Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Pattathu Brothers —Appellant
versus
Arunodya Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.1086 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 13/08/2014 in Complaint No. 70/2007 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 20.1.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Uday Wavikar, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vinod C. Sampad, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Purchase process is not complete until conveyance deed is registered in favour of purchasers.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Alleged deficiency in service for not attending to construction defects, non-compliance of statutory obligations and to transfer right, title and interest by conveying property—Complaint partly allowed by State Commission—There is contractual agreement between appellant builder and society members—Members of society have paid full amount to appellant as cost of flats and have taken possession thereof from appellant—For their ownership rights, members definitely need conveyance deed in their favour duly executed by developer/appellant—Purchase process is not complete until conveyance deed is registered in favour of purchasers—It was not necessary for society to make original land owners as party in consumer dispute because society did not have any privity of contract with original land owners—No any lacuna in processing of consumer dispute by State Commission—Order passed by State Commission upheld. (Paras 9 to 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by Pattathu Brothers, against the order dated 13.08.2014 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’).
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is a Co-operative Housing society which has filed a Consumer complaint against the Opponent builder developer alleging deficiency in service for not attending to construction defects, non-compliance of statutory obligations under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “MOFA” in short) and to transfer right, title and interest by conveying the property. Complaint was admitted and at later stage Complainant moved an amendment application to implead the original Landlord as Opponent. Though amendment application was allowed by order dated 21st December, 2011, the Complainant failed to carry out the amendment on the ground that some of the previous co-owners were not alive. Therefore, the complaint was processed and adjudicated in its original format.
3. The State Commission finally decided the complaint on 13.08.2014 as under:-
“(i) Complaint is partly allowed.
(ii) The Opponents builder developers are directed to execute deed of conveyance, to transfer right, title and interest in the building and land to the Complainant Society within a period of four months from the date of this order, failing which Rs.1,000/- will be payable to the Complainant Society per day till compliance of the order.
(iii) The Opponent Builder developers are directed to reimburse amount of Rs.19,76,174/- as listed below with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this consumer complaint i.e. from 04.05.2007 till realization within a period of 60 days, failing which rate of interest will be enhanced to 12% per annum till realization.”
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for respondent and perused the documents carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that whether the separate grievance of the individual flat owners pertaining to their flats, possession of which had been delivered more than four years prior to the complaint could have been entertained by the State Commission even without an application for condonation of delay and whether the State Commission was right in holding the appellant for alleged deficiency in service by ignoring the negligence of the members of the Society who in right time did not pay adequate stamp duty on the agreements to sell and giving impossible task of registering the conveyance deed now which is no longer executable on the strength of the power of attorney due to the operation of law.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that he is willing to register the conveyance deed. However, the Registrar was not allowing the same. It was duty of the complainant to have included land owners as party in the consumer dispute. Even after being allowed by the State Commission, the complainant failed to include the original land owners as party in the consumer complaint case. This was the basic defect in the consumer complaint but still the State Commission decided the case and ordered the conveyance deed to be registered. Under the changed law, the unregistered power of attorney does not empower the builder/developer/appellant to register conveyance deed. Hence, the order of the State Commission is bad in law and cannot be implemented.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the society members have purchased flats from the appellant and they have paid the money to the appellant. Hence, it is responsibility and duty of the appellant to register the conveyance deed for all the members giving them ownership rights. If the appellant has worked on the basis of an unregistered power of attorney, which is against the law, then he is responsible for this shortcoming and he has to suffer the consequences. An illegal act cannot absolve him of his responsibility as a builder
