Gera Developments fined Rs 50,000

26/06/2016

PUNE: The district consumer court has imposed Rs 50,000 cost on Gera Developments Private Limited and its two directors for not complying with their "statutory obligation" of obtaining a full completion certificate and executing deed of apartment in favour of each unit owner in a condominium at Lullanagar.

Rohit Gera, one of the firm's two directors, is also the vice-president of the Pune unit of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (Credai), a body of realtors.

The bench of V P Utpat and Kshitija Kulkarni ordered the realty firm to obtain full completion certificate in respect of 'Gera Junction' condominium, hand over a copy to the apartment owners' body, and execute a registered deed of apartment in favour of each unit-holder within three months. The firm has to report compliance of these directives to the consumer court.

Built in 2005, the condominium houses about 65 commercial shops and consists of basement, stilt and four commercial. All units were sold 10 years ago. Gera Junction's association of apartment owners had filed a complaint accusing Gera Developments of deficiency in service for not executing deed of apartment, not obtaining full completion certificate and for surrendering a portion of the basement parking area to Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) as amenity space. PMC was named the fourth respondent in the complaint.

The bench observed, "Opposite parties No 1 to 3 (Gera Developments and its two directors) have neither produced full completion certificate before the forum nor have handed over the same to the complainant (apartment owner's body)."

"As per provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, it is a statutory duty of the builder/promoter to execute deed of declaration as well as deed of apartment and obtain full completion certificate from the local body. Opposite parties No 1 to 3 have not produced any cogent documentary evidence to prove that they have discharged their statutory and contractual obligations," the bench said.

Gera told, "We will file an appeal against the order since there is an error on the face of the record. The PMC had issued us occupancy certificates (OCs) in parts On June 2, 2005, for the use of basement, stilt and the first two floors, and on November 25, 2005, for the use of the third and fourth floor of the condominium."

Gera referred two OCs in support of his claim and said, "The deed of declaration executed in 2005 in relation to the condominium also contained OC for the first four floors." A senior PMC official said, "An OC is issued only after the builder receives a completion certificate for the building from PMC. Issuing OCs in parts is not an authorised act but it is practised in many civic bodies, including PMC."

The apartment owners claimed that since September 2013, when PMC took possession of the surrendered parking area, they were facing vehicle parking issues due to inadequate space and the traffic police's parking restrictions on the road outside the condominium.

However, the consumer court dismissed the plaint against PMC on the grounds that the promoter/builder had agreed to allot a portion of the parking area to PMC as amenity space at the time of sanctioning of the building plans and the same reflected in the records.

The bench held that it can not adjudicate the parking area issue in a summary trial as the matter involved a civil dispute requiring investigation and recording of evidence. "The complainant condominium is at liberty to move the civil court, by filing a civil suit, as regards to issue of parking," the bench observed.