Every proposed building in Mysore must get its building plan approved by Mysore City Corporation before construction can begin. MCC is supposed to verify that no building bylaws are being violated in the plan before issuing the building licence. After construction, the building has to obtain a Completion Report from MCC, otherwise, they can not be occupied (according to law). The CR is supposed to act as a guarantee that the building has been constructed without deviating from the approved plan. The architect of the building has to certify that the building has been built according to the plan and MCC is supposed to verify this certificate before issuing the CR.
CRs are especially important to apartment builders. Most apartments are sold before they are constructed and so the buyers have to depend on the building plan to decide whether to buy or not. That is why CRs are important. They are a certificate issued by MCC that the apartment has been built without deviating from the building plan.
But there are innumerable instances in which the building deviates significantly from the approved plan, but the architect has certified that there is no deviation from the plan and MCC has issued a CR without verifying the architect's certificate. Therefore, buyers have to be aware of the fact that a CR from MCC is no guarantee that the building has been constructed according to the approved plan.
In a recent judgment (given on 10-2-09), the National Consumer Commission upheld the order of the Mysore District Consumer Forum ordering Brigade Developers Pvt. Ltd. to pay damages for such deviation from the plan of an apartment building.
P.M. Bhat, who had bought an apartment in the Brigade Retreat building constructed on Adi Pampa Road, V.V.Puram, by Brigade Developers had complained that the approved plan for the building showed that the height of the ceiling from the floor as 2.85 m, but the actual height was only 2.65 m. This violated not only the approved plan but also the National Building Code of India 1970, which mandates 2.75 m as the minimum ceiling height. Bhat had complained that the builders had made illegal profit by reducing the height of the floor. The Forum agreed that this was a deficiency in service and ordered Brigade Developers Pvt. Ltd. to pay the complainant Rs. 25,000 to meet the financial loss suffered by him due to this substandard construction. The Forum awarded an additional Rs. 75,000 compensation to the complainant noting that "...the complainant and his family members are forced to reside in such building for their entire life with lesser ventilation. This defect and deficiency can not be removed by any means." The architect of the building had certified that the building had been built according to plan and MCC had issued a CR without verifying the accuracy of his certificate. Consumers like P.M. Bhat ended with substandard apartments because they trusted the architect's report and the CR issued by MCC.
Now it appears that apartment builders and the architects are getting bolder. They are certifying that apartment buildings have been built according to plan much before the building is completed and MCC is issuing Completion Reports to these buildings even though they are nowhere close to completion. Therefore, prospective buyers of apartments should not rely on CRs, but instead carefully inspect the apartment to make sure it is built according to the sanctioned plan.
There are also cases in which additional floors have been built after obtaining the CR. These floors are obviously illegal. Therefore, buyers have to carefully compare the sanctioned plan, the CR and the actual construction to make sure they are not buying an illegal apartment.
An interesting case in which an architect gave a certificate of completion to an apartment building in Mysore which was still being built and got caught has come to light recently. One may recall that Siddhartha Youth Association held a press conference on 16-4-06 and accused the then MCC Commissioner, A.B. Ibrahim and the Deputy Director of Town Planning Kempaiah of issuing a CR on 16-3-06 to Brigade Splendour apartment building on Lalit Mahal Road even though the building had not yet been completed and several building bylaws had been violated in the portions that had been completed. The press conference was widely covered in the local media, but MCC did nothing to correct the lapse.
But the Council of Architecture, New Delhi which is a statutory body set up to regulate architects in the country issued a show cause notice to Asima Shahid (of Venkataramanan Associates, Bangalore), the architect who had given the certificate on 2-3-06 based on which MCC had issued the CR to Brigade Splendour. In the certificate, Ms. Shahid had stated that the construction of the building had been COMPLETED under her supervision and that no building bylaws had been violated. She had also stated that the residential building was fit for use and had requested MCC to issue the CR. But reports in the local media in Mysore had made it clear that the building was not complete even on 16-4-06, the day of the press conference.
After conducting hearings on the matter (in which the architect failed to appear despite notices from the Council), the Council gave its verdict on 25-11-10 in which it held the architect guilty of professional misconduct under Regulation 2(1)(viii) and (x) of the Architects (Professional Misconduct) Regulations, 1989 for issuing incorrect architect's report for the building. As punishment, it cautioned the architect "with further direction to ensure that this act is not repeated."
It is very surprising that the Council just cautioned the architect, especially when she did not appear for any of the hearings and did not submit any statement of defence or of contrition. In the past, the Council has revoked architects' licences for professional misconduct. In 2009, it revoked for a period of one year, the licence of a well-known Delhi architect, Hafiz Contractor for appearing in a commercial (But this order was stayed by the Delhi High Court since the Council had not issued a show cause notice to the architect and afforded him a chance to defend himself). Is appearing in a commercial more serious misconduct than giving a false certificate?
