A housing society formed under statutory mandate qualifies as a consumer and can initiate proceedings for common area deficiencies and conveyance of title, provided the claims are not time-barred or purely monetary, and the developer's failure to execute a conveyance deed constitutes a continuing cause of action.

JUDGEMENT

PER HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1. Heard Mr. Dnyanaraj G. Sant, Advocate for the Complainant and Mr. Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate, for Opposite Party.

2. The present consumer complaint, has been filed by M/s Nancy Lake Home Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. on behalf of its members against the Opposite Parties, Nancy Icon Builders & Developers and Nikkita Builders & Developers, alleging deficiencies in service, failure to provide promised amenities, non-execution of conveyance, and persistent negligence in completing statutory obligations and essential facilities. The Opposite Parties launched a residential project known as “Nancy Lake Home” at Katraj, Pune, consisting of 383 flats across multiple buildings, for which possession was given in phases between 2010 and 2014. Based on brochures, representations, sanctioned plans, and written agreements, flat purchasers were assured a wide range of amenities including a podium, clubhouse, children’s play area, solar system, swimming pool, fire fighting equipment, proper drainage and sewage systems, water supply network, internal roads, recreational areas, and adequate safety installations. The Society was duly registered on 10.12.2009, after which it assumed responsibility for coordinating with the builder for the completion of pending works. According to the complainant, after taking possession, the residents observed that a large number of amenities were incomplete, non-functional, substandard, or not provided at all, contrary to the contractual assurances. Defects and deficiencies highlighted include podium water leakages, an undersized and poorly constructed children’s play area, leakage-prone swimming pool, incomplete clubhouse and gym facilities, non-operational solar water system, inadequate fire fighting equipment, blocked drainage/sewage system, damaged or unfinished internal roads, incomplete compound wall, and absence of CCTV surveillance. Photographs (Annexures C-7 to C-12) and a professional architectural inspection report (Annexure C-13) estimated the cost of rectifying these defects at Rs.2.05 crores. The Society had to independently spend Rs.9,32,928/- for repairing the fire system and Rs.2,19,332/- for installing CCTV cameras due to the builder’s neglect. Residents also pointed out widespread construction defects such as leakages, cracked plaster, uneven flooring, rusting reinforcement bars, and poor-quality fittings in individual flats and common areas.

2.2 The complainant alleges that the builder failed to obtain critical statutory approvals such as Completion Certificate (CC) and Occupancy Certificate (OC) for all buildings, thereby exposing residents to safety and legal risks and forcing them to pay higher water charges, taxes, and penalties to municipal authorities. Despite repeated letters, meetings, and legal notices issued between 2013 and 2015 (Annexures C-14 to C-20), the builder allegedly stopped attending to complaints, abruptly discontinued maintenance, and refused to supply essential documents such as sanctioned plans, title deeds, fire safety documents, water connection approvals, lift licenses, and engineering drawings. The complainant further asserts that the builder collected substantial sums from members toward corpus fund, development charges, and maintenance amounts, but failed to maintain transparent accounts or