National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Housing Development & Infrastructure ... vs Wilfred Pereira on 5 March, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 19/01/2016 in Complaint No. 94/2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE O/AT-9-01, 9TH FLOOR, DHIRAJ ARMA ANNAT KANEKAR MARG, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MAUREEN PEREIRA 205, PETLINA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., PREMIER ROAD, KURLA (W) MUMBAI-400070 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 19/01/2016 in Complaint No. 95/2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE O/AT-9-01, 9TH FLOOR, DHIRAJ ARMA ANANT KANEKAR MARG, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI-400051 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. WILFRED PEREIRA 205, PETLINA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., PREMIER ROAD, KURLA (W) MUMBAI-400070 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Devendra Sharma, Advocate
Dated : 05 Mar 2019 ORDER
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) The complainants/respondents entered into separate agreements with the appellant whereunder separate residential flats in a building known as 'Premier Residencies' on S.R.A. Plot no. 17, Sub-urban Scheme no. 1, Village - Kurla- II were to be constructed and sold to them. As per the agreement executed between the parties, the possession of the said flats was to be delivered to the complainants by 31.12.2011. The possession having not been delivered, the complainants/respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate consumer complaints.
2. The complaints were resisted by the appellant primarily on the ground that the restrictions were imposed by the Government of Maharashtra on excavation of sand vide its Order dated 25.10.2010. The said notification was challenged before the High Court of Bombay and some directions were issued by the High Court to the Government of Maharashtra on 12.01.2011. It was also stated in the written version filed by the appellant that though the possession was offered to the complainants, they had refused to accept the same.
3. The State Commission allowed the complaints and directed as under:-
"Order in CC/14/94 :-
1)CC/14/94 is partly allowed with costs quantified to Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the opponent to the complainant.
2)Opponents are directed to obtain occupation certificate from the authorities within a period of 4 months and hand over possession of flat no.303, 3rd floor, 'D' Wing in the building known as 'Premier Residences', situated on S.R.A.Plot No.17, Sub-urban Scheme No.1, Village Kurla-II, Tal.Kurla, Dist.Mumbai to the complainant, failing which opponents to pay Rs.500/- per day to the complainant till compliance of this order.
3)Opponents are directed to obtain certification from the Electrical Inspector, Building Completion Certificate and hand over same to the complainant along with approved plan of the project.
4)Opponents are directed to pay Rs.2 lacs [Rs.Two lacs only] to the complainant for the mental agony.
5) One set of the complaint compilation be retained and rest of the sets be returned to the complainant.
6) Copies of the order be furnisheed to the parties free of cost fortwith.
Order in CC/14/95 :-
1)CC/14/95 is partly allowed with costs quantified to Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the opponent to the complainant.
2)Opponents are directed to obtain occupation certificate from the authorities within a period of 4 months and hand over possession of flat no.304, 3rd floor, 'D' Wing in the building known as 'Premier Residences', situated on S.R.A.Plot No.17, Sub-urban Scheme No.1, Village Kurla-II, Tal.Kurla, Dist.Mumbai to the complainant, failing which opponents to pay Rs.500/- per day to the complainant till compliance of this order.
3)Opponents are directed to obtain certification from the Electrical Inspector, Building Completion Certificate and hand over same to the complainant along with approved plan of the project.
4)Opponents are directed to pay Rs.2 lacs [Rs.Two lacs only] to the complainant for the mental agony.
5) One set of the complaint compilation be retained and rest of the sets be returned to the complainant.
6) Copies of the order be furnisheed to the parties free of cost fortwith."
4. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission by way of these two separate appeals.
5. We are informed during the course of hearing that the possession of the flats, subject matters of the agreements between the parties has been delivered to the complainants after the order of the State Commission. Therefore, one of the directions given by the State Commission stands complied.
6. The second direction given by the State Commission required the appellant to obtain the requisite occupation certificate. The said direction cannot be faulted with since it is the obligation of the promoter to obtain the occupation certificate before giving possession of the flat to the buyer. Neither the promoter/builder can give possession nor the buyer can occupy the flat without issuance of the requisite occupation certificate. Therefore, the second direction given by the State Commission also does not require any interference of this Commission, the same being in consonance with the legal and contractual requirement of the appellant.
7. Similarly, the direction to the appellant to obtain certificate from the electrical inspector and building completion certificate is also in consonance with the legal and contractual requirement though only a copy of the said certificate needs to be provided to the complainants.
8. As far as the compensation is concerned, the amount awarded by the State Commission is quite modest by any standards. The complainants having not challenged the order passed by the State Commission, we need not say anything further as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant seriously challenges the directions for payment of delay in compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainants. The said direction required the appellant to obtain the requisite occupation certificate within a period of four months and handover possession of the allotted flat. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the requisite part-occupation certificate has been obtained though he was not aware of the date on which the said certificate obtained. We are making it clear that even if the part occupation has been obtained by the appellant and that part occupation covers the flats subject matters of the complaints, that would be sufficient compliance with the order passed by the State Commission. Since the State Commission had given four months to the appellant to obtain the occupation certificate, we find no ground to interfere with the amount awarded by the State Commission, which comes only to Rs. 15,000/- per month if computed on a monthly basis.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeals except to the extent clarification with respect to the occupation certificate. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The copy of the part occupation certificate shall be provided to the complainants within two weeks from today.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER