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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment