Non-execution of a statutory conveyance deed by a developer constitutes a continuing cause of action, preventing the complaint from being time-barred, whereas extraneous claims for construction defects are subject to strict limitation periods if not raised timely or based on continuous breaches.

JUDGEMENT

PER HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1. The Complainant, Moraya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., is a duly registered co-operative housing society formed by the purchasers of flats in the residential project known as “Moraya”. The project was launched in the year 2012 by OP No.1 - M/s Orchid Associates, who accepted booking amounts and executed registered agreements for sale in favour of purchasers of 136 residential flats. The part Occupancy Certificate was obtained on 26.06.2013, and handing over of the possession started thereafter. Thereafter, the final Occupancy Certificate was received on 29.10.2014 from Pune Municipal Corporation (Page No. 71). Despite handing over possession, several promised amenities and statutory compliances were allegedly not completed. The complainant society was subsequently formed and registered on 20.02.2016, (Page No. 31-32), and a formal Resolution authorizing filing of the present complaint, as averred, was passed on 06.03.2020 (Page No. 33-44). It is the allegation that despite completion certificates and possession, OP No.1 failed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant society as mandated under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). The draft conveyance shared by the OP allegedly contained serious deviations from the sanctioned layout and failed to correctly allocate common areas and amenity spaces. The complainant asserts that repeated oral and written follow-ups were made requesting for proper conveyance, provision of amenities, and rectification of defects, but the OP failed to act. The society has relied upon extensive correspondence and communications (E-mail correspondence at Page No. 168-232, Letters dated 01.10.2021 at Page No. 129-131, 04.10.2021 at Page No. 136-143, 07.10.2021 notice reply at Page No. 144-151 and reply dated 16.10.2021 at Page No. 152-167) to demonstrate continuous demands and non-compliance. The complainant contends that this failure amounts to statutory breach, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice.

2. The complainant further alleges that OP No.1 collected a total amount of ₹1,12,14,400/- from the flat purchasers under the head “Corpus Fund.” It is pleaded that the OP was legally obligated to transfer the said corpus fund along with accrued interest to the complainant society upon its formation, but has illegally retained the same till date without justification. The complainant asserts that such retention is arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of MOFA. Additionally, the complainant society was compelled to incur ₹1,00,000/- towards installation of the East Side gate and boundary fencing, which, according to the complainant, was the responsibility of the developer. Hence refund of the said amount with 18% interest per annum from the date of expenditure till realization has been sought.

2.1 The complaint also alleges regarding common amenities and shared facilities between Moraya Society and Majestic Towers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (OP No.3), formed on 25.05.2017 for a separate building constructed by OP No.2 - M/s Jairaj Developers. The complainant contends that several facilities including basement parking beneath “C” building, internal roads, open spaces, electricity meters, transformer area, and STP are common and ought to be proportionately conveyed. It is alleged that only four common parking spaces were handed over to Moraya Societ