Appeal No. 91 of 2021, S. Ramakrishnan v Indian Railway Welfare Organization

What the case concerns

Appeal No. 91 of 2021 was filed by S. Ramakrishnan against the Indian Railway Welfare Organization and its Chief Project Manager for the Southern Zone. The buyer had been allotted a Type B dwelling unit in the Rail Vihar Group Housing Scheme at Ambattur, Chennai, paid Rs.32,58,110 and took possession on 18 February 2019.

The buyer complained to the Regulatory Authority in June 2020. After the Regulatory Authority granted some directions and rejected other reliefs in C.No.82 of 2020, the buyer appealed to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Who may be affected

The findings directly concern the buyer and the Indian Railway Welfare Organization. They may also be relevant to purchasers in the same project who rely on the project brochure for claims about house design, water arrangements, construction defects or common amenities.

The project was registered under RERA as Phase II A-Tamil Nadu/02/building/0160/2018. The Indian Railway Welfare Organization was described as a registered society working under the patronage of the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, to provide housing to serving and retired railway employees on a no profit, no loss basis.

Key findings in the supplied text

• The project brochure described the homes as independent twin dwelling units. Type B had an exclusive entry and frontage, but the scheme contemplated a common wall between two units. The Tribunal therefore found that the complaint about receiving a twin house with a common wall was not sustainable.
• The buyer alleged violations involving CMWSSB and CMDA but produced no documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that verbal allegations alone were insufficient.
• The brochure stated that the Indian Railway Welfare Organization’s maintenance and defective component replacement liability would usually continue for 12 months from the virtual date of completion, irrespective of when possession was taken. The Tribunal noted that the buyer had not produced evidence showing that the promoter refused to rectify defects.
• The brochure included internal and external water supply, sewerage disposal, an underground water tank and a 1,000 litre overhead tank for individual houses. The Tribunal found that it did not promise an individual metro water connection.
• A technical brochure produced by the buyer concerned a different housing organisation and project. The Tribunal found that it could not establish a promise made for Rail Vihar.

Limits of the supplied extract

The supplied text begins considering the complaint about incomplete common amenities but does not include the Tribunal’s final analysis of that issue or the final operative result of the appeal.