The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: A petition against a service provider is not maintainable before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA), the High Court of Karnataka has ruled, granting relief to Columbia Pacific Communities Private Limited, Bengaluru.
The company, known for its senior care services and maintenance of retirement communities nationwide, had challenged a January 11, 2024, K-RERA order based on a complaint by the Serene Urbana Apartment Owners' Welfare Association.
The association had named Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, Columbia Pacific, and others in its complaint over various disputes.
Columbia Pacific argued that it had no direct contract with the association but had an agreement with Ozone Urbana to provide services. "Therefore, it cannot be brought within the ambit of RERA to contend that they are liable for the implementation of orders that are passed by RERA," the petitioner stated.
However, the association and co-respondent Covai Senior Care Constructions Private Limited, the original service provider, argued that the entire maintenance corpus was transferred to Columbia Pacific instead of to the Association of Allottees.
They further claimed that Columbia Pacific collects monthly common area maintenance fees from individual apartment owners under a service agreement, making the company integral to the dispute.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the pleadings and requests indicated that the primary dispute was between Ozone Urbana Infra Developers, the project developer, and the apartment owners' welfare association, with most claims directed at other respondents.
The court noted that Columbia Pacific's only role was providing services, without obligations regarding development or completion of the complex.
"The petitioner is nowhere in the picture. Now, for the folly of others, the petitioner is sought to be dragged into these proceedings. In the considered view of the court, the complaint against the petitioner, who is only a service provider, is not maintainable. Except for the service provider being a confirming party to the sale deed, it is not bound by any other obligation as the obligations are clearly enumerated in the construction agreement itself. It restricts maintaining proper accounts with regard to the corpus fund incurred towards common area maintenance. Therefore, the dispute is between the respondents and others. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer as being the service provider," the court said.