flat had developed cracks, which he brought to the notice of the department, but no action was taken. Some time later, after persistent visits to the concerned department, he was told that he should deposit a sum of Rs1,140 to install iron grills outside the house. This was not done, either. Miglani’s house was broken into and jewellery, cash worth Rs15,000 and some household articles were stolen.

The department refused to accept the liability. The matter landed in the District Consumer Disputes Forum at Delhi, which held the department was liable for not installing metal grills and asked them to compensate Miglani to the tune of Rs5,000. Miglani appealed to the State Commission asking for higher compensation but this was turned down as the Commission felt that the consequences of theft could not be laid at the doors of the department.

The matter went to the National Commission, which after examining the facts and circumstances of the case concluded that the absence of metal grill contributed to the theft. It was noted that the department had taken the money for the grills and not installed the same within reasonable time, making a clear case of deficiency of service. The Commission further noted that Miglani had noted in the FIR filed after the theft that he had suffered loss of Rs15,000 in cash, a statement which could not be discarded as a figment of imagination.

Compensation was increased to Rs50,000 and Rs5,000 more was granted as cost of litigation to the consumer.