State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The City And Industrial Development ... vs Mr Sunil J Varma & Ors. on 29 March, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/11/466
(Arisen out of Order Dated 05/04/2011 in Case
No. 184/2009 of District Additional DCF, Thane)
1.THE CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OS MAHARASHTRA LTD (CIDCO) CIDCO BHAVAN CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI THANE ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. MR SUNIL J VARMA R/AT FLAT NO 101 1 ST FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR 9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
2. MR MAHADEO G BHUNESAR R/AT FLAT NO 102 1 ST FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR -9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
3. MR TARUN A KHANNA R/AT FLAT NO 201 2ND FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR -9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
4. MR SAROJ BALA YADAV R/AT FLAT NO 202 2ND FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR -9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
5. MR KAUSHAL K TIWARI R/AT FLAT NO 301 3 RD FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR -9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
6. MRS ANJU KAUSAL K TIWARI R/AT FLAT NO 301 3 RD FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR -9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
7. MR DAVID NESARAJ R/AT FLAT NO 302 3RD FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR -9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
8. MRS GRACE NESARAJ R/AT FLAT NO 302 3RD FLOOR ANITA VILLA PLOT NO 125 SECTOR -9 NEW PANVEL EAST NAVI MUMBAI RAIGAD
9. MRS ANITA KHANDELWAL O/AT 154/155 CENTRAL FACILITY BUILDING APMC MARKET 1 PHASE -II SECTOR 19 TURBHE NAVI MUMBAI THANE ...........Respondent(s) ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
SMT MADHURA NADGAUDA , Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Onkar Gupte, Advocate for respondent Nos.1to8.
ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 05/04/2011 passed in consumer complaint No.184/2009, Mr.Sunil J. Verma & Ors. V/s. Smt.Anita Khandelwal & Anr. passed by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (the Forum in short).
2. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service against the builder/developer-Smt.Anita Khandelwal (hereinafter referred to as builder) for not forming society, not executing conveyance, etc. as well as against the appellant/org. opponent No.2-City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (CIDCO). The consumer complaint was partly allowed and as far as appellant/CIDCO is concerned, it was directed to regularize illegal constriction without any charges and also to pay jointly and severally with the builder a compensation of `10 Lakhs for following unfair trade practice and for deficiency in service. Besides this, the CIDCO was further directed to pay costs of `4,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, CIDCO has preferred this appeal.
3. We heard Smt.Madhura Nadgauda, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Onkar Gupte, Advocate for respondent Nos.1to8.
4. In the instant case, it is revealed from the record and as even conceded by org. complainant, the construction work i.e. alleged development was not carried out as per the approved plan. Letters of the unregistered Association of the complainant dated 08/10/2007 and 25/10/2007 addressed to the Estate Manager, CIDCO speak for the same amongst others. Besides this, according to the CIDCO, the plot in question where the development activity was carried out was reserved for specific purpose, namely, for residence (self use) bungalow plot which was to be made available to the traders from the category of Iron and Still Merchants whose establishments were shifted as per the Planning Policy from Mumbai to Navi Mumbai. The lease tripartite agreement with the opponent-builder-Smt.Anita Khandelwal also stipulated such condition.
Anything contrary to be carried out being illegal and unauthorise, the Local Authority like CIDCO cannot be given any direction in settlement of consumer dispute to regularize all those irregularities without any premium or charges. In fact such direction to do or not to do since does not fall within the ambit of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; cannot be given. There is no privity of contract between the CIDCO and these complainants. Under the circumstance, there is no relationship of a consumer and service provider between the complainants and CIDCO. For this reason also no consumer dispute as between them could be entertained. The Forum exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the consumer dispute against the CIDCO and to give the impugned directions to which a reference is made earlier. In fact there arise no question of any unfair trade practice followed by the CIDCO within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For the reasons we find it difficult to support the impugned order as far as appellant/CIDCO is concerned.
5. We need not to go into the other aspects about maintainability of the consumer complaint since, there is no compliance of Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since, the consumer complaint as against CIDCO could be dismissed on the sole reasons mentioned earlier.
6. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 05/04/2011 as against appellant/CIDCO is set aside. In the result, consumer complaint as against appellant/CIDCO stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 29th March 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd