ORDER

1.         This consumer complaint under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) has been filed by the complainant society which is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and was registered on 03.12.2008. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing maintenance / amenities as agreed to in the Agreement for Sale arising on account of non-refund of the deposits received by the opposite party from the members of the complainant society and not providing proper books of accounts for the utilization of the same.

2.         The facts of the case, in brief as stated by the complainant, are that the Eden Garden project comprising of 12 buildings having 315 flats was constructed in three phases commencing from 1997-98 and completed in 2003. The opposite party, Mahaveer Builders, had collected various amounts as security deposit for life time maintenance @ Rs.45 per sq. ft., security deposit for amenities, maintenance @ Rs.15 per sq. ft., M.S.E.B. charges @ Rs. 15 per sq. ft., society shares, legal fee, society deposit and telephone deposit for EPABX.  The Agreement for Sale in Clause 4 (c) (i) mentioned that the purchaser will deposit, seven days prior to the delivery of possession, Rs.30 per sq. ft. as security for due for observance and performance of their obligations by way of contribution towards the fund.  Further, Clause 4 (c) (ii) of the agreement mentioned that the fund so collected shall be invested by the promoters in any reputed Co-operative Bank or prescribed security or other secured investments yielding maximum return by way of interest / dividend for the purpose of utilizing the interest / earnings for meeting expenses relating to operation, maintenance, repairs, renovations, etc. of the buildings.  Any shortfall in this fund was proposed to be collected on a pro-rata basis, based on the area of the premises from the flat owners on monthly / quarterly / half-yearly basis.  It was also stated that vide Clause 4(c) (iii) the fund so constituted would be transferred to and be held by the body / bodies to be formed by the premises holders of different buildings in the said complex or the Apex body, if constituted, so that the management of these funds and expenditure therefrom be controlled by the owners through their respective body / bodies.  As per Clause 4 (f), it was agreed that the opposite party shall maintain a separate account in respect of the deposits towards this fund and shall utilize the amounts only for the purpose for which it was intended.  The complainants state that while the allottees paid the respective amounts prior to possession, the opposite party did not utilize the funds collected for the purpose of maintenance and provision of facilities and have not furnished proper accounts of this amount.  The complainants are stated to be consumers within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act who have availed services of the opposite party.  The complainants state that it is a matter of record that the opposite party never called upon the flat owners for any payments above the amounts deposited by them and that there was no default of any payment on the part of the flat owners/members of the complainant society.  It is stated that while the opposite party was legally bound to form an Apex body of residents / flat owners, it was only after pressure from the residents that the complainant society was registered as a Co-operative Housing Society on 03.12.2008.  However, management and maintenance was not handed over to the society by the promoters on 22.03.2009 who at the General Body Meeting announced the setting up of a Provisional Management Committee to take over the management / maintenance of the society.  As funds of the corpus amount were not transferred, the Provisional Management Committee (PMC) gave notice on 18.04.2009 to the opposite party seeking a