NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 16.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 01.01.2026 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/709/2020 & IA/710/2020 (STAY & EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE C/C)

1. Salot Builders A Partnership Firm Having Address at:

D-7, 1^st Floor, Shivam Building, Subhash Lane, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097.

2. Mr. Chandrakant R. Salot, R/o D-7, 1^st Floor, Shivam Building, Subhash Lane, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097. … Petitioners Versus

1. Beach Resort Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

35(C3) TPS II, Juhu Sector, Juhu Koliwada, Juhu (W), Mumbai 400049.

2. Mr. Vimlaben Ramniklal Salot (Deceased)

Partner of M/s. Salot Builders … Proforma Respondent

3. Ms. Gajraben Shantilal Salot (Deceased)

Partner of M/s. Salot Builders … Proforma Respondent

4. Shah Popatlal Jivraj (Deceased)

Partner of M/s. Salot Builders … Proforma Respondent Respondent No.2 to 4 at D-7, 1^st Floor, Shivam Building, Subhash Lane, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097. …Respondents BEFORE:

HON’BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA AVSM, VSM (Retd.), PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr.RS. Mishra, Advocate (VC)

For Respondents: Nemo (Ex-parte vide order dt.16.12.2025)

JUDGMENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM

1. 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 Orde