Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Sant Sonopant Dandekar Nagar Co. Op. HSG. Society Ltd. – Complainant
versus
M/s. Mahale Constructions – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.309 of 2020
Decided on 12.8.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Dhyanaraj Sant, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Facts relating to land ownership of the society, development and construction, agreement between the parties dt. 11.01.2005, construction of multi-storey building and delivery of possession of flats to the members of the Complainant/Society has not been challenged in the argument.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Complaint - Complainant approached the Opp. Party for development and construction of flats over the aforesaid land, as agreed between them and development agreement executed and regd. in the office of Sub-Registrar Pune – Opp. Party developed the said property, constructed multi-storey building consisting of 119 flats - Possession over the flats were delivered to the members of the complainant Society in 2009 - However, Opp. Party has not executed conveyance deed in favour of Complainant/Society members - Facts relating to land ownership of the society, development and construction, agreement between the parties dt. 11.01.2005, construction of multi-storey building and delivery of possession of flats to the members of the Complainant/Society has not been challenged in the argument - Complaint not barred by limitation & is also within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
Held: The facts relating to ownership of the land of the society and the development and construction agreement between the parties dated 11.01.2005 and construction of multi-storey building and delivery of possession over the flats to the members of the Co-operative Society has not been challenged in the argument. The only argument has been raised by the counsel for the opposite party that the valuation of this complaint has been exaggeratedly made in order to confer the jurisdiction in this Commission. Although, according to its real valuation it was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission. He further submits that although admittedly the possession was delivered in 2009, but the complaint was filed in the year 2020 and it is highly time barred. So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Regarding limitation, the opposite party is bound to execute the sale/conveyance deed of the flats in favour of the members of the Co-operative Society as such it is a continuing cause of action and the complaint is not barred by limitation. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been denied, nor challenged in the oral argument. (Paras 5 & 6)
Result: Complaint succeeds, allowed with cost of Rs.2 Lakh; cost shall be paid to the office bearer of the Opp. Party/society and opposite party is directed to execute conveyance deed/sale deed in favour of members of the Society in respect of the flats.
ORDER
Heard Mr.Dnyanaraj Sant, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate for the opposite party.
2. Aforementioned complaint has been filed for following reliefs:-
“(a) The present complaint may kindly be ordered to be allowed in toto, please.
(b) The Opponent may kindly be ordered/directed to execute and register Deed of Conveyance/Sale Deed in favour of the Society, regarding the buildings constructed by the opponent, all the common arrears, passages, ways, common terraces etc. in the favour of the complainant society, at the cost and consequences of the opponent, within a period six weeks from the date of order of this Hon’ble Commission, please.
(c) The opponent may kindly be directed to hand over all the common terraces, common parking’s common areas, ways, passages and all the common amenities and facilities, to and unto the complainant society not to create any hurdles to the members of the complainant society from using the same perpetually, please.
(d) The opponent be ordered /directed to provide all the documents mentioned in clause 11 (Eleven) above, to the complainant society, at the costs and consequences of the opponent, within a period of 4 weeks, from the date of the order of this Hon’ble Commission, please.
(e) The opponent may kindly be ordered/directed to pay Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rs. Five Crores only) for causing deficiency in service for indulging into unfair trade practice, for causing mental harassment and agony and for not executing the deed of Conveyance in time, please.
(f) Punitive damages of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three crores only) may kindly be awarded from the opponent to the complainant, as per the provisions of Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 please.
(g) Cost of this complaint Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs only) may kindly be awarded from the Opponent, please.
(h) It may kindly be declared that the opponent has caused deficiency in service to the complainant and the opponent has also indulged into unfair trade practice, as contemplated in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, please.
(i) Any other just and equitable orders even if not specifically prayed for, be passed in the interest of justice, please.”
3. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant is Co-Operative Housing Society duly registered under the Maharashtra, Societies Act, 1960 and the opposite party is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development and construction of multi-storey building in Pune City. The complainant was owner of S.No.13/10/2 and 13/11 (total area 7,900 sq.mtrs.) at village Dhayari Taluka, Haveli, District Pune. The complainant wanted development and construction of apartments for the members of the society and necessary declaration from Additional Collector, Pune in respect of aforementioned land for non-agricultural land had been obtained on 21.11.1996. The complainant approached the opposite party for development and construction of flats over the aforesaid land, which was agreed between them and development agreement dated 11.01.2005 was executed and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Pune. Subsequently a registered power of attorney was also executed in favour of the partner of opposite party to do necessary work relating to development and construction of multi-storey building on their behalf. The opposite party developed the said property and constructed multi-storey building named as Sai Puram which consists of 119 flats in it. The possession over the flats were delivered to the members of the complainant Society in the year 2009. However, the opposite party has not executed conveyance deed in favour of the members of the Society as required under Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (at present the aforesaid Act has been deleted by Maharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Act, 2012 which is operative). As and when the office bearer of the
