Summary of Problems of Apeksha Residency flat owners.

Flat buyers of Apeksha Residency filed a case in DK District Consumer Redressal Forum at Mangalore. Their complained for Non receipt of registered DEED of DECLARATION,(a legal document essential in Karnataka), building Occupancy Certificate / completion certificate and Door number document for our flats, issued by the Mangalore City Corporation (MCC), Electric bill in individual name, Foolproof Car Parking allotment letter, other documents pertaining to Lift & Generator & MESCOM.

Other issues were pertaining to delayed delivery, non payment of 18% for the delayed deliver (a condition in the agreement), Collection of excess amount to the tune of 1.5lakh, Provided lower undivided share of land to the buyers and retained for himself 3.34% illegally. Builder has not handed over the flats to the owners by initiating the Association of flat owners. The Judgment dated 15-10-2009upheld almost all complains of flat owners.

The summary of our 46 page case judgment pointed out the root cause of the problem i.e. non-adherence of MCC's approved plan and License while constructing the building. For this reason the builder is not able to get door no, completion certificate etc and the builder has not provided the document called registered Deed of Declaration. Therefore, he has not submitted the building to Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. It is also proved that the Builder has also indulged in unfair trade practice. We were able to prove our points by providing documentary and photographic evidences in the court.

We analyzed the DK-DCD-R FORUM's order dated 15-10-2009. Builder has flouted most of the laws of the MCC intentionally. Issues discussed there could be classified as following;

  • a)Proven issues in the FORA beyond doubt.-Not adhering MCC approved plan & license and other documents, Obligation of builder, Collection of excess amount, Unfair Trade Practice,

  • b)Laws flouted by the builder which is proven in the DK-DCD-R FORUM.-Failure to get MCC certificates, Car-park not as per approved plan, Additional structure built with out approval, unfinished Painting & Post boxes, Sakrama application with out the consent of flat owners.

  • c)Unfulfilled statutory requirements by the builder. - Marketable Title not provided, Revenue entry not done, Formation of association not done, Guarantee documents not provided, Reasons for builders failures, Compensation & compliance not done.

  • d)Where Judgment is silent - Justice needed here. - 3.34% USL (37th) retained illegally against 36 approved flats in the License, Service Tax & VAT not applicable in our case, Refund with Interest, Interest for delayed period.

Other high lights of the judgment are;

  • Handover the possession of common areas (by dismantling unauthorized construction on 10th floor and ground floor) to the flat owners and obtain completion certificate, door-no. etc. from MCC.

  • Withraw Sakrama application. Ground floor & basement should be used for car-park only.

  • Provide Deed of Declaration with proper car park documents and form the association.

  • Complete the unfinished work like painting, plumbing etc.

  • Refund the excess amount collected,

  • Compliance / payment to be made with in 30 days.

Builder opted for the appeal against this judgment to higher court at Bangaluru. There were 3 hearing. Builder never attended any of them and always asked for further time. Builder also failed to get stay order from Bangaluru court. Builder did not attend last 3 execution hearing at Mangalore. Hence the further legal actions are initiated.

Details of the case given in the TIMELINE.

After the judgment at DK-DCD-R Forum Mangalore, builder started dismantling the unfinished GF office with one or two labourers. Other works mentioned in the judgment was not even started / done till date . For DOD, he has not produced all the necessary documents to the lawyer. We were keeping a watch on the website . Our builder has appealed in the higher court at KSCDR Commission Bangalore against the judgment we got this news on 16-11-2009.

"If our co-operative efforts fail, who benefits?
Think it over, please.
Do not allow it to fail."

HOME Check List for
buyers of new flat
Deed of Declaration Excerpts from
SC judgment
SC Judgment
on car park
HC judgment
on carpark
Car park
can not be sold.
Car Park - Types Terrace SC Judgment
1782 of 2009
SC Judgment
3302 of 2005
SC Judgment
12984 of 1996
Excerpts from
Overview of
Problems at APEKSHA
Construction Deficiency at APEKSHA Car-Park at
Reality Check Summary of
Judgment of
MCC documents.
TIME LINE Usefull links News Reports
involving builders
News Reports about
Akrama Sakrama
About us Diwali
Celebration 2010
Celebration 2009
New year celebration
on 31-12-2008
Celebration 2009
List of