Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3547
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HON’BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER, HON’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, MEMBER
M/s. Shambu Realtor Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jay Vighnaharta Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.769 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Nihant Panicker
For the Respondents: Ms.Ponnam Makhijani, Mr. Jayant Pawar
Builder/developer must fulfill statutory obligations regarding occupancy and conveyance certificates; failure leads to liability for deficiency in service.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision Petition against order of State Commission dismissing Appeal for deficiency in service - Complainant alleged failure to obtain Occupation and Completion Certificates and these are statutory responsibilities of the builder/developer - Dismissal affirmed as OP failed to establish valid occupancy and conveyance conducted and upheld as per legal compliance. (Para 1, 12, 15)
(B) Statutory Obligations - Ensuring compliance with obtaining necessary permissions and proper service provision. (Paras 2, 3, 11)
Facts of the case:
The complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service for failure to obtain essential certificates from the Development Authority and comply with statutory responsibilities regarding the completion of construction and formation of the housing society.
Findings of Court:
The OP failed to obtain the required certificates; thus, possession handed over was unlawful. The amounts collected by OP were to be refunded to the Society.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around the statutory obligations of builders/developers and the validity of possession without required certifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that absence of essential documentation (Certificates) rendered the OP's actions inadequate under the Consumer Protection Act, thus upholding the earlier orders.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition filed under consumer act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. complainant claims deficiency in service. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding statutory obligations discussed. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. court's findings on occupancy and legal responsibilities. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 15 , 16) |
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 were to remain members of the said society, and formation of a new society was not warranted. The drinking water connect
