K. Satyanand, Member—This is a complaint filed by M/s. Vora Towers Welfare Association alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties of whom 1 to 6 are the land owners and 7 and 8 were the builders.

2. The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows:

The complainant association was formed in the year 2004 and was duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. The building complex in question consisted of 8 blocks, A, B, C, D, E, F,G and H with 9 floors including the ground comprising 64 flats. The said complex was initially built in part by Mr. Vasanth Roy Vora, opposite party No.2, who represented M/s. Janatha Industrial Corporation (India) renamed as M/s. Janatha Industrial Foundry Works, opposite party No.1. Apposite parties 3 to 6 are his brothers and sisters. They were in fact the owners of the entire extent of the land upon which the complex was planned. After the construction reached to a certain level, opposite parties 7 and 8 joined the said owners for constructing some of the blocks in the said complex. During the progress and also after completing the construction, the flats were sold to the purchasers and the said sales were going on till the month of April, 2005. After quite some of them purchased the flats in the said complex, those flat owners in the complex formed the complainant association in 2004 for maintaining the complex and carrying out their activities as per the wishes of the members. After purchasing the flats, the members of the complainant association started living in apartments. Soon they noticed various defects and problems in the said complex which have been enumerated in the complaint as para 3 (v) (a) to (p). The complainant made efforts to persuade the builders to rectify those defects, omissions and commissions constituting the deficiency in service but with no avail. As such the association filed the present complaint.

3. While opposite parties 1 to 6 who are virtually owners of the land and who made over the construction work though they initially took up for some time, to opposite parties 7 and 8 by virtue of some development agreements, entered appearance and filed counter. Opposite party No.7 though served with the notice remained absent. So also opposite party No.8. Opposite parties 1 to 6 filed a combined counter affidavit which later they adopted as their evidentiary affidavit objecting to the maintainability of the C.D. on the ground that earlier the self same complainant filed C.D.S.R. No. 1779/2006 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant without specifically taking any liberty or permission to file a fresh complaint. So much so, it was contended, that it was barred by res judicata. Opposite parties also took the plea that the complaint itself was barred by limitation inasmuch as the flat owners obtained possession way back in 2002 while the C.C. was filed in 2006. Adverting to the various so called deficiencies pointed out they gave replies one by one repudiating their liability or claiming compliance in certain cases or pointing at opposite parties 7 and 8 only as being accountable. They also contended that inasmuch as the construction of the building including the unfinished part was entrusted to opposite parties 7 and 8 and inasmuch as they themselves took a share in the built up area and occupied, in pursuance thereof, certain flats, they could by no stretch of imagination be characterized as builders along with opposite parties 7 and 8. Thus they pleaded that they were liable to be absolved from the allegation of deficiency in service which, if at all, could be established has to be established only against opposite parties 7 and 8. They ultimately pleaded that the complaint be dismissed.

4. In support of their case, an affidavit of the Secretary of the Association is filed. The association-complainant relied upon documents marked as Exs. A1 to A12. On the other hand, opposite parties filed a memo requesting the Commission to