Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HON’BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER, HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), MEMBER
M/s. Shambu Realtor Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jay Vighnaharta Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.769 OF 2017
For Petitioners: Mr.Nihant Panicker
For Respondent No.1: Ms.Ponnam Makhijani
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Jayant Pawar
Failure to obtain necessary statutory certificates constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petition against the order dismissing an appeal regarding deficiency in service in co-operative housing context - The petitioners failed to obtain necessary occupation certificate and are therefore liable for deficiency in service. (Paras 2, 11-15).
(B) The statutory responsibility of registering the co-operative society and obtaining necessary certificates lies with the builder - Failure to comply constitutes deficiency in service. (Paras 4, 11-12).
Facts of the case:
The complainant-Society filed a complaint alleging that the construction company did not obtain necessary approvals and failed to register the society, resulting in deficiencies.
Findings of Court:
The District Forum found that the complainants were entitled to relief as occupation certificates had not been provided.
Issues: The main issues were the obligations of the construction company and legality of the possession handed over.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that possession without certificates constitutes unlawful possession and the builder's failure to comply with statutory duties is detrimental.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under consumer protection act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments centered on compliance and responsibilities of builders. (Para 3 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. allegations of deficiencies in statutory obligations tied to housing services. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. conclusion drawn from evidence regarding lawful possession and obligations. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court finds no errors in prior decisions, emphasizing limits of revisional jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai („the State Commission‟) order dated 27.09.2016 in RBT/A/16/896 dismissing the Appeal filed by the OP/ Petitioners against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane („the District Forum‟) order dated 27.08.2013 partly allowing the Complaint.
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, a Co-operative Housing Society, filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to
4. OP-1 is the Construction Company, OP-2 and OP-3 are the Directors of the said company, and OP-4 is the Architect associated with the project. OP-1 entered into a Development Agreement with Leelakunj Co- operative Housing Society for redevelopment of land Survey No.123, Hissa No.4/1 (part), admeasuring approximately 3844.51 sq. meters, situated at Village Katemanevali, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. After receiving the necessary permissions from the Development Authority, OP-1 undertook the construction of a multi-storeyed building on the said land. Members of the complainant-Society booked flats in the said project, and possession was subsequently handed over to them by OP-1. In support of this, the complainant-Society has attached a copy of one such agreement entered into by OP-1 with a member of the Society. The complainant-Society states that OP-1 to 3 collectively handed over possession of the flats. The complainant-Society has alleged that OP-1 failed to obtain the Occupation Certificate and Completion Certificate, For co-operative society of the flat purchasers, Lay a proper drainage line and Execute conveyance of the property in favour of the complainant-Society. As per the complainant these are statutory responsibilities of the builder/developer, and their failure to comply constitutes deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to 4. Based on these grounds, the complainant-Society filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:
a) To declare that the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
b) To direct OP to fulfil the statutory and contractual obligations, including obtaining Occupation Certificate and Completion Certificate, executing conveyance of the property in favour of the Society within a specified period, paying applicable taxes and penalties without burdening flat owners, and performing all obligations under the agreement and the law.
c) To refund the registration charges collected from 42 members, amounting to Rs.94,920/- (42 x Rs.2260). To reimburse expenses of Rs.83,580/- incurred for obtaining the water connection.
d) To provide a detailed statement of accounts of maintenance charges and other collections and refund the balance.
f) To provide a regular water connection to the Society. To provide a proper drainage system along with a Drainage Certificate issued by the Kalyan Municipal Corporation. To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the complaint.
4. The OP-1 to 3 in their Written Version contested the complaint that the construction was carried out on land belonging to Leelakunj Co-operative Housing Society. As the flat purchasers wer
