IMPORTANT POINTS
Question of pecuniary jurisdiction not raised before State Commission at the first opportunity cannot be raised before National Commission.
Relief even if not sought but emanating from record can be granted.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2018, as passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘the National Commission’ hereafter) in First Appeal No. 109 of 2015, whereby the National Commission has modified the order dated 17.12.2014, as passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (‘the State Commission’ hereafter) in Complaint Case No. 120 of 2005; and has issued directions to the effect that: (i) the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/-to the respondent-society (the complainant) within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing of the order till the date of payment; (ii) a sum of Rs. 1,000/-per day shall further be paid by the appellants after 60 days from the date of order till the time full Occupancy Certificate is obtained; (iii) the appellants shall convey the title of the property in question by executing a registered Deed in terms of the order passed by the State Commission within a period of 4 months after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. The National Commission has also upheld costs of Rs. 50,000/-, payable by the appellant No.1 herein.

3. The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the present purpose, may be noticed, in brief, as follows:

3.1. The appellants had evolved the scheme of constructing a building consisting of 64 flats and 13 shops on a plot bearing Survey No. 22, Hissa No. 7 [C.T.S. Nos. 99, 99 (1 to 16) and 114] at Sahakar Road, Off. S.V.Road, Jogeshwari (West) Mumbai. The persons who agreed to purchase respective flats and shops in the said project eventually formed a Co-operative Housing Society, who is the respondent in this appeal (‘the respondent-society’ hereafter). In relation to the project in question, several disputes ensued between the members of respondent-society on one hand and appellants-builders on the other, leading to a complaint before the State Commission, being Complaint No. 120 of 2005 by the respondent-society [Apart from the present appellants, several other persons were also joined as opposite parties in the said complaint case who have since been deleted from the array of parties.].

3.2. The respondent-society submitted before the State Commission, inter alia, that several sale deeds were executed between the period 1994 to 2002 whereby, its members purchased certain apartment units as also commercial units of varied sizes but, despite making payment over and above the agreed sale consideration, the appellants failed to discharge their part of the contract inasmuch as the interior works remained incomplete; and the appellants also failed to obtain the Completion Certification as also the Occupancy Certificate. It was also alleged that pending completion of the building works, the appellants borrowed and collected varied sums of money from the members of the respondent-society, on the pretext that the money would be used towards finishing the incomplete works; and this aspect was recorded in the minutes of the meeting held on 12.07.1998.

3.2.1. It was further alleged that after some time, the respondent-society demanded reimbursement of the amount given by its members; and though the appellants agreed to reimburse a lump sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-on 17.12.2003 but, even after a lapse of about a decade, the appellants had failed to reimburse the amount; failed to obtain the Occupancy Certificate; and also failed to complete the pending works to the satisfaction of respondent. It was yet further alleged that as an added burden, upon taking possession of their individual units, the members of respondent-society had to spend additional sums of money to complete the interior works in their respective flats and the building; and had also to pay excess of taxes under various heads. Thus, according to the respondent, there was a clear deficiency of servi