Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1282
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. Agrawal, PRESIDENT, S.M. Kantikar, MEMBER
SHIVBHAKTI CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
LODHA SHAH BUILDERS – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 215 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Guchiya
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Kripalani
The failure of a builder to register a cooperative society constitutes deficiency in service, warranting compensation enhancement under consumer protection laws.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petition - Appeal against order of State Commission enhancing compensation for deficiency in service - The Opposite Party Builder failed to register the Cooperative Society despite collecting amounts from flat purchasers; they had to register it themselves. Compensation increased in view of statutory obligations. (Paras 1, 6, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction of National Commission - Limited to review of factual errors and jurisdictional issues. Cannot interfere unless material irregularity is present. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant Society alleged the Builder's failure to register a cooperative society and claimed refund of various amounts collected for services not provided, along with compensation for mental agony.
Findings of Court:
The State Commission found the Builder guilty of deficiency in service for not registering the society, enhancing the awarded compensation from ₹10,000 to ₹1,00,000.
Issues: Whether the Builder’s failure to register the society constitutes deficiency in service? And whether the compensation awarded was proportional to the service deficiencies?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Builder had a statutory obligation to register the society and finding deficiencies justifying compensation increase was effectively justified considering service failures.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the consumer protection act. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of builder's deficiency in service for failing to register a cooperative society. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. assessment of the builder's responsibilities and justifications for charges. (Para 5) |
| 4. state commission's enhancement of compensation for deficiencies in service. (Para 6 , 11) |
| 5. arguments presented by both parties regarding deficiency and service adequacy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. final ruling and dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 12) |
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986, against the Impugned Order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. RBT/A/15/181, whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Complainant by enhancing the Compensation to ₹1 lakh from ₹10,000/- as awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No. 379/2005 and rest of the Order passed by the District Forum was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Lodha Shah Builders, (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Builder) had constructed F1 & F2 wings comprising of 112 Flats at Indraprastha Complex, behind S N College, Navghar Road, Bhayander (E) District Thane and these Flats were sold under different Agreements from May 1995 onwards to different Flat Purchasers. The Opposite Party builder failed to register the Cooperative Housing Society despite having collected amount from the Flat Purchasers. The Flat purchasers themselves have registered the Society, i.e., Shiv Bhakti Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant Society) at their own expenses. It was also noted by the Complainant Society that additional amounts were collected by the Opposite Party Builder at its will and discretion, which is not mentioned in the Original Agreement. ₹15,000/- was collected instead of ₹5,000/- towards cost of Electricity Meter. Opposite Party Builder neither provided any Municipal Water Connection nor provided any amount to the Society to get the water connections directly from Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation. It was also alleged that Opposite Party Builder did not stop the internal leakage of water from roof top during the rainy season. It also neglected proper functioning of the lift and also neither provided Occupancy Certificate to the Society nor was any conveyance deed executed in the name of the Complainant Society. Alleging deficiency in service a complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking direction for refund of ₹1,34,000/- and ₹37,600/- wrongly collected by Opposite Party Builder, refund of ₹1,11,000/- wrongly collected as Society Formation Charges, refund of ₹1,21,000/- wrongly collected as proportionate share of each flat approximately ₹1,100/- per head for ₹10,95,000/-, refund of ₹15,000/- per head collected towards the deposit of BSES electric meter, direction for payment of ₹1,65,000/- incurred by the Complainant Society for taking water through water tankers for 15 months, payment of ₹18,680/- spent for repairing the lift and ₹1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony.
3. The Opposite Party Builder contested the Complaint before the District Forum and took the preliminary objection that the society cannot be held as Consumer and that the complaint was time-barred. The Opposite Party Builder also submitted that the amounts were legally collected and proper receipts were issued. It was further contended that the separate water connection was provided of the Municipal drinking water.
4. After hearing both the Parties and examining the evidence adduced by both the Parties, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund ₹37,660/- to the Complainant society collected towards shar
