Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Rekha Gupta, Member
M/s. Forequare Developers —Petitioner
versus
Dahisar Saraswati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 738 of 2012
(From the order dated 17.11.2011 in Appeal No.1419/2009 of the State Commission, Mumbai, Maharashtra)
Decided on 29.05.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Conveyance is a statutory obligation of builder-developer and cause of action is a continuous one.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963—Real estate—Development agreement—Despite registration of Society, petitioner has not conveyed land and building in name of Housing Society and has not handed over accounts to Society—Conveyance is a statutory obligation of builder-developer and cause of action is a continuous one—Complaint filed by respondent-Society is within period of limitation—There is specific admission made by petitioner in its written version that property has been transferred in its name and now they are land owner and developers—Being land owner and developer, it is legal responsibility of petitioner to convey land and building in name of respondent—Petitioner has not performed its statutory obligation—Unscrupulous builders like petitioner who after taking entire costs of building do not perform their part of obligation, should not be spared—Revision petition dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000. (Paras 9, 16, 17, 21 to 26)
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 17.11.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Maharashtra (for short, ‘State Commission’).
2. Brief facts are that Complainant/respondent no.1 is a Co-operative Housing Society. Petitioners/opponent no.1 are developer and respondent no.2/opponent no.2 are original Landlord. Petitioners had taken development rights of Survey No.340 Hissa No.4, City Survey No.1515 admeasuring 8166.8 sq.mtrs. of which an area admeasuring 539.25 sq.mtrs. was situated in No Development Zone and remaining area admeasuring 7627.55 sq.mtrs. was situated in a Residential Zone and accordingly, the Corporation has sanctioned a plan taking into consideration an area in Residential Zone. Hence, petitioner has constructed 160 flats as per the sanctioned plan. Further, petitioner executed tripartite agreement with intending flat purchasers. The construction was completed in the year 1994. The petitioner registered the Housing Society of the flat purchasers on 08/09/2000. Despite registration of Society, petitioner has not conveyed the land and building in the name of Housing Society and has not handed over the accounts to the Society. Therefore, respondent no.1-Co-operative Society filed consumer complaint praying for following reliefs :-
“a) To hold and declare both the opposite parties for the guilty of deficiency in service as per provisions of said Act.
b) The opposite parties, their servants, agents, assignees, representatives and all the persons claiming through them, jointly and severally be ordered and directed to convey the said land (as specified at Exhibit ‘A’) and the building/structure standing thereupon in favour of the complainant-Society by completing all necessary/requisite formalities on their own and also to do all such acts, deeds and things as are necessary for effectually conveying and vesting the said property (land and building) in favour of the complainant-Society, without demanding any remuneration from the complainant no.1for the same.
c) In failure to comply with the prayer (b) above, the opposite parties be directed to pay penalty jointly and severally to the complainant for each day of delay from the date of passing of the order by this Hon’ble Forum.
OR
Some fit and proper person be appointed by this Hon’ble Forum to execute the deed of conveyance and complete all the formalities on behalf of the opposite parties.
(d) Opposite Party No.1 be directed to transfer Rs.4.00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) in favour of the complainant-Society which it has collected towards deposit of water meter, electric meter, etc.
(e) Opposite Party No.1 be directed to render true, complete and faithful accounts of Rs.10,000/- collected by them from each members of the complainant-Society as an interest free deposit and refund the balance amount along with interest if there is any.
(f) Opposite Party No.1 be directed to give the account of Rs.10,000/- collected in cash from each of the members of the complainant-Society towards the payment of the development charges and also produce the receipt of such payment, if made.
(g) Opposite Parties be directed to demolish/remove all illegal and unauthorized structures constructed after receiving the building completion certificate and restore the premises to the original plan approved by BMC and shown to various purchasers of the complainant-Society.
(h) Opposite Parties be directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant compensation towards cost, expenses and professional charges towards filing of this complaint.
(i) For such other and further reliefs this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”
3. Petitioner contested the complaint by filing its written version. It is stated that complaint is not maintainable as respondent no.1 had filed a civil suit as well as dispute before the Co-operative Court for the similar and identic
