The judgment establishes the consumer's right to seek reliefs for deficiencies in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member. - Complainant has filed this complaint for getting occupancy certificate and conveyance deed in their favour along with other reliefs against opponents. Complainant submitted that the various flat purchasers had entered into an agreement with opponent No. 1 for purchase of their respective flats pursuant to the terms and conditions mentioned in those agreements and they are in use, occupation and possession of their respective flats. Opponent No. 1 had developed that land under S.R.A. Scheme. Complainant submitted that after construction of building on the said plot which was under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme opponent No. 1 had given premises in possession of Dnyandeep SRA Co-operative Housing Society which was formed in the year 1998. Complainant submitted that opponent No. 1 has committed various breaches of terms and conditions of agreement of sale. The complainant has enumerated in all 29 deficiencies given by opponent No. 1 to complainant while constructing that building. Complainant submitted that in that respect they had given letters to opponent No. 1 on 08/01/2002 and 07/06/2002. Complainant also submitted that by giving specific letter to opponent No. 1 complainant had called opponent No. 1 for execution of Conveyance Deed and Lease Agreement in favour of complainant. Complainant submitted that opponent No. 1 failed and neglected to execute requisite documents. Complainant submitted that there are in all 28 flats in that building and out of which 19 flat purchasers have become member of the complainant society. Out of remaining 9 flat owners, two flat owners are paying maintenance charges to the society without becoming member of the society. Complainant submitted that, they are not aware whether remaining seven flats are occupied by anyone or not. Complainant submitted that though opponent No. 1 had given possession of flats to them, they had not obtained occupancy certificate in respect of those flats. Hence, members of complainant society required to pay exorbitant amount in respect of maintenance and other charges. Hence, complainant submitted that for that purpose opponent No. 1 should pay amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each flat owner and in total amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- to complainant by way of compensation. Thus, complainant has prayed for getting direction against opponent No. 1 to obtain occupancy certificate and to comply the deficiencies made in the construction of building as per agreement of sale and to give compensation of Rs. 19,00,000/- along with costs of litigation.

2. Opponent No. 1 contested the complaint by filing their written version on record. They submitted that Dnyandeep S.R.A. Cooperative Housing society which was registered on 20/04/1998 was already in existence and as such the complainant society should not have been registered. Hence, they submitted that the formation of complainant society itself is illegal and hence, complainant has no right to file this complaint against opponent No. 1. They also submitted that question of existence of complainant society itself is sub-judice before the Divisional Joint Registrar-Co-operative Societies. Hence, they submitted that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint against opponent No. 1. The opponent No. 1 by filing their detailed written version has denied all the rival allegations made by complainant against them and prayed that complaint filed by complainant be dismissed.

3. Following points arise for our determination and we have given our findings against them: