RAMESH R. TRIVEDI VS AMBAR TOWER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Dr. (Mrs.) R. Thamarajakshi,
Mr. S.P. Bagla & Mr. Justice C.L. Chaudhry, Members
RAMESH R. TRIVEDI—Appellant
versus
AMBAR TOWER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.—Respondents
First Appeal No. 543 of 1996—Decided on 30.5.1997

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Patki, Authorised Representative.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal - Opposite party had not executed conveyance deed in favour of the Society nor they formed the society even though amount collected for formation of society Complainant requiring the opp. party 2 to execute conveyance deed under provisions of relevant laws and as per terms of the agreement entered into by the society of opp. party 2 Appellant was directed to execute the conveyance deed subject to provisions of relevant laws and in terms of the agreement - Penalty of Rs. 1.000/- per day imposed on appellant not justified in facts & circumstances of the case - Order passed by State Commission so far as it related to the direction regarding execution of conveyance deed on "exceeded F.S.I." is not sustainable.
       Held: The case put forward by the Complainant was that the Opposite Party in total disregard to the law and as contained in Sections 11 and 13 in Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. 1963 (Amendment Act of 1964. 1967 and 1984 and Rules of Maharashtra Ownership Rules. 1964) as well as per the terms of agreement entered into by the Opposite Party No. 2 with all the members of Complainant No. 2. refused to convey right title and interest in the property in favour of the Complainant No.1. So it follows that the Complainant was requiring the Opposite Party No.2 to execute the conveyance deed under the provision of relevant laws and as per terms of the agreement entered into by the society of the Opposite Party No.2. In the written version filed on behalf of the Appellant it was stated that the Opposite Party. No. 2 was ready and willing to execute the conveyance deed subject to the Clauses 13 and 24 of the Agreement entered into between the parties. They also required the Complainant to prepare and forward the draft conveyance deed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement so as to enable them to execute the conveyance deed. But it appears that the Complainant was not agreeable to incorporate the terms of Clauses 13 and 24 of the agreement in the conveyance deed. As referred to earlier, the Complainants themselves stated in paragraph No. 14 of the complaint that the Opposite Party had refused to convey right, title and interest of the property in total disregard of the relevant laws and as per the terms of the Flat Purchasers agreement entered into between the parties. The parties are bound by the terms of the agreement.
       The conveyance deed was to be executed subject to the provisions of the relevant laws and as per terms of the agreement. The State Commission did not consider the written version filed on behalf of the Appellant in its right perspective. The order passed by the State Commission so far as it related to the direction regarding execution of the conveyance deed on the basis of the "exceeded F.S.I." is not correct and cannot be sustained in law. We accordingly set aside that part of the order. As a result we direct the Appellant to execute the conveyance deed subject to the provisions of the relevant laws and in terms of the agreement. It was lastly contended on behalf of the Appellant that the penalty of Rs. 1.000/- per day imposed on the Appellant was not Justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. We see force in this contention. There was no justification for the State Commission to impose such heavy penalty of Rs. 1.000/- per day on the Appellant.
       (Para 10)
       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

ORDER

Mr. Justice C.L. Chaudhry, Member—This appeal is directed against the order-dated 21.5.1996 in Complaint No. 146/94 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the opposite party No. 1 had not executed the conveyance deed in favour of the Society nor they formed the Society even though the amount had been collected by the opposite party for the formation of the Society. It was also complained that the opposite party had provided half-inch water connection to the houses of the members of the Society instead of 1½ water connection as provided under the rules and regulations.

2. The claim was contested on behalf of the opposite parties on various grounds. A plea was taken by the complainants that the complaint filed by or on behalf of the complainant under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable. The complaint was clearly barred by time. Regarding the execution of the conveyance deed it was pleaded that it was made clear to the complainant that the conveyance deed would be executed in terms of Clauses 13 and 14 of the Agreement entered into between the parties. The complainant No. 1 was told to prepare and forward the draft conveyance deed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for consideration and approval of the opposite party No. 2. Regarding providing of 1½-inch water connection the claim of the complainant was denied.

3. The State Commission by the impugned order gave the following directions: (1) The opposite party No. 1 shall apply to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,800/- which had been spent for installing the water connection, (2) The opposite party No. 1 to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant Society on the basis of the exceeded F.S.I., (3) The opposite party No. 1 to refund the amount which was collected for the formation of the Society and in case the opposite party No. 1 failed to comply with the direction they would be liable to pay penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per day to the Society till the compliance of the direction.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the opposite party No. 1 has filed this appeal by assailing the order of the State Commission.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The first contention raised on behalf of the Counsel for the appellant was that the complaint filed by and on behalf of the complainant Society under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable. We find from the impugned order that this contention was not pressed before the State Commission. We find no force in this contention.

6. It was next contended that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. We have perused the order of the State Commission. No such plea was pressed before the State Commission. Being a mixed question of fact and law we are not inclined to entertain this objection at this stage. Even otherwise, we find that the complaint was filed within time.

7. It was next urged on behalf of the appellant that the State Commission wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 10,800/- to the complainant. We find no force in this contention too. The grievance of the complainant was that the appellant provided half-inch water connection to the flats of the members of the Society whereas under the rules and regulations 1½ inch water connection was to be provided. The State Commission agreed with the contention of the complainant and directed the appellant to provide 1½-inch water connection to the 18 members of the Society. From the evidence lead by the complainant, the State Commission came to the finding that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 10,800/- for providing 1½ inch water connection. We see no reason to interfere with the finding of the State Commission, which was recorded on appreciation of the evidence.

8. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the order of the State Commission so far as it related to executi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document