Builder Liable For Handing Over Flat Without Occupation Certificate, Must Refund Excess Charges: Punjab Consumer Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar (Camp Court at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali), comprising Kuljit Pal Singh (President) and Ranvir Kaur (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Barnala Builder and Property Consultants Developers, holding that possession offered without Completion and Occupation Certificates was not legal possession, and finding the builder deficient in service for failing to provide promised amenities and illegally collecting maintenance charges. The Commission directed the builder to obtain the requisite certificates, refund the excess amounts, and pay interest and litigation costs.
Brief Facts
The complainants, Colonel Romesh Ghai and his daughter Shaheen Ghai, purchased a 6 BHK duplex flat in Maya Garden City, Zirakpur, from Barnala Builder and Property Consultants Developers after paying the entire sale consideration of ₹1.40 crore. They alleged that the builder offered possession without obtaining the mandatory Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate and failed to provide the promised amenities.
The complainants further alleged that the flat had several deficiencies, including a smaller area than agreed, poor construction quality and missing facilities. They also claimed that maintenance charges were illegally collected despite the absence of statutory approvals and that the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) had been constituted without a valid Occupation Certificate.
Aggrieved by the builder's failure to deliver legal possession of the flat and rectify the deficiencies despite repeated requests, the complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar, seeking completion certificates, refund of excess and maintenance charges, compensation and other consequential reliefs.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties:
The builder (OP No. 1) failed to file its written statement within the prescribed period, resulting in its right to file a defence being struck off. The RWA (OP No. 2) denied the allegations, contending that it was a duly registered association, that the complainants were defaulters in payment of maintenance charges, and that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Observations and Decision
The Commission held that the builder was deficient in service for offering possession of the flat without obtaining the mandatory Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate, observing that possession without these statutory approvals could not be treated as legal possession. Relying on the decisions in Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Malhotra and Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Priya Bose Chanda, the Commission reiterated that a partial completion certificate does not satisfy the statutory requirement for handing over possession and that a builder cannot compel a homebuyer to accept possession in the absence of valid Completion and Occupation Certificates.
The Commission further found that the builder failed to provide the promised amenities, delivered a flat measuring 4,769 sq. ft. instead of the agreed 5,110 sq. ft., and illegally collected maintenance charges before obtaining the requisite statutory approvals. It also held that the Resident Welfare Association had been constituted without obtaining the Occupation Certificate and, therefore, could not lawfully levy maintenance charges on the complainants.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the builder to obtain and provide the Completion and Occupation Certificates, adjust the maintenance charges of ₹5,45,890 collected before obtaining the statutory certificates and refrain from charging maintenance until the certificates are obtained, provide all promised amenities, refund the excess amount charged for the reduced area of the flat, pay interest at 12% per annum on the sale consideration from the date of filing of the complaint until the Completion and Occupation Certificates are obtained, and pay ₹75,000 towards litigation costs within 45 days.
Case Title: Col. Romesh Ghai v. Barnala Builder
Case Number: CC/403/2021