State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Akansha Co-Op Housing Society vs M/S Accanoor Associates on 23 March, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No.CC/10/151
1.Akanksha Co-op.Housing Society (Prop)
Situated on plot bearing C.S.No.109
Part 110(P), 136(P), 139 part of Lower Parel
Division at Kasturba Gandhi Nagar
Dainik Shivner Marg, Mumbai 400 018
Through Mrs.Shakuntala Anand Poojari,
Mr.Vijay Ruparel and Mr.Vipin Kamdi
Duly authorized jointly/severally by complainants
2. Mr.Nitin Gangal
301, Pracheeta Co-op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd.
81, Sakharam Keer Road, Mahim
Mumbai 400016
3.Mr.Girish Kulkarni
C/31, Magjyot CHS Ltd. 51, TPS Road
Boriwali (W), Mumbai 400 092
4. Mr.Chetan Bane
Shop no.1, Janki Niwas, B wing
Near Pai Hospital, Khadilkar Road
Mumbai 400 004
5. Mrs.Neera Singh
Flat no.60, BPCL Refinery Colony
Azia Baug, Chembur, Mumbai 400 074
6. Mr.Vijay Ruparel
Flat no.4, A wing, 2nd floor
Mahalaxmi Mahal,
Mahalaxmi Mandir Compound
Bhulabhai Desai Road,
Mumbai 400 018
7. Mrs.Pramila Kamal Modi
Mr.Kamal Modi
5/4, Agrawal Nagar, Dr.Ambedkar Road
Matunga (E), Mumbai 400 019
8. Mr.Jamnadas Ahuja
"Sneh", Plot no.11
Vardhaman Nagar
Raka Colony, Sharanpur Road
Nashik 422 005
1
9. Mr.Iftikar Sayyed
9, City Walk House, 3rd floor
33 S.Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai 400039
10. Mrs.Shakuntala Poojari
4 & 5 Kermani Building, 2nd floor
Sir P.M.Road, Fort
Mumbai 400 001
11.Mr.Balasaheb Pundlik Vidhate
Opp.Nandanvan Lawns
Savarkar Nagar, Gangaur Road
Nashik 422 013
12.Mr.S.Srinivasan Iyer
B/13,Hapy House CHS
Tata Press Road
Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025
13.Mrs.Pushpa Channawar
1501-A, Shubhadra Apartment
15th floor, Pochkhanwala Road
Opp.Police Club,Worli
Mumbai 400 018
14. Mrs.Aruna Wadetiwar
1501-A, Shubhadra Apartment
15th floor, Pochkhanwala Road
Opp.Police Club,Worli
Mumbai 400 018
15. Ms.Anita Prasad
F-44, Hyderabadi Estate, 11th floor
Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400006
16.Mr.Swapnil Ganvir
13, Jay Mahal, A Road, Opp.SBI Bank
Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020
17. Ms.Priti Ganvir
13, Jay Mahal, A Road, Opp.SBI Bank
Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020
18. Mr.Vipin Kamdi
503/B, Building no.M5, 5th floor
Palm Acres, HIG Scheme, Pratiksha Nagar
Sion, ,Mumbai 400 022
19. Mr.Raju Mehta
C/o.Mehta Associates
90/1, Bharat Bazar, Dainik Shivneri Marg
Worli, Mumbai 400 018
Address for purpose of communication and
Service is C/o.Anand V.Patwardhan
2
212, Jolly Bhavan, 2
7 New Marine Lines
Mumbai 400 020 .....Complainants
Versus
1.M/s.Accanoor Associates
Through sole proprietor
Mr.Deepak Rao
God Gift's Tower
3rd floor, S.V.Road
Bandra(W), Mumbai 400 050
2. M/s.Relliance Construction Company
Through its sole proprietor
Mr.Mohammed Raeesbhai Belim
At Juhu Azad Nagar CHS, 1st floor
C.D.Barfiwala Road,
Near New India Colony
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 049 .........Opponents
BEFORE: P.B.Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member
A.K.Zade, Member
BEFORE: Mr.Mohit Bhansali -Advocate for complainants
Mr.Kaleem Dehlvi-Advocate i/b.Gauri S. Rao-Advocate
for opponent no.1.
None for opponent no.2.
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble P.B.Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member
1. Complainant no.1 is proposed 'Akansha Co-operative Housing Society' and complainant nos.2 to 19 are the members of said proposed Co- operative Housing Society. Those members have purchased the flats from opponent no.1. The opponent no.1 under the Slum Redevelopment Scheme i.e. Slum area consisting of three Co-operative Housing Societies, namely, Parel Shivneri Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Parel Shivsandesh Co-op. Hsg.Society Ltd. And Parel Sahyadri Co-op. Hsg. Society (Proposed) situated on Plot bearing C.S.No.109 (Part), 110(Part), 136 (Part) and 139 (Part), Lower Parel division, Mumbai City District belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for implementation of the Slum 3 development scheme and, accordingly, Development Agreements were executed between the developers i.e. opponent no.1 and the members of the said societies and after placing the slum dwellers into their developed flats from out of the FSI available under the said scheme has undertaken the construction of the subject building, wherein the complainants and many other purchasers have purchased flats in the sale component building.
