See how Arpan Darpan Society Goregaon (E) compelled the Ravi Group to provide Lawful water connection & formation of Society; though possession was given as back as 1997. Ravi Group filed Appeal against Court order but the State Commission rejected their Appea l!!! See the entire order!!!
Lesson: Better you do not buy the flats from this builder. As till date, OC of this building has been withheld by the authorities as the builder has shifted slum dwellers on the D.P. Road for project. Then constructed new building "Heena Jewel" at land from where the slum dwellers were shifted who are still on Road!!!
The entire order is as under:
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2541 OF 2006 Date of filing : 28/11
@ MISC. APPL. NO. 2941 OF 2006 Date of order : 18/06
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 326 OF 2000
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MUMBAI SUBURBAN
Mr. Ketan T. Shah
Director of M/s. Ravi Ashish
Land Developers Ltd. having office
At Laxmi Palace, 76, Mathuradas Road,
Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067. … Appellant/org. O.P.
V/s.
1. Arpan Darpan Residents Association
Gaurav Empire, Kanyapada
Off. Film City Road, Gokuldham,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063.
2. Mr. Suresh Parikh
C.M. of complainant No.1
3. Mr. Suresh Kajriwal
Asstt. Chairman of complainant No.1
4. Mr. Arvind Purohit
Gen. Secretary of complainant No.1
5. Mr. Ravin Goyal
Asstt. Secretary of complainant No.1
All r/at Arpan, Gaurav Empire, Kanyapada,
Off. Film City Road, Gokuldham,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063. … Respondents/org. complainants
Corum: Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
Present: Mr. A.V Patwardhan, for the appellant.
None for the respondents/org. complainants.
- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
This appeal filed by org. O.P. in consumer complaint No.326 is directed against the order dated 19/09 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum.
We heard Mr. A.V Patwardhan, for the appellant/org. O.P. Proof of service together with affidavit of service is taken on record. None present for the respondents/org. complainants.
We examined the correctness of the order under challenge.
From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the flats were booked long back. The builder delivered possession of the flats to the respective purchasers on or before 31/12/1997. The flat purchasers were forced to take possession under the threat of cancellation of allotment. In fact there were major deficiencies. However, the flat purchasers accepted the possession having no alternative. In absence of Occupancy Certificate, possession is not lawful. Physical possession supported by Occupancy Certificate is to be treated as lawful possession. In absence of Occupancy Certificate, physical possession is not lawful possession in the eyes of law. The Forum below therefore rightly directed the builder to provide Occupancy Certificate.
In absence of Occupancy Certificate, the flat purchasers are required to pay more for water supply. Therefore, the Forum below directed the builder to supply water. In fact there is supply of water. However, it is not lawful. The builder in Para 9 of the written statement has contended as under :-
“As regards the Municipal water supply the Opposite Party submits that as soon as the complainants building clears the outstanding property taxes payable to the M.C.G.M., the Opposite party shall proceed to procure the Occupation Certificate for the complainants building & which will take 6 to 8 months there from. There upon the M.C.G.M. will grant the regular bigger water connection for the complainants building. However, in the meanwhile complainants building is provided with M.C.G.M. water connection and the complainants have made a palpably statement that they are purportedly entirely dependant on the tanker water as alleged.”
Taking into consideration the contention raised in Para 9 of the written statement, we direct the builder to make water supply legal, so that the flat purchasers need not to pay more. The Learned Advocate Mr. Patwardhan argued that the builder is ready to form Co-op. Housing Society, but the members are not extending their co-operation. If the members are reluctant to extend assistance in the matter of formation of Co-op. Housing Society, then the builder cannot be blamed. We therefore propose to direct all the flat purchasers to extend full co-operation to the builder in the matter of formation of Co-op. Housing Society. The Forum below has directed the builder to execute Conveyance Deed in favour of Co-op. Housing Society. This direction is very much necessary in order to confer lawful title. The builder is rightly directed to furnish accounts. The possession was delivered in 1997. The Occupancy Certificate is not yet obtained. Therefore, the Forum below directed the builder to pay compensation of Rs.10, 000/- to each of the org. complainant Nos.2to5 and cost of Rs.10, 000/- in one set. The order under challenge therefore does not suffer from any illegality. In the result, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed. However, we are giving certain directions by way of clarifications.
2. The appellant/org. O.P. is directed to give lawful water supply. Similarly, in the matter of formation of Co-op. Housing Society, all the flat purchasers including complainants shall extend full co-operation to the builder and sign requisite forms, which are required for formation of Co-op. Housing Society.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Misc. Appl. No.2941, which is for stay stands disposed of.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) (B.B. Vagyani)
Member Judicial Member President
0 comments