The cases originated from complaints filed by the flat purchasers before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijayawada, alleging deficiencies in their respective flats within the Vijayalakshmi Towers-II project. While the District Forum had dismissed the complaints, the State Commission, in its order dated July 8, 2011, overturned this decision, finding merit in the complainants' allegations of reduced plinth area and non-provision of car parking.

The builder, in its Revision Petitions before the NCDRC, challenged the State Commission's order, arguing that the flat purchasers had signed the sale deeds and construction agreements after complete satisfaction with the terms and amenities. The builder also contended that the sale deeds did not mention car parking (except for one case where "Special Car Parking" was specified) and that the complainants had filed their complaints after a significant delay from the date of possession. Furthermore, the builder relied on a clause in the agreement stating that once possession was delivered, purchasers would have no claim regarding construction defects not due to the promoter's default.

However, the NCDRC, to ascertain the factual position regarding the alleged deficiencies, appointed a local Commissioner to conduct a site inspection and submit a report on the plinth area as per the sale deeds and the Building Penalization Scheme (BPS) Plan, as well as the status of car parking.

The local Commissioner's detailed technical report, submitted on August 19, 2023, revealed significant discrepancies. In the case of Flat No. 8 (the lead case), the report found a deficit of approximately 68 sq. ft. in the plinth area compared to the BPS plan. Similar deficits were noted in the other two flats as well. Regarding parking, the report indicated issues with the availability and convenience of car parking spaces.

Upon perusal of the local Commissioner's report and other evidence, the NCDRC concurred with the State Commission's findings of deficiency in service on the part of the builder concerning the promised area and parking facilities. The NCDRC noted that the State Commission had thoroughly appreciated the facts and evidence before arriving at its well-reasoned orders.

In the lead case (RP/3270/2011), the State Commission had directed the builder to pay Rs. 65,000/- towards the deficit area and Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the non-provision of car parking, along with additional compensation for mental agony and costs. Similar directions, with varying amounts based on the specific deficits, were issued in the other two cases. Notably, in the case of a physically handicapped purchaser, the State Commission had also directed the builder to provide the "Special Car Parking" as promised in the sale deed.

The NCDRC found no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission. Consequently, finding the Revision Petitions to be devoid of merit, the NCDRC dismissed all three of them, upholding the State Commission's orders and affirming the builder's liability for the deficiencies in the flats. This decision reinforces the rights of consumers in the housing sector and the responsibility of builders to adhere to the promises made in sale deeds and construction agreements.