2. As per complainants, most of the complainants are practicing lawyers, University Professors, IAS Officers serving in various Government departments as well as Judicial Officers working in various Courts who have purchased their respective flats. These members have already made substantial payments of upto 87-90% to the opponents as per the individual flat purchase Agreements which inter alia also has attached thereto the sanctioned plan with the amenities to be provided. Even after considerable payment, the opponents have not handed over possession of the flats and hence Writ Petition was filed against the SRA, BMC and the opponents wherein the opponents have admitted their delay and had undertaken to complete the project and hand over possession of the respective flats on or before December 2009. The said commitment had been reduced into consent terms dated 23/10/2007. Despite the consent terms, the opponents failed to complete the construction with the amenities and hand over possession and, thus, there is deficiency on the part of opponents and, hence the complainants have filed consumer complaint with prayers that it be held that opponents are guilty of deficiency in service. It was further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainants from 31/03/2004, being the date of possession till handing over possession of the respective flats to the complainants. The complainants have further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to complete the construction as per plans and not to modify the plans or change the building structure and layout. It was 4 further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to pay towards compensation for mental agony and physical hardship suffered by the complainants for all these years, a sum of Rs.1 lakh to each of the complainant. The complainants have further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to form Co-operative Housing Society of the purchasers of flats in the name as is reserved by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies immediately and in case the society is already formed by the flat purchases, then to refund the amount taken as per the agreements.
3. The complainants have further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to produce and hand over copy of all the layout and utility ducts' maps, sanctioned plans, IOD, LOI, Commencement Certificate, Fire Brigade permission etc. The complainants have further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to pay to complainant no.2 a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month for reimbursement of the rent from 01/04/2009 till he is put in habitable, peaceful, physical possession of his flat with all the amenities, facilities in working condition. The complainants have further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to execute conveyance in favour of the society and opponents be stopped and restrained from carrying out construction of any new building or structure other than what has been represented in the agreements executed with the complainants. The complainants have further prayed that opponents jointly and severally be directed to complete the construction and obtain the Occupancy Certificate and hand over possession of the respective flats to the purchasers. The complainants prayed that opponents be jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
4. Opponent no.1 appeared, however, failed to file written version. Opponent no.2 did not appear even after service of notice. The complainants filed evidence. Heard both the learned advocates i.e. for complainants and opponent no.1. Perused the record. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, considering the record and keeping in view the 5 scope of the complaint, following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted for the reasons as below :-
Sr.No. Points Finding
1. Whether this Commission has pecuniary No jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on Does not survive the part of opponents?
Whether complainants are entitled for the interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount paid
3. by the complainants from 31/03/2004 till Does not survive handing over of possession to the respective flat purchasers?
Whether complainants are entitled for
4. direction to the opponents to complete Does not survive the construction as per the plans?
Whether opponents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to each of the
5. complainants towards compensation for Does not survive mental agony and physical hardship suffered by the complainants?
Whether complainants are entitled for direction to opponents to form a Co-
6. operative Housing Society or Does not survive alternatively, for refund of the amount collected on that count?
Whether complainants are entitled for
7. direction to opponents to hand over Does not survive copies of all the necessary documents to the complainants?
Whether complainants are entitled for direction to opponents to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the complainant
8. no.2 for reimbursement of the rent from Does not survive 01/04/2009 till complainant no.2 is put in habitable, peaceful, physical possession of his flat with all the amenities, facilities in working condition?
Whether complainants are entitled for
9. direction to opponents to execute Does not survive conveyance in favour of the complainants?
10. Whether complainants are entitled for Does not survive 6 direction to opponents to obtain Occupation Certificate and hand over possession of the respective flats to the purchasers?
11. What order? As per final order.
REASONS:-
POINT NO.1-Pecuniary jurisdiction :- So many reliefs are sought in the complaint. One of the reliefs is of claiming interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainants from 31/03/2004, being the agreed date of possession till handing over possession of the respective flats to the complainants. On page no.4 of the complaint in para 5 the amounts paid by the complainants to the opponents are mentioned along with flat numbers. The amounts are ranging from Rs.11,50,000/- to Rs.21,91,000/-. Different amounts are paid by different purchasers. The complainants are claiming interest on those amounts @ 15% p.a. from 31/03/2004, which was the agreed date of possession. The statement of claim is at page no.19. At serial no.2 of statement of claim, it is mentioned that opponents be jointly and severally directed to pay interest @ 15% on the amount paid by the complainants from the dates of payment till handing over possession of the respective flats to the complainants and the amount is as per schedule annexed. The said schedule is at page no.20-A of complaint compilation. In the said Schedule of claim, in first column names of complainants are mentioned, in second column amounts paid are mentioned, in third column amount of interest is mentioned, in fourth column rent to be paid to complainant no.2 since 30/04/2009 is mentioned, in fifth column compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh to each of the complainant is mentioned and in the last column, the total amount claimed by the respective complainants from the opponents are mentioned. Minimum amount is Rs.11,06,875/- and maximum amount is Rs.28,79,318.75. There are 18 complainants/ flat purchasers whose names are mentioned in the said Schedule of Claim. Thus, complainants are claiming the amounts 7 mentioned in the Schedule of claim. The total amount is much more than Rs.1crore i.e.32,716,455/-. Thus, it is very clear that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Apart from that complainants are claiming possession of the respective flats. Even without considering the consideration of those flats, the amount is much more that Rs.1 crore. If consideration of flats is concerned, that will go in so many crores. Hence, it is very clear that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, we answer point no.1 in negative.
The complaint was filed in 2010. In 2018 we are passing order of return of the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is because the complainants have not mentioned specific amount they are claiming and have not mentioned valuation in the complaint for pecuniary jurisdiction. Otherwise Commission would not have admitted the complaint for want of jurisdiction.
POINT NOS.2 TO 11:-In view of the answer to point no.1 in negative, point nos.2 to 11 do not survive for consideration. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER For want of pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint is returned to the complainants for presentation before the appropriate Forum. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 23rd March, 2018.
[P.B.Joshi] PRESIDING JUIDICIAL MEMBER [A.K.Zade] 8 MEMBER Ms 9