National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mopar Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Unity Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. on 18 January, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2743 OF 2010 (Against the order dated 17.03.2010 in Appeal No.1267/2009 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Mopar Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thro Mr. Abdul Kadir Parkar, Director Mariwala House, 1st floor, 5/7, Sayed Mukhri Street, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai 400009 .Petitioner Versus Unity Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Thro Chairman and Secretary Shelu Railway Station (E), Bandhiwali, Tal. Karjat, Post Nerul, Dist. Raigad 420101 .........Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand V. Patwardhan, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 18.01.2011 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. This Revision Petition seeks to challenge the decision of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 1267/2009. In this order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the present Revision Petitioner against the order of District Consumer Forum, Thane.
2. In very brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant, Housing Society, Respondent in the present proceedings, is situated in Raigarh District. The complaint was filed before District Consumer Forum Thane, not Raigarh, since all financial transaction of Complainant Societies and its members have been dealt with in the Thane office of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party Mopar Builders and Developers.
3. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that a plot was purchased from the Revision Petitioner/OP under an agreement that School, Hospital, Garden, Sports Ground, Shopping Complex, Petrol Pump and parking space etc. along with Road and power supply, will be provided by the Builder. The facilities were not provided and hence the complaint to the District Forum. The District Forum ordered that:
1) The above mentioned facilities should be provided by the RP/OP or its market value, determined as Rs.822014/-, should be paid to the Complainant.
2) Street lighting should be provided, or in lieu thereof, Rs.25,00/- be paid to the Complainant.
3) Rs.29960/- should be paid to the Complainant towards outstanding MSEB Bills.
4) Similarly Rs.33,363/- should be paid to the Complainant for water supply.
5) In addition compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental torture and maintenance charge of unsold Bungalow, should also be paid.
4. The State Commission held that the matter rightly fell within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Thane as all payments have been received and receipt issued from the Thane office of Mopar Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The State Commission also noted that out of 23 bungalows buit in this project, only 3 were occupied by the original purchasers and 20 have been sold to others. Complaints about the absence of infrastructure facilities are from the subsequent purchasers. The builder has not given any completion certificate and occupancy certificates to the residents society. The appeal therefore, was dismissed by the State Commission, holding that it is the liability of the appellant, since the payment has already been made to them.
5. We have gone through the records and heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the RP/OP. The plea against jurisdiction of the District Forum, Thane has been raised again in the revision petition. We do not find it acceptable as the impugned order, as well as the order of the District Forum, have clearly spelt out the reason why Thane District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
6. The RP/OP has also raised the plea that the complaint is time barred, on the ground that the possession had been handed over to the purchasers during 1993-95 period, while the complaint to the District Forum was made in 2007. This argument cannot be accepted as the completion certificates and occupancy certificates, as observed by the State Commission, have not been made available to the purchasers/occupants. In fact, the RP/OP himself states in his petition to this Commission that conveyance of the said plot cannot be given at this time as the project approved on the said plot is not yet completed and work of the remaining buildings are under progress. It is therefore a clear case of continuing cause of action.
7. For the reasons detailed above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 1267/2009. The Revision Petition against the same is consequently dismissed as devoid of any merit. Parties to the Revision Petition shall bear their own costs.
.
(R.K.BATTA, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Sj./-