State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Devopers & Ors vs S Soman Nair on 30 August, 2010
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/21
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/02/2009 in Case No. 139/2007 of
District Thane)
1. OM DEVOPERS & ORS
1 ST FLOOR, VISHWANATH PLAZA, OPP. DATTAR
BLOCK, AGRA ROAD, KALYAN.
THANE
Maharastra
2. Milind Markand Kulkarni
1st Floor, Vishwanath Plaza, Opp. Dattar
Block, Agra Road, Kalyan, Thane.
Thane
Maharashtra.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. S SOMAN NAIR
VISHWANATH PLAZA AGRA ROAD KALYAN
THANE
Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Ms.Rashmi Manne, Advocate, proxy for Mr.U.B.
Wavikar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr.P.D. Thakkar, Advocate for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1)This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 07.02.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.139/2007, S. Soman Nair V/s. Om Developers and Anr., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (Forum below in short).(2)
This consumer complaint is pertaining to the alleged deficiency in service for not repairing leakages of the terrace, not accounting for the amount of the maintenance collected and failure to register of the Society. Forum below upholding the case of the Complainant granted reliefs in terms of above referred deficiencies in service and consequently, this appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party builder and its partners.
(3)We heard Ms.Rashmi Manne, Advocate, proxy for Mr.U.B. Wavikar for the Appellant and Mr.P.D. Thakkar, Advocate for the Respondent.
(4)Undisputed facts are that construction of the building Vishwanath Plaza situated at Kalyan was completed in the year 1996. Completion certificate was obtained in the 1997. Flat purchasers were put in possession in the year 1997 of respective flats. Thereafter ad-hoc committee of three members was formed from amongst flat purchasers. Then on the basis of alleged deficiencies in service, supra, this consumer complaint was filed on 07.04.2007.
(5)As far as the consumer complaint pertaining to the relief granted relating to the leakage from the terrace is concerned, the cause of action admittedly thereof arose as against the builder when the possession was handed over. Their complaint in respect of this particular grievance is hopelessly time barred. Useful reference on the appoint can be made to decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2009 CTJ 951(SC)(C.P). Further, it is the group of flat purchasers (or their Society) is collecting and looking after maintenance of the building since from the time they had received possession.
(6)As far as grievance as to collecting maintenance amount but not keeping separate account thereof is concerned, the Complainant failed to give any particulars thereof (of such payments) and also failed to substantiate his grievance on this count. Apart from this such grievance cannot be raised at such belated stage after about almost ten years after the receipt of possession. Therefore, direction given to render account for maintenance amount collected, is erroneous.
(7)As far as non-registration of the Society is concerned, complaint was rightly filed. Builder was under obligation to take steps under MOFA to form the Society after the possession was delivered. It is seen that on 23.07.2010 the Society is registered. So, taking into consideration this subsequent development, this grievance no more survives.
(8)As far as grant of compensation of `5,000/-
is concerned, we find, since the builder, certainly for non registration of Society of flat purchasers dragged the Complainant, who is one of the flat purchasers, to the Consumer For a. We find no reason to interfere with the said award granting compensation of `5,000/-
for mental torture.
(9)For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) Except for the direction as to payment of compensation of `5,000/-
rest of the impugned order is set aside.
(iii) Appellant to bear its own costs and pay `2,000/-
as costs of this appeal to the Respondent/Original Complainant.
(iv) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced Dated the 30th August, 2010 [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep