ORDER P.D. Shenoy, Member—Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal filed by the builder- M/s Brigade Developers Ltd., the complainant Shri P Mohan Bhat has filed this revision petition before us. The main issue involved in this case is that whether the height of the flat is less than what is agreed upon to be constructed and delivered by the builder. 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a flat in Brigade Retreat at Mysore from the builder respondent. According to the complainant the floor height is less than what is required to be and alleged that the builder had delayed in delivering the possession of the flat. It is the contention of the complainant that though the builder had agreed to deliver the possession of the apartment on 30.9.1996, but the possession was handed over only on 1.7.1997. Hence, the complainant sought interest @ 9% per annum and Rs.9,35,000 paid by him and part rent paid by him i.e. Rs.27,000. The main contention of the complainant is that the builder had agreed that the apartment will be of the height of 9 feet 6 inches to 10 feet, but the builder had constructed the apartment with the height of 8 feet 7 inches only. Therefore he made illegal profit by reducing the cost of construction and sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000 apart from Rs.50,000 towards mental agony. In addition to that he has made other allegations regarding defects in the kitchen, over-head tank, illegal car sheds, generator from nearby ground floor creates noise pollution, etc. The builder also failed the deliver the landscaped garden. 3. This was contested by the builder on several grounds. The main ground raised by the builder was that the complainant has given an declaration at the time of taking of the possession of the flat, hence, he has no right to raise the issue of height etc. later on. The District Forum after analyzing the case in great detail directed the builder to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000 on the ground of lesser height of the apartment i.e. Rs.5,000 towards the non-provision of the landscape garden within two months from the date of its order alongwith a cost of Rs.1,000. later on. The District Forum after analyzing the case in great detail directed the builder to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000 on the ground of lesser height of the apartment i.e. Rs.5,000 towards the non-provision of the landscape garden within two months from the date of its order alongwith a cost of Rs.1,000. If the builder fails to pay the amount within the time stipulated the complainant would be entitled to receive interest @ 10% per annum. Regarding other deficiencies, the complainant was directed to approach Civil Court. 4. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the builder had filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the complainant had given a declaration while taking the possession of the flat wherein he said that it is good and tenantable condition and has no claims against the builder. However, the complainant states that the declaration was obtained by force. The State Commission held that whether the signatures were obtained by force or not, is a matter which could be examined in a regular trial in the event the complainant files a regular civil suit. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the complainant were allowed and the impugned order was set aside. Complainant was directed to pursue the remedy in the Civil Court along with other reliefs claimed by him before the District Forum. Simultaneously, the appeal filed by the complainant, for enhancement of compensation and granting other reliefs’ was dismissed by the State Commission. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Out of eight points urged by the petitioner, the District Forum has granted relief towards reduction in the height of the flat as well as non-provision of landscape garden and for the rest of the points the District Forum had directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy in the Civil Court for which he had already taken action. The Xerox copy of the approved plan discloses the height of each floor as 2.85 mtrs, whereas on measurement it was found that .the height of the apartment is only 2.65 mtrs. Hence, he is entitled for compensation for the difference of 0.2 mtrs. The possession of this building was taken on 22.7.1999 and the complaint was filed within two years of taking possession of the building. Hence, he is entitled for compensation for the difference of 0.2 mtrs. The possession of this building was taken on 22.7.1999 and the complaint was filed within two years of taking possession of the building. Hence, the complaint is within the time limit and is not time barred under the Consumer Protection Act. 6. One of the issues to be decided by us, is whether in view of the undertaking given by the complainant, he is entitled for compensation . 7. On 1.7.1997 the petitioner P Mohan Bhat had given an undertaking, the extract of the same reads as follows: “I/We hereby declare and confirm that after taking detailed inspection of the aforesaid flat and being satisfied with the construction and the amenities provided in Brigade Retreat. I/We have this day taken vacant possession of the aforesaid flat in good and tenantable condition and I/We have no claims against you in respect thereof either with regard to the construction or with regard to any other matter concerning the above flat.” 8. These are printed undertakings which are given to the flat purchaser by the builder, and without the signatures of the flat owners, the possession is not handed over. It is a well-known fact that the builder and the flat purchaser are not on an equal footing and it is not possible for the purchaser of the flat to fight against the mighty builder before taking possession