Architect says 27 to 30% less carpet-area in Lodha NCP; Angry flat-owner files police complaint

Mumbai, 10th January, 2019: After receiving reports from a trusted architect's firm that the carpet area of her two flats at Lodha New Cuffe Parade was 27% and 30% smaller than mentioned in the registered agreement, Dioro flat-owner Shilpi Thard filed a complaint with the Police Commissioner of Mumbai. 

The angry flat owner has requested the Crime Branch and/or Economic Offense Wing of Mumbai Police to register an FIR against Lodha Developers Limited.

Reproduced below is her emailed police complaint: 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shil T <shilpithard@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:45 PM
Subject:
To: <cp.mumbai@mahapolice.gov.in>, <cp.mumbai.jtcp.crime@mahapolice.gov.in>, <jtcp.eow@mahapolice.gov.in>

From : Shilpi Thard & Amit Jaisingh
Villa 426, Concorde Napa Valley,
Kanakpura Road,
Kagglipura Post, Bangalore 560082

To : Police Commissioner of Mumbai
Police Commissioner's Office, Main Building
Near Crawford Market,Dr DN Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400001    

Application for FIR: Complaint against Lodha Developers Pvt Ltd for cheating me in my Flat nos 3103 and 3104, B-wing, Dioro tower, Lodha New Cuffe Parade, Wadala

Dear Sir,

Some years ago, my husband Amit Jaisingh and I decided to return to “OUR” India from USA, where we were running a prosperous business. In 2012, we invested our savings to book a "jodi" of under-construction flats in a 7-star building complex being made by the prestigious brand “LODHA”, namely the New Cuffe Parade project in Wadala. This was to be our sweet home in 2015/16.  After a long wait, in 2018, we finally got possession of the abovementioned flats in B-wing, Dioro tower. We believed that these flats were built per the standards of a 7-star quality and safety specifications as promised by Lodha.

However we were shocked, stirred and dismayed upon finding that the flats were 25-30% smaller than agreement area, and they were of shockingly substandard quality (i.e. major safety issues, demolition debris falling on us, leakages the size of rain showers, cracked and filled tiles, and much more). Having lived and worked in the US, we never imagined that such things could happen in premium projects built by reputed builders like Lodha. The unacceptable issues with these flats has caused us to live elsewhere, and has put us into grave practical and financial hardships.

I hereby request you to register my FIR against Lodha Developers Pvt Ltd and its directors ("the builders") concerning Carpet Area fraud and cheating under IPC 420, and other appropriate sections of applicable laws.

For establishing the facts of our case, we are relying on reports of Nadkarni & Co, Architects, Valuers, & Interior Designers, dated 7th January, 2019, for flat no. B-3103 (see Exhibit A) and flat no. B-3104 (see Exhibit B).

Download links:

Exhibit A - http://bit.ly/LOdhaNCP-1

Exhibit B - http://bit.ly/LodhaNCP-2

Sir, Nadkarni & Co are highly credible professionals, who are on Bombay High Court's panel for valuation of immovable properties. (Please see first page of Exhibit C - http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/general/Architects_on_the_panel_of_HC1.pdf

KEY OBSERVATIONS OF ARCHITECT'S REPORTS:

1) Paragraph 9 of Exhibit A shows Carpet Area shortfall of nearly 30% in flat no. 3103. It says, "It is apparent... that only Portion A - admeasuring 650.57 Sq. Ft. - can be considered as the carpet area of the flat, which falls significantly short of the carpet area of 925 Sq. Ft. mentioned in the Agreement to Sell. It seems that such shortfall is sought to be made good by including the areas of Portions B-1, B-2 and C in the carpet area of the flat, which is a violation of the relevant stipulation in the DCR."

2) Likewise, paragraph 9 of Exhibit B shows Carpet Area shortfall of approx 27% in flat no. 3104. It says, "It is apparent... that only Portion A - admeasuring 966.85 Sq. Ft. - can be considered as the carpet area of the flat, which falls significantly short of the carpet area of 1330 Sq. Ft. mentioned in the Agreement to Sell."

