ORDER

Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Dev Siddhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”) against M/s Siddhi Construction & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Parties”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

2. The Complainant is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. The Opposite Party No. 1 is a partnership firm of partners Mr. Vilas Thakursingh Patil (Opposite Party No.2) and Mr. Krishna Trimbak Bhoir (Opposite Party No.3) engaged in the business of providing services related to development and construction of buildings.

3. The facts leading up to the present Complaint, as stated in the Complaint, are that as per an agreement dated 10.03.2000, the Opposite Parties obtained development rights for a plot measuring 3744.40 sq. meters, being Survey No.35, Hissa No.6, located in Village Vadavli, Ghodbunder Road, Thane, within the Thane Municipal Corporation limits (hereinafter referred to as “the said plot”). Although the Opposite Parties claimed that construction permissions and plans had been approved by the Thane Municipal Corporation, these documents, which the Agreement mentioned were available for review by buyers, were reportedly never actually shown for inspection. The construction permission for Building ‘B’ consisting of two wings was granted with specific terms and conditions, including separate commencement certificates for two wings dated 17.11.2000 and 09.08.2001 respectively. The Opposite Parties developed the plot by constructing 56 flats (28 in each wing) and 13 shops on the ground floor at the front of both wings of Building ‘B’. Additionally, they built two Meter Rooms (one per wing), a shared society office, and a single ground-floor room with a kitchen in one wing. The flats and shops were sold to Complainant members through stamped and registered agreements under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of the Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as MOFA). The Opposite Parties, on receiving the entire consideration amount, transferred possession without obtaining the required Occupancy Certificate, assuring Complainant members that it would be issued soon. The Society members, primarily from the lower middle class, had no choice but to take possession of their respective Units without the Occupancy Certificate, as their significant savings were tied up with the Opposite Parties. Many of the flat buyers, in particular, had taken bank loans to finance their homes. The OP’s failure to obtain the Occupancy Certificate led to higher water charges for flat owners, calculated on occupied area rather than actual consumption. Each flat owner paid Rs.270/- per month, amounting to Rs.1,65,240/- annually for all members (Rs.270 x 12 x 51). These charges increased every year according to the Corporation’s guidelines. The Society also had to pay water bills for unsold flats amounting to Rs.1,69,650/-, resulting in significant financial losses, for which they were entitled to seek reimbursement from the Opposite Parties.

4. The Opposite Parties failed to form a registered Co-operative Housing Society as required, as per MOFA despite collecting Rs.13,851/- from each flat purchaser. The members, in the absence of cooperation from the Opposite Parties, approached the Registrar’s office and registered the Society themselves. The Opposite Parties did not reimburse any expenses, and the Society was entitled to a refund of the amounts paid by its members. A total of Rs.6,92,550/- was collected from 50 flat buyers, and Rs.1,21,563/- was collected from 13 shop owners.

5. The Opposite Parties did not execute the required conveyance deed, despite repeated requests from Society members and multiple assurances. Additionally, the Oppos