The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) dismissed a homebuyer’s complaint seeking buyback of his flat and a refund with interest, after he alleged persistent water seepage, dampness and poor construction quality in his apartment near Mumbai.
The Authority said that a request for buyback was not within the reliefs it could grant under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and that the buyer had not produced sufficient evidence to warrant cancellation of the transaction and refund.
The case
The complaint was filed by a homebuyer who purchased a flat for nearly ₹30 lakh near Mumbai. The homebuyer accepted possession on June 30, 2021, however, he alleged that the flat suffered from persistent dampness and water seepage on ceilings and walls, cracks in plaster, poor finishing and inadequate waterproofing.
The homebuyer sought an inspection, necessary repairs and waterproofing, a timeline for resolving the issues, besides asking the developer to buy back the flat and refund his money with interest paid to the bank.
According to the homebuyer, he had repeatedly raised the issue with the developer, and also submitted photographs showing dampness and water-affected portions of the apartment.
{{/usCountry}}According to the homebuyer, he had repeatedly raised the issue with the developer, and also submitted photographs showing dampness and water-affected portions of the apartment.
{{/usCountry}}Developer's defence
According to the developer, the leakage was linked to issues above the complainant's flat, including bathroom leakage and accumulation of rainwater in the balcony. It said inspections had been carried out and rectification work undertaken in both apartments. The developer also denied allegations of substandard construction or structural defects.
The developer told MahaRERA that the complainant was requested to resolve the issue with the occupant of flat above and that the complainant failed to take necessary steps in this regard. The developer also states that, during the conciliation proceedings, the complainant did not cooperate in carrying out the necessary works.
MahaRERA's verdict
In its order, MahaRERA noted that the homebuyer had accepted possession in June 2021, while his first leakage complaint was raised only in September 2022. The Authority also observed that the photographs submitted by him did not establish the cause or attribution of the damage. No inspection report, technical report or expert opinion was produced to establish that the alleged problems resulted from construction or workmanship defects attributable to the developer.
The Authority further noted that the developer had submitted job cards and email communications showing that rectification work had been undertaken from time to time. Considering the evidence and the buyer’s continued occupation of the flat, MahaRERA found that neither the alleged construction defects nor circumstances warranting a refund had been sufficiently established. It consequently dismissed the complaint and made no order as to costs.
"It is also observed that the complainant has sought buy-back of the said flat and refund of the amount paid towards the said flat along with interest and registration charges. The prayer for buy-back is not within the purview of the reliefs that can be granted by this Authority under the Act," the MahaRERA said in its order.
"Further, no material has been placed on record establishing circumstances warranting cancellation of the transaction and refund of the amount paid towards the said flat after acceptance of possession and continued occupation thereof. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reliefs sought by the complainant are therefore not substantiated by the material placed on record," the MahaRERA order said.