In a recent Court Ruling - Developer gives buyer apartments 9 months late, with incomplete documents, no Electricity or Water Connection
An Analysis of the said Judgment the passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by Adv. R. P. Rathod.
Delayed delivery of a constructed flat, without copies of Intimation of Disapproval, Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate, amount to clear cut deficiency in service on part of the developer, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled recently. The consumer commission directed Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to B Sudhakar Shetty, for handing over possession of two flats nine months after the scheduled date, without copies of the three certificates issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Shetty will also get an additional amount of Rs. 50,000 towards cost of the litigation.
"The opponents (developer) have committed deficiency in service by not complying with their contractual and statutory obligations," the commission observed. The commission has directed the developer to take steps for the formation and Registration of a Co-operative Housing Society of flat purchasers in Lok Everest in Mulund West and to execute and register conveyance in favour of the society.
Shetty had booked two flats in Lok Everest in June 1996, and had paid Rs 8.76 lakh in advance for each flat. In September 1996, the developer issued an allotment letter to him, stating he would get possession of the completed flats within two years - by September 1998.
However, the Sales Agreement was executed nine years later in August 2005, and the developer agreed to handover possession of ready flats by March 2006. But, the complainant got the possession only in December 2006, without Electricity Supply and Municipal Water Connection.
The developer had contested the complaint denying any deficiency in service on their part, apart from taking a preliminary objection of the complaint being time barred, as it was filed belatedly. The commission discarded the objection stating there was novation of contract, and the fresh agreement was executed only in August 2005, and there was no delay in filing of the complaint.