The main legal point established is the builder's statutory obligation to obtain occupation certificate for legal possession under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, and the rights of the complainants to legal possession with occupation certificate.

ORDER

Narendra Kawde Member. - By this common order, both these consumer complaints shall be decided as both the complaints are involved identical facts and law and opponent is the same.

2. Complainants in complaint no.CC/14/94 and CC/14/95 are wife and husband respectively. Registered agreements dated 12/11/2010 were executed separately between the complainants and opponent builder/developer for purchase of flat no.303 and flat no.304, 3rd floor, 'D' Wing in the building known as 'Premier Residences', situated on S.R.A.Plot No.17, Sub-urban Scheme No.1, Village Kurla-II, Tal.Kurla, Dist.Mumbai for consideration of Rs.35,18,170/- and Rs.50,67,215/- respectively. Said flats having carpet area of 42.32 sq.mtr. and 60.96 sq.mtr. respectively were to be delivered before 30/12/2011. Entire consideration has been paid in each consumer complaint as per the agreement and even amount of VAT, service tax, maintenance deposit including interest has been paid for each flat in each complaint. As per the stipulation in the agreement, last instalment was to be paid while taking possession of the flat. However, construction was delayed and therefore ready possession for delivery of the flat was available in the month of June, 2013 without occupation certificate. Both the complainants insisted to deliver the possession of the flats along with occupation certificate which has not been obtained by the opponent builder/developer. Therefore, at this point of time, the dispute arose between the parties. Both the complainants have filed separate consumer complaints praying for directions to the opponent to hand over possession of the flats in dispute, to obtain occupation certificate, electrical inspector's certification, DCC, BCC and for supply of its approved plans.

3. Complainants have also claimed interest on amounts of Rs.21,45,919/- and Rs.22,36,939/- respectively in both complaints on account of delayed possession. It is also alleged that the opponent builder/developer has constructed carpet area short of 0.82 sq.mtr. and 0.42 sq.mtr. respectively in both flats as against the stipulations in the registered agreements.

4. Opponents have filed written version opposing claim and contentions of the complainant mainly among other grounds as below:

(i)Delay in completion of the construction attributed to restriction due to Notification dated 25/10/2010 issued by Govt.of Maharashtra to regulate excavation sand from natural resources as new policy.

(ii)Notification was challenged in Writ Petitions bearing no.97 and 98 of 2011 before Hon'ble High Court, Bombay and order dated 12/01/2011 came to be passed in the said writ petition for giving direction to Govt.

(iii)Since no contract for allotment for excavation of sand was allotted, progress of the work adversely affected.

(iv)Other flat buyers have occupied their respective flats on completion of the project. Last instalment of payment received from the complainant after the gap of almost three years.

(v)SRA takes their own time to issue occupation certification.

(vi)Though possession was offered, both the complainants denied to take the same.

5. We have heard learned Authorised Representative Mr.Uday Prabhu for the complainant, and learned advocate Mr.A.V.Patwardhan for opponent. With their able assistance, we have perused the record and documents relied upon by the parties.

6. The facts which are not in dispute are that, there are separate registered agreements executed by the complainants separately for purchase of the flat no.303 in consumer complaint no.CC/14/94 and flat no.304 in consumer complaint no.CC/14/95 respectively for the agreed consideration and possession was to be given as per stipulation by end of 30/12/2011. Details of payment filed by the complainant with annexure prima-facie reveals that last instalment prior to taking possession on 03/11/2010 amounting to Rs.2,11,090/- and Rs.3,04,033/- respectively in both the complaints was paid. Learned advocate for the opponent attributed delay t