State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shakutala Annasaheb Ghadge & Ors vs 1. M/S Shradha Developers on 8 August, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/10/569
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 06/04/2010 in Case No. 01/2010 of District Satara)
1.SHAKUTALA ANNASAHEB GHADGE & ORS RAMAKANT TOWERS YADAV GOPAL PETH SATARA
2. RAVINDRA VENKATDAS SHAH RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH, SATARA MAHARASHTRA
3. ANJALI ASHOK JOSHI RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
4. RAJANI GANPAT KARANDE RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
5. BHASKAR GANGADAR DHAYGUDE RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
6. BHAGYASHREE BHASKAR DHAYGUDE RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
7. NANDKUMAR BALU GURAV RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
8. SURESH KASHINATH KULKARNI RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
9. CHHAYA VILAS WAGH AS DEAD THROUGH VILAS WAGH RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
10. RAMESH RAMCHANDRA DAGA RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA
11. PRASHANT RAMESH DAGA RAMAKANT TOWERS, YADAV GOPAL PETH,SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. M/S SHRADHA DEVELOPERS 11 RAVIVAR PETH SATARA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Appellant and their counsel absent.
MRS.S.V.HONRAO, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member :
Heard.
This appeal taken an exception to the order dated 6.4.2010 passed in consumer complaint No. 01/2010 Mrs. Shakuntala A. Ghadge and Ors. V/s M/s Shraddha Developers through Mr. Prabhakar V. Ambekar, passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara. It is a complaint jointly filed by some of the flat purchasers of society of flat/shop purchasers of Ramakant Towers against the builder/developer alleging deficiency in service on the part of the builder/developer for non-execution of the conveyance in their favour. It is the case of builder/developer that it never denied execution of conveyance to the complainants. Only because the complainants failed to satisfy the requirements and failed to give information including the information relating to legal representatives of the deceased flat purchasers. Upholding the case of the builder/developer and holding that the Complainants failed to establish their case, the consumer complaint came to be dismissed and feeling aggrieved by this, original complainants preferred this appeal.
In the instant case, it could be seen from the undisputed facts that each one of the Complainants has a separate and independent cause of action against the builder since their agreements are separate. If they want to file one consumer complaint for the respective grievances, they ought to have complied with the provisions of section 12(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such compliance being necessary in the present case, the complaint itself get vitiated.
Coming to the other aspects of the case, it is revealed from the material placed on record that the Complainants did not come with clean hands, they themselves are prima-facie guilty for not supplying requisite information which would have help to take steps to get execute the conveyance. In their notice dated 26.11.2009, the complainant asked for executing the conveyance in favour of the society, Ramakant Towers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The society has 65 flats/shops and out of which at the relevant time, only 58 were sold and remaining were in possession of the builder. Ignoring the society, the complainants themselves, in their individual capacity, cannot claim deficiency in service on part of the builder for non-execution of the conveyance which is to be executed in favour of the society. Therefore, ultimately dismissal of the complaint by the Forum cannot be faulted with.
For the reasons stated above, we find the appeal devoid of any substance. Holding accordingly, we pass the order :
O R D E R Appeal stands dismissed. Both parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced dated 8th August 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER aab