Pune to set out new rules

The district consumer court has set out a new rule that an occupancy certificate will be issued by the municipal corporation in favour of a interested flat buyer, which will be sufficient to say that construction activity is successfully completed as per the sanctioned plan.

The court also ruled that a flat resident cannot seek his case to be treated as a “representative complaint” without first complying with the necessary requirements of such a plaint. Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act needs a complete publication of a notice at the time of filing of the respective complaint for the complaint to be treated as a representative case.

Aerial View

A bench of O G Patil ,V P Utpat, and Kshitija Kulkarni on Wednesday rejected the complaint by Kondhwa Khurd resident Anand Ranjalkar, who alleged that the builder of their housing scheme delivered him a 1bhk flats in Pune, which was of lesser area than it was origionally agreed for, He also claimed that the builder had failed to secure a completion certificate. He also referred to common reliefs relating to the developer’s “failure” to form a society and execute a proper conveyance programme.

In July 2007, Ranjalkar had openly purchased a property in Pune under ‘Kumar Prithvi’ scheme, developed by Sukumar Township Development Private Limited in Bhavani Peth,Pune for Rs 28.7 lakh. The construction firm, as said and confirmed, delivered property to him on March 3, 2009.

In July 2011, after two years of getting possession, Ranjalkar filed a consumer complaint alleging the super built area of the flat was 39.87 sqft lesser than the area that was committed to him in the agreement. He said that he made the measurements done by an architect.

Lawyer Sunita Kinkar, representing the firm that supplied the possession, argued that Ranjalkar was bound by the agreement, to refer any further dispute to an arbitrator and that he did not comply with the norms for converting his complaint into a representative case for seeking common reliefs.

The bench therfore rejected Ranjalkar’s application, filed counter arguments, for publishing a notice for a representative complaint first and held that the matter will then be treated as an individual complaint. “The complainant, in his individual capacity, cannot seek his justice as regards formation of society and execution of conveyance deed, etc. The after effects of complainant will remain only as regards shortfall in area and completion certificate,” it held.