Per Mr.Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member

This is a consumer complaint u/s.12 r/w.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [‘CP Act’ in brief]

[1]     Complainant is co-operative housing society and a consumer within the meaning of CP Act.  Opponent no.1 is a developer whereas opponent no.2 and 3 are its partners and as such service providers with the meaning of CP Act.  

[2]     Opponent constructed a building with 81 flats in 1998 and allowed purchasers to reside without valid occupation certificate.  Obtaining of occupation certificate is the obligation of the opponent.  Complainant required to pay twice the normal water charges from 1990 onwards.  Opponent also failed to convey the property as required under a statutory obligation.  On persuasion being made, the opponent put lame excuses to allege that some of the members of society have extended balconies etc.  Therefore, local authority, therefore, does not issue occupation certificate and so on. 

[3]     In support of the complaint, complainant has produced copies of bills issued by the local authorities.  There appears to be irregularities in recording of roznamas.  On 04/04/2002, complaint was admitted and office was directed to issue process in due course.  Thereafter, notices were issued in a format.  The opponent, however, filed written version as on 29/08/2002.  The action of the opponent expressly ousts him out now to claim that complaint was not admitted on record as on 04/04/2002. 

[5]     Thereby, the case was put in sine-die list.  Recently, was taken out from sine-die list for disposal after service of notice at the cost of the Commission.  Both the parties appeared before the Commission. 

[6]     In written statement, the opponent took objection to record deficiency in service on his part and relies on clause 7 of the agreement to assert that the flat purchasers undertook to deposit mandatory charges and for enclosure of garages and balconies etc. The opponent thus tried to escape from liability on the stand of not making payments by the members to perform statutory obligations under –The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963  (“the MOFA” for brevity).  Obtaining occupation certificate and execution of conveyance deed is statutory duty of the developer.  Any term of the agreement contradictory to the MOFA is void.  Developer may recover such charges or take appropriate steps to clear the encroachment on the balconies etc. to satisfy the local authority to obtain occupation certificate.  There is objection of over-lapping of civil court. 

          In view of the settled position of law and mandatory provisions of MOFA inclusive of performance of statutory obligations by the opponent, we proceed to pass the following

ORDER

1. Consumer complaint is allowed.
2. Opponent no.1 to 3 are, jointly and severally, directed to obtain occupation certificate within two months from the date of this order and thereafter execute the conveyance in favour of the complainant society.  On failure of opponent to comply, they shall be liable to pay penalty of Rs.500/- per day till the compliance is done.
3. The complainant society members to give all the co-operation and assistance for removal of the obstacles for proper validation i.e. removal of balconies etc.
4. Opponents no.1 to 3 are, jointly and severally, directed to pay costs quantified to Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

Pronounced

Dated 29^th July, 2015.