3) Paragraph 10 of both Exhibits A and B states, "As regards the 'interior' specifications and amenities agreed to be provided vide the Purchase Agreement / Deed, the quality of materials was found to be highly substandard. In view of the fact that the said flat is sold as a premium quality product, such deficiency in quality is glaring."

4) Paragraph 11 of both Exhibits A and B states, "The following qualitative issues were observed at the time of inspection:

(i) Toilet flooring fixed on sand bedding with heavy water content;

(ii) Water seepage as observed between joints in marble flooring;

(iii) Wide cut-out in slab for cut-out not covered or secured by railing;

(iv) Some of the internal walls are provided as dry-wall partitions with gypsum board paneling instead of the standard construction in block masonry, such dry wall partitions lack sturdiness, durability and are susceptible to water seepages;

(v) One of the external walls is also provided in gypsum board, rendering the flat vulnerable to trespass and burglary;

(vi) Damp patches are observed just above the floor level in some walls and dry wall partitions;

(vii) Dampness in walls has also damaged wooden flooring and skirting;

(viii) Dampness observed in false ceilings;

(ix) Shabby finishing to bathroom edges and;

(x) Drainage pipes over toilets, concealed by false ceiling, susceptible to leakage and hygiene issues."

5) Paragraph 13 states, "It is clearly seen that there are serious violations of various provisions of the National Building Code, as also various rules mentioned in the Development Control Regulations."

6) Paragraph 14 states, "Moreover it is observed that the Developer has violated important delivery commitments specified in the Agreement to Sell dated 20th January 2012, especially carpet area details."

WHY I AM FILING APPLICATION FOR FIR

1) Irremediable harm has been done to me and my family by the builder. Sir, we may seek civil remedies before appropriate forums for some quality-related issues mentioned above. It is remotely possiblethat the builder can rectify some quality issues mentioned above. However, it is impossible for the builder to raise the carpet area of our flats by 30%, as he has already diverted the FSI (i.e. carpet area) "stolen" from my flat to build other flats. My stolen carpet area cannot be restored to me; hence I have suffered irremediable harm.

2) If silver is not a substitute for gold, how is "Usable Area" an acceptable substitute for Carpet Area? Sir, a builder delivering 30% less Carpet Area than mentioned in the registered agreement is analogous to a goldsmith delivering 30% less gold than mentioned in the invoice. If a customer is being billed for four grams of gold, a goldsmith would not dare to pass off three grams gold with one gram of silver; and if he does so,the police will not hesitate before registering FIR for cheating and fraud. Sir, I believe that the law is the same for builders as it is for other trades.

3) Selling less than the quantity billed amounts to cheating and attracts criminal offences not only under Indian Penal Code, but also other statutes such as Legal Metrology Act. Delivering the same quantity and quality of goods as described in the prior agreement and/or as per the invoice, is critical for maintaining normal life and stable economic functioning in civil society. If a 30% deviation in measurement is routinely tolerated by the law enforcement agencies such as yourselves, then God alone can save the Indian public!

4) It is well-known in the marketplace that Lodha is the number-one builder in India. If we the buying public, and you the enforcement agencies, allow the market leader to sell 30% less carpet area than the registered agreement without the State taking cognizance of it, then all the other builders in the market will freely emulate his example and follow his lead.

5) It is also well-known that the top honcho and founder of the Lodha group, Mr Mangal Prabhat Lodha, is a sitting MLA of the ruling party, and extremely influential and powerful. If the law enforcement agencies fail to take cognizance of the criminal offences of Lodha Developers Limited, it will become common knowledge to the public that Lodha is above the law, and beyond the reach of the judiciary.

For all the reasons detailed above, Sir, we urge you to do your duty by promptly registering FIR against the vendors of my flats, Lodha Developers Limited, under relevant provisions of law.

Yours sincerely,

Shilpi Thard

-------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, it now remains to be seen whether the Mumbai Police will act on this complaint and register an FIR against the mighty Lodha builder, or whether it will seek to brush off the complaint as another "civil dispute" despite all the compelling evidence to the contrary. With the general reluctance of police and enforcement authorities to crack the whip at errant builders, the general public is growing justifiably impatient. 

Watch this space for further developments!

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114 / 8169471229
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com