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.