NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Oberoi Woods Co-Operative Housing Society Limited – Complainant
versus
Oberoi Reality Limited and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.263 of 2014
Decided on 14.10.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A – Housing Society – Allotment of flat – Suit filed within limitation period of three years from date of entitlement of plaintiff for higher quantum of land in terms of amendment sanction – There is not a single communication sent to OP shown to NC by complainant to establish that issue of quantum of area for conveyance was ever taken up before filing of complaint – No merit in contention of complainant that quantum of land to be conveyed is part of the continuous cause of action of “non-conveyance” of land, particularly when quantum is specified in POA – Society had already taken over common facilities & maintenance responsibilities in 2008 & no grievance regarding absence of sufficient municipal water connection & consequent deficient service has been raised by complainants making monetary claim barred by limitation in complaint filed in 2014 – Liability to cure defects in building ended in 2011 whereas this complaint has been filed two years after that – OPs have denied any violations of Development Control Regulations stating that valid OC have been obtained & minor concerns of occupants have been addressed when raised which is absolutely clear from fact that as undertaken – Further directions issued. (Paras 9 to 13)
Result: Complaint Partly allowed.
ORDER
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.—Heard Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. Mayur Khandeparker, Advocate for OP 1 and Mr. Manoj, advocate for OP-2.
2. The complaint was originally filed on 28.07.2014 and subsequently amended twice on 27.11.2016 and 06.01.2017. As per amended complaint, the Complainant, a housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, on 17.06.2009, is representing its members who have purchased their respective flats from the OPs. The complainant society was formed vide registration dated 17.06.2009 and took over the charge for day to day management of the affairs of the Oberoi Woods project developed by OP-1 comprising 600 units and simultaneously started corresponding with the OP-1 to execute deed of conveyance to transfer the rights, title and interest in respect of the property, as provided under MOFA vide letter dated 21.12.2009(Page 200), which was responded on 15.01.2010 by the OP-1 by citing MOFA provisions and pointing out that the lease is valid mode of conveyance and that after completing the sale of all the units and receipt of all outstanding amounts of dues from all allottees, the conveyance can be and shall be executed in favour of the complainant. The present complaint is filed against the OPs for not complying with their contractual and statutory obligations and consequent deficiency in service, namely, rectification of defects in construction, severe leakage problems in more than 400 flats, parking place, payment of interest on Corpus fund received on 02.09.2009 without interest, and for execution of deed of conveyance of the plot of land along with all structures standing thereon. OP-2 are the owners of a large piece of land admeasuring 47,346.50 sq. mtrs. OP-2 is the promoter under MOFA, 1963 as their name appears in the property card. OP-1 constructed three buildings under the project name “Oberoi Woods” consisting of three towers – A, B and C. All the towers have common basement, 2 level podium, stilt floor and 1 to 35 stories. Full OC was obtained on 03.05.2008 and thereafter the possession by most of the allottees was handed over by September 2008. OP-1 had promised to provide premium quality construction, recreation ground, internal roads, open spaces, terraces, swimming pool, club house, etc. to all residents of the Oberoi Woods. But till 10.07.2014, the date of filing of this compliant, OPs have failed to honour their commitment. Possession of flats has been given to the respective flat purchasers, however, right from the beginning, there are heavy leakages inside the flats and in the common areas. Very few leakages were temporarily repaired and the leakages are still continuing. More than 400 flats are facing leakage problem where either the work of concealed pipes laid in the flooring is not proper or water proofing is not done properly or the pipes are leaking. Despite repeated complaints, OPs have failed to rectify the same on permanent basis. In September, 2013, the complainant society appointed an independent Architect & Interior Consultant Mr. Shrikant Hadke to inspect the building, who, in his detailed report dated 12.11.2013 estimated the cost of repairs of leakage problems at Rs.6,17,50,000/-. OP 1 was obliged to provide one stretcher lift out of four lifts provided in each tower, which they have not provided. Further, none of the lifts are accessible to and from Podium no. 1. OP 1 informed to the complainant society that they have entered into a Premises Ownership Agreement dated 31.03.2012 for the sale of Flat No. 3503 on the 35th floor in ‘B’ wing to M/s Oberoi Constructions Ltd. along with 106 car parking spaces in Podium-I level. However, maximum car parking that can be allotted to any flat is only two and allotting 106 car parking is illegal and unjustified. By letters dated 02.05.2012 & 03.05.2012, OP 1 requested complainant to issue share certificate in respect of the said flat to Oberoi Constructions Ltd. Comp
Developers are accountable for possession delays and quality issues under housing agreements, invoking the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act and Consumer Protection Act.
Allotment of flat – Maintenance charges could not be charged till the receipt of occupancy certificate.
Housing Board – Personalised, subjective, biased, one-sided & uncorroborated opinion about facilities cannot be relied upon in absence of substantive evidence.
Consumer complaints against builders for delays in possession must be resolved by allowing refunds without penalty or interest when construction is not completed as per agreement.
The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act mandates conveyance to be executed by promoters; failure triggers a remedial process under Section 11, which is not subject to extensive trials.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.