|     |     |    |    |     |     |  
Mumbai: Consumer forum directs probe against Khar housing society
not available
Mumbai: Consumer forum directs probe against Khar housing society
Publish on : 2022-11-14 12:04:58
The complainant housing society had moved the commission in 2012 seeking several reliefs, including demarcation with boundary walls between the two buildings, possession of the society office and parking spaces. MUMBAI: In a rare instance, a district forum recently directed that an inquiry be initiated against a Khar housing society which was actually a complainant in a consumer plea against a builder and their "neighbouring" building . Dismissing the complaint filed by Amber Croft Annexe Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, the commission found that it was comprised of members who had purchased flats in a redevelopment project but were not permitted to form a new and separate society as per an MOU between the developer Shree Ahuja Properties Pvt Ltd and the original society Amber Croft Co-operative Hsg Soc Ltd. The parent society was formed in 1971. The complainant housing society had moved the commission in 2012 seeking several reliefs, including demarcation with boundary walls between the two buildings, possession of the society office and parking spaces. The complainant said they had registered their society in 2007. The builder had received permission to redevelop horizontally, making way for two buildings, instead of one tower. The commission, however, said that the new building is a TDR ( Transferable Development Rights) building fused and joined to existing building (horizontal extension) and was not a separate building. It said that the complainant had no voice to raise the issue regarding car parking. "The said issue would be arisen only if after the new flat purchasers applied for membership of Opponent No 4 (parent housing society) as per the MOU.... Only parent society has right to car parking in the stilt and open spaces as per agreement," the commission said. It further said that as the developer constructed the new wing they demolished the existing society office. "Opponent No. 1 (housing society) as per approved plan allotted new office in the fused area. As per agreement executed by opponent No. 1, opponent No. 4 will continue to remain the sole owner of the society's land, terrace and other open spaces, amenities and the members of the complainant have no rights," the commission said. Exercising powers under Section 340 of the CrPC, the Additional Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said, "...it would be cleared that the action taken by the complainant of forming the society against the MOU and the agreements clearly shows the breach of it. Prima facie the allegations in the complaint are contrary to the documents MOU and the sale agreement. In such circumstances, the inquiry under Section 340 of CrPC is necessary.... The Registrar of this Commission to act accordingly."

@2019 TeamUp. All rights reserved. Site visitors are subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of use.