It appears that district forum can order demolition. Please see the NCDRC judgment below. Please provide details of your case.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION  PETITION  NO.  4067  OF   2006

(From the order dated 10.1.2006  in appeal No.317/2005  of the

State Commission  Orissa)

Patnaik Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.                                            … Revisionist

            Vs.

Satish V. Kanungo                                                                                … Respondent

BEFORE:

                       HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER

Construction raised infront of flat in violation to brochure - not legal construction   -   Demolition of illegal building ordered by district forum upheld.

For the revisionist                        :            Mr. Jaideep N. Datta, Advocate

O R D E R

DATED THE   29^th August, 2007

JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, J. (PRESIDENT)

                        It is the builder who was opposite party before the District Forum and now revisionist before us.

                        Complaint of the respondent-complainant before the District Forum was   that he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for purchase of flat to be built by the revisionist.   That the revisionist made illegal construction against the building regulation that was also against the representation made in sales brochure. The offending building structure was being raised in front of the complainant’s flat and was causing shadow on the flat. According to the complainant the brochure provided by the revisionist at the time of booking of flat did not depict any community hall in front of the flat and by constructing it in violation of the representation made in the brochure amounts to deficiency in service in as much as the view from flat and natural light passage is blocked by the offending structure. Later state government cancelled the sanction of the offending building structure holding that the same is contrary to building bye-laws. Holding that there was deficiency in service District Forum directed the OP-revisionist to demolish the community hall and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost.  

                        Aggrieved by this order, revisionist went in appeal before the State Commission.  Its plea was that the district forum does not have powers to pass demolition order.  The revisionist contends that at most, if deficiency in service is established, then the forum can award compensation but no demolition can be ordered. State Commission was of the view that the section 14 (e) empowers the district forum to direct removal or demolition of structures that are causing deficiency in service. State commission in its order observed that the offending structure was not only in violation to the sales brochure but was also an illegality as its sanction was given by the competent authority in violation of the building code.  State commission affirmed the district forum order of demolition and dismissed the appeal.

In our view, State Commission rightly upheld the demolition order of the forum. It is not disputed that the offending building structure, which is a community hall in this case, is illegal as observed in the state government order dated 06.03.2005. The sanction given earlier by the local body has been quashed by the government order and the building has been declared illegal. Further we will analyse the powers granted to the consumer protection agencies under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 specifically the provisions under section 14(e) which reads as below:

14. Finding of the District Forum.-{l) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the  District  Forum  is  satisfied  that  the  goods  complained  against  suffer  from  any  of  the  defects  specified  in  the  complaint  or  that  any  of  the  allegations  contained  in  the  complaint  about  the services  are proved,  it  shall  issue  an order  to  the opposite party directing him  to 2[do] one or more of the following things, namely:- .

14 (e) to remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in question;

On perusal of this specific provision it becomes abundantly clear the forum or a commission instituted under the consumer protection act can direct the opposite party to remove defects/deficiency in the goods/service offered and such a direction can also lead to an order of demolition. In the present case the district forum after finding that the community hall was not only contrary to the representations made in the sales brochure given to the complainant, who purchased a flat from the revisionist, but was also illegal as it was contrary to the building code ordered demolition of the offending structure. The offending structure was blocking the view and natural light of the complainant’s flat and was thus the very reason for deficiency in service. The market value of the complainant’s flat depreciated due to the presence of an illegal structure in front of it. The district forum empowered by section 14(e) of the act proceeded with the direction to OP to remove/demolish the offending structure and thereby remove the deficiency in service. Thus the forum acted as per the provisions of the consumer protection act. The contention of the appellant that in such cases only compensation can be awarded is baseless and is thus rejected. We do not find any infirmity with the district forum order.

                        Accordingly, we do not find it a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   This revision petition is dismissed.                

                                                                                    ………….…………………….J.

                                                                                    (M.B.SHAH)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                                                    ………….……………………...

                                                                                    (RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

                                                                                    MEMBER

Hello Sir,

Can you please provide me a judgment stating that district consumer forum can not pass a demolition order.

Regards

I don't understand your question. Why are you saying that the district forum cannot pass a demolition order? when the statue (section 14(e) of CPA) provides for it then what is the problem in passing a demolition order? This seems to be a misunderstanding among the fraternity as the appellant advocate in the order I posted also thought the same. I shall help you if you provide information about your specific situtation.