State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri.Madhav Vaman Chhatre vs M/S.Shree Developers Through Its ... on 9 October, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Misc.Application no.MA/17/263 IN Complaint No.CC/17/661
Mr.Madhav Vaman Chhatre
Ground floor,
Post and Telegraphs Colony
Madan Mohan Malviya Road
Mulund (West)
Mumbai 400 080 .....Applicant/Complainant
Versus
1. M/s.Shree Developers
4th floor, Helena Haven Apartment
St.Cyril Road, Bandra (West)
Mumbai 400 050
2. Mr.Digambar Raghunath Sukhi
3. Mr.Jitendra N.Shah
Both partners of
M/s.Shree Developers
4th floor, Helena Haven Apartment
St.Cyril Road, Bandra (West)
Mumbai 400 050 ...Respondents/Opponents
BEFORE: Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
1. Complainant -Madhav Vaman Chhatre has filed consumer complaint no.CC/17/661 by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents. However, there is delay in filing consumer complaint. Therefore, applicant/ 1 complainant has filed application bearing no.MA/17/263 for condonation of delay. Exact period of delay is not quantified in the application.
2. According to complainant he is a legal heir and Grandson of Gopal Vishnu Chhatre and son of Waman Gopal Chhatre. His father and grandfather are no more. He is Co-owner of the landed property i.e. Ram Niwas situated at Ratansi Hirji Bhojraj Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080 at Plot of land admeasuring 501.68 mtrs. and bearing plot Nos.1246, 1246(2), 1246(3) and 1310 of village Mulund (West), Taluka Kurla, District Mumbai. Said property was exclusively owned by his grandfather Gopal Vishnu Chhatre. Complainant is deprived from equal share/right in redeveloped Ram Niwas. Opponent no.1 is developer of Ram Niwas. Construction of redevelopment of Ram Niwas was commenced on 29/11/2010. As per development agreement neither co-owners nor holders of tenements obstructed construction of Ram Niwas. Redevelopment work has not been completed in scheduled time i.e. within 24 months of date of commencement. In December 2014 construction of the building was over. Mother of complainant was offered possession of flat no.201 on second floor. The flat was occupied by the complainant and his mother. Before redevelopment Smt.Sunanda Vaman Chhatre and complainant were having double room tenement on the ground floor admeasuring about 240 sq.ft. The opponent no.1 did not execute agreement of new flat with Smt.Sunanda Vaman Chhatre and complainant. After taking possession, complainant came to know that opponent no.1 had not considered the additional area of 100 sq. ft. in the existing flat occupied by the complainant's mother and complainant. Therefore, queries have been made with the lawyer, who advised to add complainant's name in the Property Card of Ram Niwas to fight out the case. Complainant issued notices to all unit holders as per development agreement and opponent no.1. However, notices were not responded.
23. It is submitted that the complainant made correspondence to add his name in the Property Card as owner of flat situated at Ram Niwas. Complainant was intimated from concerned office to obtain Heirship certificate from competent court. Thereafter, miscellaneous petition was filed in Hon'ble High Court of Judicature in March 2016. Complainant consulted his mother Sunanda for filing joint complaint. The request was not considered by mother of the complainant. She is aged about 88 years. Therefore, again complainant was confused and consulted the lawyer. Thereafter, he has filed consumer complaint along with application for condonation of delay. There is delay of about 3-4 months. Complainant has requested to condone the delay for filing consumer complaint.
4. Opponent no.2 has resisted the application by filing written say. Say is signed by opponent/respondent no.2-Mr.Digambar Sukhi. In fact, Shri Shridhar Ghate appeared for all the opponents and represented all the opponents. It is submitted that in application, exact delay is not quantified. Complainant has no locus to file the consumer complaint. At no point of time any allotment of flat to the complainant was agreed upon. The flat in dispute is allotted to mother, who is alive. Apart from complainant there are three sisters as legal heirs. Three sisters and Sunanda Vaman Chhatre have not having any kind of grievance of whatsoever nature against the opponent. As per development Agreement, the flat is allotted to the owner and complainant is merely a legal heir and is not having any consent from mother or other co- owners in the development Agreement. Hence the consumer complaint is not maintainable. The reason for condonation of delay cannot be appreciated in view of document produced on record i.e. letter dated 01/02/2016 addressed by office of City Surveyor officer, Mulund. The complainant is not stopped from approaching any court of law without entering his name in property card or heirship certificate, if he has valid case on merits. The complainant has not 3 given any exact date or month as to when he consulted his mother for filing consumer complaint. The complainant was confused. Hence, he consulted advocate for filing the complaint. The reasons are not at all sufficient and hence, application is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Heard Applicant/complainant Mr.Madhav W.Chattre who is present in person and Ms.Poonam Makhijani-Advocate for respondents/opponents.
6. On perusal of the application, it is clear that the applicant has not quantified the exact delay. He has given vague submission that there is delay of 3-4 months. It is not submitted as to when cause of action arose and from which date the delay is reckoned. The application is silent as to when applicant/complainant consulted his mother. It is not disputed that mother of complainant Sunanda Vaman Chhatre did not come forward to file the complaint. She was not ready to file joint complaint. Other legal heirs and Sunanda Vaman Chhatre have not joined the complainant in his complaint as co-complainants. It cannot be ascertained when the complainant consulted to his lawyer for advice.
7. It is pertinent to note here that complainant is well aware about the legal proceedings. Earlier he had filed miscellaneous petition before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature in March 2016. If the applicant/complainant was diligent, he could have avoided delay in filing consumer complaint.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he moved the application to record the name in property card. He was intimated to file certificate of heirship. Application moved by the applicant to enter his name in property card was not considered by the City Survey Officer, Mulund. The applicant was directed to obtain legal heirship certificate from the competent court. The applicant could have filed consumer complaint to agitate his grievance with heirship certificate and without recording his name in the property card.
49. In property card, property prior to redevelopment was shown in the name of deceased Gopal Vishnu Chhatre. After death of original owner, development agreement was executed. It was executed by all legal heirs in favour of the holder. All legal heirs have not come forward to file the consumer complaint. Complainant did not join them as complainants or the opponents. Admittedly, mother of the complainant is co-owner of the flat in question. Notice was issued on 05/02/2013 by the complainant as well as mother. Reminder letters were issued to Mr.Digambar Sukhi. The flat in question is in possession of mother of complainant. Admittedly, complainant is not staying in suit flat. He is staying in some other flat. Mother of the complainant did not give consent to file consumer complaint. Considering all these facts, we are of the view that complainant- Madhav Vaman Chhatre alone has no locus to file consumer complaint. His consumer complaint itself is not maintainable. Therefore, there is no question of condonation of delay. In fact, the reasons for condonation of delay cannot be said to be sufficient reasons to condone the delay, which is not quantified.
10. While deciding application for condonation of delay the court has to keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing consumer complaint.
11. In the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ~ reported in (2012)-14-SCC-578, highlighting the object and scope of the Act and deprecating entertainment of belated petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that entertainment of highly belated petitions defeats the very object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer dispute. Hence, application deserves to be rejected. With this view, we pass following order:-
5ORDER Misc.application bearing no.MA/17/263 for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
Consequently, consumer complaint is not entertained.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 9th October, 2018.
[Usha S.Thakare] Presiding Judicial Member [D.R.Shirasao] Judicial Member Ms 6