Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Salot Builders and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Beach Resort Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.99 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 04.10.2019 in First Appeal No.A/16/224 of the State Commission, Maharastra) With
IA No. 709 of 2020 and IA No. 710 of 2020 (Stay & Exemption from Filing the C/C)
Decided on 1.1.2026

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rs.Mishra, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondents: Nemo (Ex-parte vide order dt.16.12.2025)

IMPORTANT POINT
Limited Jurisdiction – Commission’s revisional Jurisdiction is limited. Since there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the deficiency of service by both lower courts, and no jurisdictional error was found, the Commission declined to interfere with the merits of the decision.

Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) and 24-A – Housing – Deficiency in Service – Non-execution of Conveyance Deed – Limitation – Continuing Cause of Action – Revisional Jurisdiction.
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A – Limitation – Plea of Bar by Limitation – Continuing Cause of Action – Housing Society – Conveyance Deed – Complaint filed after 30 years – Held, the obligation to execute a conveyance deed in favor of a Co-operative Housing Society is a statutory obligation under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) – Failure to execute the deed and hand over statutory documents constitutes a “continuing deficiency in service” – Therefore, the cause of action is continuous, and the complaint is not barred by limitation despite the delay.
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – The National Commission has limited jurisdiction under Section 21(b) – It cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the District Forum and State Commission unless there is a material irregularity, illegality, or jurisdictional error – Where lower fora have passed reasoned orders based on proper appreciation of evidence, no interference is warranted.
(D) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in Service – Real Estate – Obligations of Builder – Failure to provide documents – Builder failed to provide 7/12 extracts, Occupation Certificate, Building Completion Certificate, and Title Clearance to the Society – Held to be deficiency in service – Builder directed to execute conveyance and pay compensation.
(E) Compensation – Quantum – Modification – District Forum awarded Rs.15 Lakhs for mental torture plus costs and interest clauses – National Commission affirmed the liability but modified the order – Petitioners directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as global compensation for delay within 90 days – Failing which, 12% interest shall apply – Revision Petition Disposed of.
Result: Revision Petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT

AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM, VSM.—This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) assailing the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (“State Commission”) Order dated 04.10.2019 in First Appeal No. A/16/224 vide which the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by Opposite Parties No.1&2 and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Suburban District, Mumbai (“District Forum”) Order dated 09.10.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 389/2009.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the complainant is a housing society, while Opposite Party (OP) No. 1 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction, and OPs- 2 to 5 are its partners. The OPs constructed a residential building at Juhu Koliwada (West), Mumbai, on Survey No. 35 (C-3), TPS II during 1975-1976. These flats were purchased by the members of the said society, and an agreement was executed between the parties on 11.11.1976. The possession of flats was handed over to the members during 1975-1976. The society was subsequently established and registered on 09.12.1977. It is the grievance of the complainant that despite repeated requests, the opponents failed to execute the deed of conveyance/ assignment in favour of the society and also failed to hand over several essential documents, including land records, statutory permissions, sanctioned building plans, completion certificates etc, thereby rendering deficient service and causing mental harassment to the members of the society. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

4. On being issued notice, OPs contended that during the pendency of proceedings that OP-3,4 and 5 passed away. OP-2 denied all allegations and contended that the complaint was filed only to harass them and exact money. It was stated that due to financial difficulties and other reasons, the firm ceased its operations. Owing to his advanced age and ill health, OP-2 was unable to participate in the business affairs actively. It was further contended that the OPs were always willing and are still willing to execute the conveyance/ assignment in favour of the complainant society. In fact a draft deed had been prepared and forwarded to the complainant society as early as 1977. But, no response was received. According to OP-2, the delay was solely attributable to the complainant society. The present complaint, being false, vexatious and deserves to be dismissed.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 09.10.2015, partly allowed the complaint with the following order:—

“Order

1. Consumer Complaint No. 389/2009 is partially sanctioned herewith.

2. By the opponents provided defective services to the complainant, forum is declaring herewith.

3. By the opponents No. 1 & 2, under right of the complainant society from the date of issuing order, within 3 months the building of the society and of the premises along with used FSI and in future available FSI should execute deed of assignment such direction is given herewith to opponents no. 1 & 2.

4. By the opponents no. 1 & 2 to the complainant society the disputed building & and below given the original papers & document in respect of the premises within 3 months from the date of order should given, such direction is given herewith.

i. Ledger Abstract of the property. i.e. 7/12 extgract.

ii. Order issued by the competent authority as per the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

iii. Development Agreement executed by the developer with the land owners.

iv. Copies of the Power of Attorney given by the owners in favour of the developers along with the copy of the registration receipt.

v. Intimation of disapproval from the BMC Authorities.

vi. Occupation Certificate

vii. Bldg. Completion Ce