No show at court, builders get backdated bill for 91 lakh

No show at court, builders get backdated bill for 91 lakh
Mumbai Mirror Bureau

24 years after taking possession Lokhandwala society residents still without occupancy certificates.

Since it was registered on 24 August 1992, residents have had to shell out higher property and water tax rates because of their builders’ non-compliance with the law. The state consumer commission earlier this week was sympathetic to the complaints of the residents of Lokhandwala’s Amit Estate Co-op Housing Society. They awarded nearly 91 lakh in damages to be paid to residents by the builder Urban Developers – for issues that the society has had to contend with for over 24 years.

The court ruled that “statutory obligations” hadn’t been met by the builder. Though most residents took possession of their flats in 1992-93, the builders are yet to even provide an occupancy certificate (OC). Without the OC, costs incurred by the building for basic services rise dramatically. It did help the society’s case that no representative of Urban Developers was in court to present a contesting version of events.

The residents complained that they had to pay additional charges for availing drinking water facility from the municipal authorities and also had to pay a higher property tax rate to avoid attachment of the property – a legal process where a court can reassign a property owned by a debtor to their creditor.

The society finally approached the forum in 2011. The panel of presiding member PB Joshi and Narendra Kawde, have ordered Urban Developers, owned by Ashok Vardhan to pay the Lokhandwala society Rs 66,33,293 as reimbursement incurred on property tax, Rs 4,64,000 for water – both with an interest of 9 percent - Rs. 10,000 for litigations costs, as well as Rs 1 lakh for mental agony caused. Urban Developers will have to cough up the dues within 60 days.

“There is no reason to disbelieve the contention and claim raised by the complainant which are supported by the documents and affidavit of evidence as there is no written version opposing the consumer complaint.” the court observed, citing the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

Though all requested damages were not awarded without reasonable consideration. For instance, the society had asked for approximately 5 lakh for expenditure on water, but since it couldn’t prove why water tankers were needed between 2006 -2009 and because certain receipts were missing, the relief accorded was lower.

The court has further directed the builder to obtain the occupation certificate from the competent authorities and execute conveyance within four months – as it should have done in 1992, under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act,1963,. The builder is also to hand over audited accounts prior to formation of the housing society.