Defects Found After Possession Of A Mohali Flat Stay The Builder's To Fix मोहाली फ्लैट के कब्जे के बाद पाई गई खामियों को ठीक करना बिल्डर की जिम्मेदारी है ਮੋਹਾਲੀ ਦੇ ਫਲੈਟ ਦਾ ਕਬਜ਼ਾ ਮਿਲਣ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਲੱਭੇ ਨੁਕਸ ਠੀਕ ਕਰਨਾ ਬਿਲਡਰ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰੀ ਹੈ

Taking the keys to a flat in Mohali closes one chapter of a purchase. It does not close the builder's responsibility for how the flat was built. Seepage in a bathroom wall, a crack that widens over a monsoon, a lift that was promised and never installed: the central real estate law keeps the promoter answerable for defects like these for years after possession. A Mohali consumer order reported this week shows the same idea at work in a district forum.

The Sector Sixty Six A order

The Times of India reported on Thursday that the district consumer disputes redressal commission in Mohali ruled for a homebuyer in a Sector Sixty Six A apartment project. Hindustan Times, reporting the same case, named the project as Galaxy Heights and dated the order the fifth of October.

According to the Times of India, the buyer took the flat through a re-allotment. Possession was offered years after the promised date, and the buyer took it under financial pressure. After moving in, the buyer found brochure promises unmet and single car parking bays split in two. The report adds that construction dust aggravated a health condition.

Hindustan Times quoted the operative direction. The builder was told to "provide all the basic amenities and facilities as promised in the brochure and the agreements", a direction that, as quoted, expressly includes rectifying and removing defects alongside obtaining occupation and completion certificates. The builder was given three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. Both reports say the order directs the builder to restore the original parking space. It also awards interest on the deposit and a single sum towards compensation and litigation costs. The Times of India also reports a finding that brochures form an integral part of the service contract.

The certificate side of the order, and why an offer of possession without those papers may not count, was covered in an earlier MA piece linked below. This article stays with the defects.

What Section Fourteen of the RERA Act says

The Real Estate Regulation and Development Act sets the rule in Section Fourteen, sub section three. It reads: "In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality or provision of services or any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of promoter's failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act."

Four points in that sentence carry most of the weight.

The clock starts at possession. The five year period runs from the date the flat is handed over, so the date on the possession letter or handover record is the date that counts.

The scope is wide. Structural defects sit alongside defects in workmanship and quality. The clause then adds "provision of services" and "any other obligations of the promoter as per the agreement for sale". On a plain reading, a missing amenity written into the agreement can fall inside the same duty as a leaking slab.

The trigger is notice. The duty arises once the allottee brings the defect to the promoter's notice within the five years. The Act does not prescribe a form for that notice. A dated written record of what was reported, and when, is the kind of evidence a forum can later rely on.

The remedy has a deadline. The promoter is to rectify "without further charge, within thirty days". If that does not happen, the clause gives the allottee a right to "appropriate compensation" under the Act.

Where a defect claim can be taken

The RERA Act offers one route. Section Thirty One lets "any aggrieved person" file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer for a violation of the Act or its rules. In Punjab the Authority is the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab. Section Seventy One provides for an adjudicating officer of District Judge rank. That officer adjudges compensation under several sections. Section Fourteen is one of them.

The consumer forums are a second route. The Consumer Protection Act treats a fault in the quality or manner of a service as a deficiency, and the district, state and national commissions hear such complaints according to the value of the claim. The Sector Sixty Six A order came through this route. Section Seventy Nine of the RERA Act bars civil courts from matters the Authority decides, and Section Eighty Eight says the Act is in addition to other laws. In Imperia Structures v Anil Patni, decided in November two thousand and twenty, the Supreme Court held that Section Seventy Nine does not bar a consumer forum from hearing such a complaint. The judgment reads that with Section Eighty Eight and says "a choice or discretion is given to the allottee" between the consumer law and the RERA Act.

Which route suits a given claim turns on its own facts and on the remedy sought. This article does not compare outcomes between the two.

What a defect claim usually rests on

Neither the Act nor the reports set out a list of required papers, but the Sector Sixty Six A case shows the kind of record that featured in it. The Times of India reports that the forum reviewed photographs of the squeezed parking bay and noted that the builder did not produce a sanctioned parking plan to justify the division. The brochure was treated as part of the contract.

Read with Section Fourteen, that points to a short set of records in most defect disputes. The first is the agreement for sale and any brochure, since the clause ties the promoter's obligations to the agreement. The second is the possession date, because the five year period runs from it. The third is the written notice of each defect and its date, because the thirty day period runs from notice. The last is evidence of the defect itself, such as dated photographs.

Where the law stops

Section Fourteen speaks of the promoter's obligations under the agreement for sale. Wear from normal use, or changes an owner makes after possession, are matters the clause does not address in terms, and builders often raise them in reply. A forum decides that question on the evidence in each case.

Common areas raise a separate point. Once a residents' association takes over maintenance, a dispute can arise over who holds a defect claim for a shared roof or basement. The clause speaks of "the allottees", and the reports on the Sector Sixty Six A case concern one buyer's own flat and parking.

What happens if a builder ignores an order once it is passed is a separate subject, covered in the MA piece on enforcement linked below.

What the record shows so far

The central Act keeps a builder responsible for structural and workmanship defects, and for unmet obligations under the agreement, for five years after possession. Once a defect is reported in that window, the text gives the builder thirty days to fix it free of charge. After that it opens the door to compensation. The Sector Sixty Six A order shows a Mohali forum directing defect rectification and promised amenities in the same breath as interest and parking. It is one order known through two press reports, and the order text itself was not available to MA.

Related reading

- Offer of possession without occupancy and completion certificates: what counts
- When a Mohali builder ignores a consumer commission order: how enforcement works

Sources: The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This summary of Section Fourteen of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act draws on press reports of one consumer case and is not legal advice. Any defect claim turns on its own agreement and facts.