Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(7) It is contended that the complainant is paying home loan along with interest for non-delivery of possession of the flat and the Complainant has suffered huge loss in terms of money. It is CC/13/480 contended that the complainant made enquiry with the opponents about the delay in delivering possession of Said Residential Unit but the opponents had given evasive answers and false promises and assurances. It is contended that as per provisions of Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.22,60,000/- to the complainant as they failed, neglected and avoided to deliver the possession of Said Residential Unit. It is contended that the opponents had assured that they would provide EURO 2X2 vitrified tiles of premium quality in Said Residential Unit, but the opponents used lower quality of tiles. The opponents had also agreed to provide amenities as per second schedule of agreement including generator back up for common areas and passenger lifts, inverter in each house, society office, religious hall for meditation and worship of individual faiths, a club along with two tennis courts, one basketball court, swimming pool for adult and kids, kids area with baby sitting facility, party garden, multipurpose room with cards tables, Gym, table tennis and pool tables, ample parking, two squash courts etc., but, till date the opponents have not made any progress for the same. It is also contended that the opponents had agreed to provide the grills for Said Residential Unit as well as to provide window frames with double powder coated aluminium frame in white/dark brawn colour but the opponents changed the same without knowledge and information to the complainant. It is contended that the opponents have made major changes in Said Residential Unit without taking consent from the complainant. The opponents failed to provide sufficient reasons for delay along with demand letters, due to which Mortgage Bank denied making payments towards demand letters CC/13/480 and complainant has to somehow manage the payment from his own pocket as opponents have threatened the dire consequence by canceling the booking of Said Residential Unit. The Complainant has prayed for possession of Said Residential Unit No.A-11 admeasuring 1671.70 sq.ft. built up area along with garden area of 732 sq.ft. along with parking area admeasuring 16.72 sq.meters complete in all aspects and amenities as per the second schedule and Annexure G of Registered Agreement for Sale dated 17/04/2009. The complainant has also claimed interest @18% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant from time to time to complainant till date the opponents handover the possession of Said Residential Unit. The Complainant has also claimed rent of Rs.35,000/- per month from 30/07/2010 till filing of complaint and till the date of actual possession. He has also claimed compensation and costs of litigation.

(15) We heard advocates of the complainant and the opponents. On going through the documents on record it is crystal clear that the opponents had purchased the land bearing Survey Nos.123/1, 123/2, 123/3/1, 123/3/2, 123/4/2 and 123/6/2 at Village Sus, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. The opponent no.2 had acquired development right in respect of the said land. The Opponent no.3 entered into agreement with the opponent nos.1 and 2 to develop the above land. The complainant and other 165 members formed the society known as The Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., CC/13/480 which is registered as per the provisions of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act. The complainant is member of the Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. He agreed to purchase the flat bearing No.A-11 in admeasuring 1671.70 sq.ft. built up area along with garden area of 732 sq.ft. along with parking area admeasuring 16.72 sq.meters. The Complainant paid total consideration of Rs.39,68,374/-. The opponents agreed to sell Flat No. A-11 to the complainant and executed registered Agreement to Sell dated 17/04/2009 wherein the opponents had agreed to handover the possession of the flat on or before 30th July, 2010. The complainant has given details of Sanction/clearance/approvals, status for the building Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. It appears that N.A. order was issued on 18th February, 2009 for area 28058.34 sq.meters, revised N.A. area order of 35532 sq.meters issued on 26/11/2010, Certificate from MPCB was issued on 1st July, 2011. Letter issued by Collector to Sub-Divisional Office dated 14/12/2011, Environment Clearance Certificate was issued on 23/01/2012, NOC from Collector Office for FSI issued on 23 rd April, 2012, Structural Stability Certificate issued dated 22 nd October, 2012, „Consent to Establish‟, „Consent to Operate‟ from MPCB issued on 27th August, 2013, Partial Occupancy Certificate issued on 3rd July, 2014. The present complaint came to be filed in the year 2013. In spite of receiving partial occupancy certificate the opponents did not ask the complainant to take possession of the Said Residential Unit. The complainant has also established that the amenities mentioned in the agreement were not provided to the flat purchasers. According to agreement the opponents had agreed to provide one covered car parking along with amenities like pipe gas for all apartments, row houses, twin bungalows, garbage chutes, water treatment plant, rain water harvesting, shopping complex, CC/13/480 play area for children, one passenger lift and one service lift, religious hall, club house, two tennis courts, two basketball courts, one badminton court, swimming pool for adult and children, kids sitting area, party garden, multipurpose rooms with cards table, dining facilities, private theatre, gym, table tennis and pool table, one squash court, open parking for visitor, fencing for row houses and twin bungalows, open garden and pay area etc. Common amenities.