Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Sandeep Grover and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Sai Siddhi Developers and Anr. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1710 of 2016,
Consumer Case No.1103 of 2017 and
Consumer Case No.875 of 2017
Decided on 20.6.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 100] – Real estate – Re-development Agreement – Delay in delivery of possession of flat – Home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of flat for indefinite period – After deriving benefits under Re-development Agreement, society cannot be permitted to usurp flats falling in share of Developer – As society has taken possession of flats allotted to complainants and has allotted it to its members, society is liable to return entire money deposited by complainants – Dispute between society and developer which is pending before Arbitrator, which will be decided on its own merit – Right of complainants is not affected by arbitration proceedings as Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not exclude jurisdiction of consumer forum – Housing Society directed to refund entire amount deposited by complainants with 9% interest. (Paras 14 and 15)
Result: Complaints partly allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Santosh Goswami & Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocates, for the complainants and Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. Himanshu, Advocate, for opposite party-2.
2. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) constructed 3 individual buildings, numbered as Building Nos.3, 4 and 5 (consisting total 60 flats), on Survey No.7 and CTS No.27 at village Goregaon, Taluka Borivali at Siddharth Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. These flats were allotted to different persons, who formed Goregaon Pearl Co-operative Housing Society Limited (the society) on 25.01.1982 and get it registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960. The MHADA leased the said buildings and land through lease deed dated 26.09.2006 and sold the buildings with land on the same day i.e. 26.09.2006 to the society. The society decided to redevelop above three buildings, merging it in two wings. Redevelopment plan as submitted by Sai Siddhi Developers (opposite party-1) (the developer) was approved in special meeting of general body of the society held on 18.06.2006. The society entered into Re-development Agreement dated 26.09.2007 with the developer and executed Power of Attorney in its favour. The developer get the building plan of new building sanctioned from Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation vide I.O.D. No.CHE/9942/BP(WS)/AP dated 16.08.2007, for ground + 15 upper floors for A-Wing and B-Wing. The developer obtained NOC from other departments for construction of the new building. As per Re-development Agreement, the developer had to allot 32 flats to the existing flat owners in A-Wing and 28 flats to existing flat owners in B-Wing and sell additional flats to prospective buyers. In the meantime, Development Control Regulation of Greater Mumbai, 1991 was amended in the year 2008, by which, permissible FSI was increased from 2.4 to 2.5 under Regulation-33(5). The developer deposited Rs.8.21 crores and applied for additional FSI, which was approved by the MHADA vide revised offer letter dated 25.08.2011. The developer submitted a revised building plan for approval, which was approved on 14.06.2012 and 28.11.2013. The developer advertised for sale of the flats falling in its share, on which, the complainants booked the flats, entered into agreement for sale and paid consideration but delivery of possession was delayed, due to which above complaints are filed.
3. Sandeep Grover and Jyoti Grover have filed CC/1710/2016, for directing Goregaon Pearl Co-operative Housing Society (opposite party-2) to handover possession of the flat, within stipulated period; and for directing SSD Escatics Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1) to (i) pay interest @12% per annum, on their deposit of Rs.15888175/-, from December, 2014 till its actual realization; (ii) pay Rs.6004315/-, the amount of Pre-EMI interest on their loan, as paid them to the bank; (iii) pay Rs.45000/- per month from the date of booking till the date of delivery of possession towards rent paid by them; (iv) pay Rs.23270/- per month from the date of booking till the date of possession, towards loss suffered by way Income tax rebate; (v) pay Rs.100000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (vi) pay Rs.100000/- as litigation costs; and (vii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. The complainants stated that Sai Siddhi Developers (opposite party-1) (the developer) was a partnership firm, registered under Partnership Act, 1932 (now the partners incorporated SSD Escatics Pvt. Ltd. under Companies Act, 2013 and amalgamated the firm in it). The developer advertised for sale of flats in “Sai Goregaon Pearl Co-operative Housing Society Limited” at Siddharth Nagar, S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai, in the year 2013. The developer approached the complainants in December, 2013 and convinced them for purchasing a flat in above project. Believing upon the representations of the developer, the complainants booked Fl
The absence of a direct contractual relationship prohibits third-party purchasers from claiming specific performance against the society post-termination of the development agreement.
Third-party purchasers cannot enforce rights against a society after the termination of the developer's agreement; their remedies lie solely with the developer.
In redevelopment disputes under Arbitration Act Section 9, society members' right to safe housing from dilapidated buildings prevails over developer's profit rights where developer caused 13-year del....
Non-cooperative members of a co-operative society are bound by redevelopment decisions made by the majority, and courts can exercise powers under Section 9 to direct them to vacate premises for redev....
The complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting claims of coercion and non-entitlement to additional flats, affirming the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Contractual clauses that impose unfair obligations are unenforceable, and unreasonable delays in property possession warrant compensation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
