Residents had filed a plaint against builder alleging deficiency
in services.
Residents of Surya Co-operative Housing Society in Kondhwa Khurd, who have been entangled in a legal battle with the builder since 2010, have received a shot in the arm with the consumer forum ordering the builder to execute the conveyance deed, provide completion certificate to the residents and pay the society a compensation of Rs10,000.
Around 50 residents of the society had come together and filed a case in the Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against Satyam Construction and its partners Sacchanand Galani and Sachin Oswal on August 11, 2010, alleging deficiency in services.
The case was filed by society secretary Deepak Chandravilas Kasote. Forum president Anjali Deshmukh and member SK Kapse recently issued orders giving partial relief to the society. Dnyanraj Sant represented the society.
The residents had moved a separate case in the civil court in Pune alleging that the builder was trying to sell the parking space. The court has granted them permanent relief in that case.
Kasote said that the residents would file a separate case in the civil court charging the builder with failure to provide them with adequate water and a few other amenities.
Kasote, who owns a 2 BHK flat in the society, works as a manager with a private company. His plaint alleged, “The society comprises 40 flats and 10 shops. The possession of flats was given to the residents in 2005-06. However, the builder did not provide adequate water supply and a lift with ISI mark. The builder took Rs8,000 from each flat owner for registering the co-operative society in 2005, but failed to do so. He also took Rs361 per flat for share certificate, Rs5,000 per flat for security deposit and Rs7,000 for legal documentation. When the builder did not get the society registered by 2007, the flat owners got the society registered by shelling out more money from their pockets. Besides, the area provided by the builder was less than promised and the roofs of the flats leaked.”
Kasote alleged, “Although the society has a borewell on its premises, the water goes to adjoining societies and not to the flat owners.”
The builder’s lawyer argued that that since there was a delay in filing the plaint, it should be quashed.
Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, sets a deadline of three years to move a plaint in the consumer forum.
The builder’s lawyer pointed out that possession of flats was given in 2005 and therefore the flat owners were not allowed to file a plaint in 2010.
However, the forum observed that the bar of Section 24 (A) of the Act could not be applied in the present case because the flat owners were not given completion certificates and the conveyance deed was also not executed.
Content with the verdict, Kasote said, “We are satisfied with the verdict. It comes as a ray of hope for us.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}