BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.SC/27/A/1877/2002 (Arisen out of order dated 19/10/2002 passed in Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/546/2000 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane)

M/s. Siddhanath Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., A Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Having its Office at – Plot No.31, Upavan, Pokharan Road No.1, Shivai Nagar, Thane 400 606.

Through its Chairman ………..Appellants/

(Org.Opposite Party no.2)

Versus

1. Mr.Rajendra D Adhav Residing at 304, Srikrishna Vihar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Bhusar Ali, Kalwa, District - Thane. …… Respondent/

(Org. Complainant)

2. Mr.Sunil Tamhane Carrying on business under the Name and style of Lovely Construction, Priya Apartment, Kapurbavadi,Thane. …… Respondent/

(Org. OP no.1)

BEFORE:

Justice S.P. Tavade, President Vijay C.Premchandani, Member For Appellants : Adv.Poonam Makhijani For Respondent : Adv.Bhavesh Sawant i/b Adv.Minal Chandnani no.1 FINAL ORDER (Dt.16/09/2025)

Per: Vijay C.Premchandani, Member

1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellant for challenging the order dtd.19/10/2002 passed by Hon’ble Thane District Forum in CC/546/2000.

THE FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Appellant is a society. The Appellant was the owner of the building standing on the plot no.31 Shivaji Nagar, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane which was allotted to the appellant by MHADA. The Appellant has authorized the Respondent no.2 to construct the additional floor over and above existing building and also authorized the respondent no.2 to dispose of 4 residential flats on the said additional floor. The respondent no.2 was to collect the cost of the flat from the prospective purchasers. The aforesaid terms were incorporated in the agreement dtd.05/04/1990 executed between the Appellant and the respondent no.2. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 entered into the agreement dtd.28/04/1991 with the respondent no.2 for purchase of the flat bearing no.15 on 3^rd floor proposed to be constructed on the building owned by the appellant for the total consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-. The Respondent no.1 allegedly made the payment to the appellant as well as respondent no. 2 for purchase of flat. The work of the construction of 3^rd floor did not proceed in satisfactory manner and the possession of the flat agreed to be purchased by respondent no.1 was not handed over by the respondent no.2. It was the allegation of respondent no.1 that the condition of the building became critical as a result of the incomplete construction works of the 3^rd floor. The Appellant communicated said fact to the respondent no.1 to resolve the issue amicably but it was not replied. The Appellant issued the legal notice to respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 has almost stopped the construction work and the agreement between the appellant and respondent no.2 was terminated. The appellant informed the said fact to respondent no.1. The Respondent no.1 replied the legal notice through its advocate. Thereafter respondent no.1 who is original Complainant in Consumer Complaint has filed the aforesaid consumer complaint. The said consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant and the respondent no.2 was jointly and severally ordered to handover the vacant peaceful possession of the alleged flat or in alternative the Appellant and respondent no.2 jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1,00,860/- within 3 months at the rate of 15% p.a. The Learned Forum has also directed the appellant and respondent no.2 to pay compensation and cost of litigation. Being aggrieved with the said order the Appellant who is originally Opposite Party no.2 has filed the present appeal on the following grounds GROUNDS OF APPEAL

3. The Appellant has contended in the appeal that the Ld.District Forum has not considered the fact that the original complaint is not maintained before the law as the original complainant is not the consumer of the Appellant and the Appellant