as the builder can deny possession by giving so many reasons. Further, it is unlikely that the purchaser of the flat would immediately take a measuring tape and measure the height of the flat before taking the possession. The building has a life of 50 or more years and we have held in another case wherein the purchaser noticed leakage after the first rain had approached the builder for rectification or compensation. We have held that such complaints are valid. The purchaser has to pay rent and also interest on the loans obtained so he will be under duress to take possession of the flat by signing on the dotted line. Hence, we do not consider such an undertaking would preclude a consumer by raising a consumer complaint later on within the stipulated period permissible under the Act. 9. The purchaser has to pay rent and also interest on the loans obtained so he will be under duress to take possession of the flat by signing on the dotted line. Hence, we do not consider such an undertaking would preclude a consumer by raising a consumer complaint later on within the stipulated period permissible under the Act. 9. It is worth while to quote the extract of the National Building Code which reads as follows: “National Building Code of Indian 1970 published by Indian Standards Institute—Clause 8.2.1 is regarding the height, which reads as under: 8.2.1. Height—The height of all building for human habitation cannot be less than 2.75 mtrs measured from the surface of the floor to the lowest point of the ceiling (bottom of slab). 8.2.1.1 for row housing schemes the height of the rooms shall not be less than 2.6 meter.” 10. In this case it is not a row house but it is a flat. Though the builder had agreed to built the flat at 2.85 mtrs., he has only provided 2.65 mtrs, which is a clear cut violation of the National Building Code of India as well as the agreement between the parties. 11. During the hearing of this case, it was brought to our notice that there was a complaint against the height of another flat in the same building before the Mysore Municipal Corporation and that was compounded on payment of Rs.10,000 to the Corporation. In this case, it is worth while to go through the letter dated 19.3.2002 addressed by the Deputy Director Town Planning Mysore City Corporation to the Builder which reads as follows: “Based on complaints in reference 1 and 2 connected with this matter, site inspection was done and the inside height of kitchen and room of flat No. 307 was found to be only 7”7” to 8”0” and the inside height elsewhere was only 7”9” to 8”9” as mentioned in Ref. 3. According to the sanctioned plan, the inside height of each floor should be 2.85 m. Even so your letter says that each floor is. 2.85 m. high according to the sanctioned building plan. This is far from truth and a clear violation of the law. 3. According to the sanctioned plan, the inside height of each floor should be 2.85 m. Even so your letter says that each floor is. 2.85 m. high according to the sanctioned building plan. This is far from truth and a clear violation of the law. For the above reasons, you are informed that you should clarify within seven days of receiving this letter why legal action should not be taken against you for constructing a building in violation of the law and not to transfer flat No.307 to others. You are informed that otherwise legal action will be taken against you.” 12. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Mysore City Corporation Shri N Jayaram had himself written to the editors of newspapers, which weakens the case of the builder, wherein he has stated as under: To, The Editor To All Papers Mysore Dated 28.6.2002 Sir, Regarding the paper statement issued by the BDPL appeared in your paper about the construction of Brigade Retreat Building, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore. The paper statement of the Brigade Developers Private Ltd. (BDPL) made on 20.6.2002 appeared in is false and baseless. The Brigade retreat has not constructed the building in question, as per the standards stipulated in the National Building Code and the Building by-laws as well. This has been very clearly mentioned in the notice issued by the MCC to Brigade Retreat on March 19, 2002. The MCC has not closed the matter and it will not do so till the BDPL comes forward to solve the grievances of the concerned persons who are suffering. Yours affectionately Sd/- (N Jayaram ) Commissioner MCC Mysore Copy send to Mysore Grahekara Parashatty Vivekananda Road, Mysore for information. 13. In this case the height of complainants’ flat was less than 2.65 mtrs and as per the agreement the height of the flat was to be 2.85 mtrs and all other flats were having the same lesser height and the city corporation as a via media decided to impose a compounding fee. Imposing a compounding fee does not mean, that there was no violation by the builder in building the flat with lesser height. The Corporation had two alternatives; one is to demolish the building for violating the sanctioned plan and second to impose a compounding fee. The Corporation chose the second alternative. Imposing a compounding fee does not mean, that there was no violation by the builder in building the flat with lesser height. The Corporation had two alternatives; one is to demolish the building for violating the sanctioned plan and second to impose a compounding fee. The Corporation chose the second alternative. This does not compensate the consumers as they have to live through out their life in the flat with a lesser height. Hence, they have to be suitably compensated. 14. Therefore, we hereby allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and confirm the order of the District Forum. The builder shall pay Rs.10,000 as cost to the petitioner. Revision allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000. *******