Additional construction not disclosed to buyers unacceptable | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 20, 2017-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Additional construction not disclosed to buyers unacceptable

The national commission on February 1 rejected an appeal filed by a Pune-based developer who had sought to put up a building in the space between two buildings he had constructed and the space, according to the original plan, was to be utilised for common amenities for the two buildings

mumbai Updated: Feb 06, 2016 19:41 IST
Kanchan Chaudhari

A developer cannot put up additional construction, which is not disclosed to flat purchasers at the time of promoting his project, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held.

The national commission on February 1 rejected an appeal filed by a Pune-based developer who had sought to put up a building in the space between two buildings he had constructed and the space, according to the original plan, was to be utilised for common amenities for the two buildings.

In 2011, flat purchasers of the two buildings constructed by builders, had approached the Pune District Consumer Forum after the builder failed to form and get registered a co-operative housing society of the flat owners, to obtain completion and occupancy certificate from Pune Municipal Corporation and to execute conveyance in favour of the society.

The builder responded to the consumer complaint contending that he did not form a society, obtain completion and occupancy certificates, as the entire housing project was not yet complete and he had submitted plans to construct a third building in the space between the two already constructed buildings.

The consumer forum rejected the builder’s contention and directed him to form a co-operative housing society, obtain completion and occupancy certificate from the PMC and also execute conveyance in favour of the society.

Besides, the district forum also directed the builder to pay a sum of Rs 2 lakh to the flat purchasers towards compensation.

The builder had carried the matter to the national commission after the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission rejected his appeal. The national commission on February 1 upheld the district forum order, noting that the space between the two buildings was to be utilised for providing amenities for flat purchasers of the two constructed buildings, but the builder changed the layout plan and proposed to construct a third building.

The national commission said the builder had mentioned only about the construction of two multi-storeyed buildings and there was no disclosure about the third building when the plans were presented for promoting sale of flats in the two buildings.

The buyers of the flats had agreed to purchase the same after taking into consideration the amenities to be provided by the developer and had the developer not shown open space and amenities, they would not have purchased the flats.