IMPORTANT POINT
Deficiency in service is continuous cause of action.

Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member—This is a complaint filed on behalf of Sita Smruti Co-op. Housing Society through its Chairman Mr. S. S. Malvankar (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 30.11.1999 and registered in the year 2000 against M/s. Sidharth Associates Builders & Developers (hereinafter referred to as ‘opponent’) alleging deficiency in service. Complaint is subsequently numbered as ‘Complaint No.8/2000’.

2. The facts leading to this complaint can be summarized as under:

It is contended that the opponent planned to construct a complete Township under the name of ‘Lodha Complex’ on the plot No.545(7) of village Mira Road, Dist. Thane contending that it will be a self-contained township of 2000 flats and shops with ultra modem amenities. The opponent advertised proposed construction in the newspaper and prepared brochure. The brochure contained many attractive features. The most attractive and lucrative features being proximity of the project site to the Railway Station and Municipal water with an assurance to give timely possession. In the brochure, price of 465 sq. ft. built-up area flat was shown as Rs.2,28,815. The prospective flat purchasers booked the flats.

3. After taking possession of their respective flats, the flat purchasers came together and formed Co-operative Housing Society under the name “Sita Smruti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.” After taking possession, the flat purchasers noticed deficiency in service on the part of opponent. It is noticed that the Municipal Authority never assured supply of water to the project. The Municipal Authority had not assured the water supply and hence, the Society had to take water through tanker by spending money from the society. According to clause 11 of the agreement which the opponent entered into with the flat purchasers, possession was to be handed over on 31.12.1992. However, opponent actually started giving possession from 5.4.1994 and that too without obtaining Completion Certificate from the Municipal Authority. Failure to handover possession as agreed in the agreement amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opponent. The opponent has collected Rs.1,000 for legal charges for the agreement, Rs.260 for share money entrance fee of the society, Rs.500 for formation and registration of society, Rs.2,232 towards proportionate share of taxes for 12 months and Rs.2,325 for infrastructure development, thus totally opponent has collected amount of Rs.6,317 from the individual flat purchasers.

4. Opponent was bound to maintain a separate account of the amount collected and spent. However, opponent has not furnished the account to the Society for the aforesaid amounts collected from the flat purchasers. It was the statutory duty of the opponent to initiate process for formation of the Society. However, opponent/builder registered the Society on 16.12.1995. It was incumbent upon the opponent to convey a General Body Meeting of the Society and to submit the account to the General Body. However, the opponent/builder delayed handing over the management of the Society to the complainant-Society and collected Rs.10,000 from the flat purchasers who have transferred their flats and not handed over said amount to the complainant-Society. The opponent/builder also had not executed conveyance of the land and building to the Society. The complainant had filed a consumer complaint praying following relief’s for deficiency in service on the part of the opponent:

(a) compensate the purchasers for the difference in cost incurred by them towards purchase of tanker water and the cost of Municipal water charges for the period from July 1995 to November 1999 = 65 months @ Rs.12,800 p.m. = Rs.8,32,000

(b) compensate further for the purchase of tanker water for next two years = 24 months @ Rs.12,800 p.m. = Rs.3,07, 200

(c) execute .conveyance forthwith and pay to The Society all collecti