IMPORTANT POINT
When the complainant is not a complainant as per the provisions of the Act, and when the complaint is hopelessly barred by time, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. on behalf of the Members of the Association against the opposite party Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.

2. The brief facts leading to the present complaint are that complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. who booked the flat of the opposite party in the year 1993 and got the possession their flat in 1997. It has been alleged in the complaint that the opposite party has not obtained Occupation Certificate and due to this reason the members of the complainant Society have to take additional taxes particularly the property tax and the water charges at a higher rate. The complaint has been filed for payment of Rs.2,60,73,475/- to the complainant paid by the members towards excess tax and charges. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage and perused the record.

3. First of all, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant is a Cooperative Housing Society which is filing this complaint on behalf of its members who had taken the flats from the opposite party under section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Individual authorizations from the members have also been filed apart from the resolution passed by the society for filing the complaint. The learned counsel stated that the flats were booked by the members of the complainant society in the year 1993 and the possession was taken in the year 1997 by the members. The opposite party has not given the completion certificate or the Occupancy certificate to the members of the society. In fact, the Occupancy certificate has not been obtained by the Builder. Due to non availability of the completion certificate, the members of the society are paying government taxes like property tax, water charges and electricity and other public services’ charges at a higher rate due to the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Members have paid more than rupees one crore as extra taxes and additional charges due to this deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore the members of the society are entitled to get the refund of this amount from the builder. The members have waited for long and the opposite party was giving assurances that the completion certificate would be obtained, however nothing has been done so far and therefore, it has been decided to file the consumer complaint in this regard. The learned counsel stated that as a result of absence of the occupancy certificate, the complainant Society as well as the individual flat owners was not eligible to get electricity and water connection. In such circumstances, after much efforts of the Complainant Society, only interim water and electricity connection were permitted by the concerned authorities on humanitarian and sympathetic ground. However, due to non-issuance of occupancy certificate, the Society as well as the members have been directed to pay property tax themselves and that too at a rate 25% higher than the normal rate and water charges at a rate 50% higher than the normal rate, although the liability to pay the same lies with the respondent builder. Thus, whatever extra amount the members are paying is due to the fact that the opposite party has not obtained the Occupancy certificate for the said building.

4. Coming to the question of limitation the learned counsel stated that the claim of the complainant is not barred by law of limitation as the claim of the complainant in respect of the excess water user charges is a continuing and subsisting one. The bill for use of water is raised by the concerned municipal authority every month. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the cause also arose on 07.04.2014 when respondent acknowledged and admitted to pay Rupees one crore. The cause of action further arose on 15.12.2015 when the OP flatly refused to pay an amount to the complainant. Therefore, the claim of the