Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Whispering Palms Exclusive Co Op. ... vs Chief Executive Officer Lokhandwala ... on 9 August, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6240 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2613 of 2018)
WHISPERING PALMS XXCLUSIVE CO-OP.
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION IND. PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Respondent nos.2 to 4, the allottees of apartments in a project, named, “Whispering Palms XX-Clusive Lokhandwala Township” at Akruli Road, Kandivili East, Mumbai, approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, by filing Consumer Case No.203 of 2013 alleging certain deficiencies in services on part of the project developer, the respondent no.1 herein.
Under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of extent, the promotion of construction, sale, Signature Not Verified management Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR and transfer) Act, 1963, the members of said Date: 2019.08.14 17:29:28 IST Reason:
Township in turn have formed a Co-operative Society i.e. the appellant herein. The respondent no.2 filed an application 2 under Section 12(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 submitting inter alia 86 similarly situated apartment holders and the appellant be joined as co-complainants in said complaint. The application came to be rejected by the NCDRC insofar as the appellant was concerned on the grounds that:
a) The appellant was only a proposed Society and was yet to be formed; and
b) The appellant itself was not the Consumer.
The salient features in the present proceedings show that:
I) Apart from original Complainants, 86 apartment holders are before the NCDRC alleging certain deficiencies on the part of the first respondent;
II) Those apartment holders are members of the appellant.
III) The appellant had been formed and the finding in that behalf as recorded by the NCDRC was not correct.
Though strictly speaking the appellant could not have maintained an application under Section 12(1)(c), the application could be maintained in terms of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act.
3Considering these facts and circumstances, in our view, the application preferred by the appellant ought to have been allowed. We order accordingly.
This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the NCDRC is set-aside and the application preferred to add the appellant as co-complainant is allowed. No costs.
.................................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] .................................J. [VINEET SARAN] NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 9, 2019
4
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2613/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-12-2017 in CC No.203/2013 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) WHISPERING PALMS EXCLUSIVE CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION IND. PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No.12912/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; and, IA No.12914/2018 - FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 09-08-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Azhar Qayum, Adv.
Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikram Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Subhadeep Basak, Adv.
Ms. Debolina Roy, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Order is placed on the File)