CRs are especially important to apartment builders. Most apartments are sold before they are constructed and so the buyers have to depend on the building plan to decide whether to buy or not. That is why CRs are important. They are a certificate issued by MCC that the apartment has been built without deviating from the building plan.
But there are innumerable instances in which the building deviates significantly from the approved plan, but the architect has certified that there is no deviation from the plan and MCC has issued a CR without verifying the architect's certificate. Therefore, buyers have to be aware of the fact that a CR from MCC is no guarantee that the building has been constructed according to the approved plan.
In a recent judgment (given on 10-2-09), the National Consumer Commission upheld the order of the Mysore District Consumer Forum ordering Brigade Developers Pvt. Ltd. to pay damages for such deviation from the plan of an apartment building.
P.M. Bhat, who had bought an apartment in the Brigade Retreat building constructed on Adi Pampa Road, V.V.Puram, by Brigade Developers had complained that the approved plan for the building showed that the height of the ceiling from the floor as 2.85 m, but the actual height was only 2.65 m. This violated not only the approved plan but also the National Building Code of India 1970, which mandates 2.75 m as the minimum ceiling height. Bhat had complained that the builders had made illegal profit by reducing the height of the floor. The Forum agreed that this was a deficiency in service and ordered Brigade Developers Pvt. Ltd. to pay the complainant Rs. 25,000 to meet the financial loss suffered by him due to this substandard construction. The Forum awarded an additional Rs. 75,000 compensation to the complainant noting that "...the complainant and his family members are forced to reside in such building for their entire life with lesser ventilation. This defect and deficiency can not be removed by any means." The architect of the building had certified that the building had been built according to plan and MCC had issued a CR without verifying the accuracy of his certificate. Consumers like P.M. Bhat ended with substandard apartments because they trusted the architect's report and the CR issued by MCC.
Now it appears that apartment builders and the architects are getting bolder. They are certifying that apartment buildings have been built according to plan much before the building is completed and MCC is issuing Completion Reports to these buildings even though they are nowhere close to completion. Therefore, prospective buyers of apartments should not rely on CRs, but instead carefully inspect the apartment to make sure it is built according to the sanctioned plan.
There are also cases in which additional floors have been built after obtaining the CR. These floors are obviously illegal. Therefore, buyers have to carefully compare the sanctioned plan, the CR and the actual construction to make sure they are not buying an illegal apartment.
An interesting case in which an architect gave a certificate of completion to an apartment building in Mysore which was still being built and got caught has come to light recently. One may recall that Siddhartha Youth Association held a press conference on 16-4-06 and accused the then MCC Commissioner, A.B. Ibrahim and the Deputy Director of Town Planning Kempaiah of issuing a CR on 16-3-06 to Brigade Splendour apartment building on Lalit Mahal Road even though the building had not yet been completed and several building bylaws had been violated in the portions that had been completed. The press conference was widely covered in the local media, but MCC did nothing to correct the lapse.
But the Council of Architecture, New Delhi which is a statutory body set up to regulate architects in the country issued a show cause notice to Asima Shahid (of Venkataramanan Associates, Bangalore), the architect who had given the certificate on 2-3-06 based on which MCC had issued the CR to Brigade Splendour. In the certificate, Ms. Shahid had stated that the construction of the building had been COMPLETED under her supervision and that no building bylaws had been violated. She had also stated that the residential building was fit for use and had requested MCC to issue the CR. But reports in the local media in Mysore had made it clear that the building was not complete even on 16-4-06, the day of the press conference.
After conducting hearings on the matter (in which the architect failed to appear despite notices from the Council), the Council gave its verdict on 25-11-10 in which it held the architect guilty of professional misconduct under Regulation 2(1)(viii) and (x) of the Architects (Professional Misconduct) Regulations, 1989 for issuing incorrect architect's report for the building. As punishment, it cautioned the architect "with further direction to ensure that this act is not repeated."
It is very surprising that the Council just cautioned the architect, especially when she did not appear for any of the hearings and did not submit any statement of defence or of contrition. In the past, the Council has revoked architects' licences for professional misconduct. In 2009, it revoked for a period of one year, the licence of a well-known Delhi architect, Hafiz Contractor for appearing in a commercial (But this order was stayed by the Delhi High Court since the Council had not issued a show cause notice to the architect and afforded him a chance to defend himself). Is appearing in a commercial more serious misconduct than giving a false certificate?
B.Vaikunth Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat