State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashoka Hind Co.Op Hsg. Society Ltd. vs Madhu Builders & Developers & Ors on 13 June, 2011
BEFORE THE HON BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/09/144 1. ASHOKA HIND CO.OP HSG. SOCIETY LTD. PLOT NO.430 15TH RD. KHAR (W) MUMBAI 52 MUMBAI Maharastra ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. MADHU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS & ORS 617 ISHKRIPA 14TH RD. KHAR (W) MUMBAI 52 MUMBAI Maharastra 2. MR. PREM PUNJABI M/S. MADHU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, 6107, ISHKRIPA, 14TH ROAD, KHAR(WEST), MUMBAI 400 052. MAHARASHTRA ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member PRESENT: Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the Complainant Mr.S.B. Prabhawalkar, Advocate for the Opponents ORDER
Per Honble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is a complaint filed by Ashoka Hind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Khar (West), Mumbai; against the Builder/Developer. The Complainant Society has pleaded that originally, building of the society was constructed by the then, promoter/builder somewhere in the year 1964 by utilizing then available FSI. In the year 2001, the Complainant Society came to know that there was unutilized FSI available on its plot and some additional TDR could be purchased from the open market for additional construction that could be done on the existing building. Accordingly, in the meeting held on 15/7/2001, it was unanimously decided by the members of the Complainant Society that additional construction work/redevelopment work should be carried out. Pursuant to that decision, general body meeting was convened and in the general body meeting, it was decided to entrust the job, as aforesaid, to M/s. Madhu Builders & Developers the Opposite Party No.1; whose proprietor is Mr. Prem Punjabi the Opposite Party No.2 herein. Accordingly, development agreement dated 29/8/2001 was executed between the Complainant Society and the Opposite Parties. As per the said agreement, the Opposite Parties have agreed to pay monetary consideration of `1,76,000/-
to the Complainant Society as well as to carry out at their own expenses and cost, certain repair works and improvements in the building of the Complainant Society, as mentioned in the agreement. Amount of consideration was to be paid in three installments. First installment of `51,000/-, as a part of consideration, had been paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant Society on execution of the agreement but, second installment of `51,000/-
payable at the time the developer applies for Occupancy Certificate of the new construction had not been paid at all. Third installment of `74,000/-
was payable after receipt of Occupancy Certificate of new construction, which was also not paid to the Complainant Society by the Opposite Parties. According to the Complainant Society, the Opposite Parties kept them in dark about Commencement Certificate and Occupancy Certificate. Hence, under the Right to Information Act, the Complainant Society sought information from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and learnt that Occupancy Certificate had been granted to the Builder/Developer on 14/11/2006, on which date, remaining installments were payable but, the Opposite Parties had not paid the same, despite repeated demands. Excuse given by the Opposite Parties was that the Income Tax Department had issued notice under Section 22(3) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, they had not made payment to the Complainant Society. But the Complainant Society pleaded that appellate authority under the Income Tax Act, had set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, and therefore, the Complainant Society is entitled to receive two unpaid installments totaling `1,25,000/-
from the Opposite Parties together with interest. Agreement further stipulated that the Builder was supposed to complete the construction of redevelopment & repairs within a period of 24 months from the date of issuance of Commencement Certificate. However, the Opposite Parties has not given Commencement Certificate or Occupancy Certificate and did not carry out the redevelopment work within the stipulated period and had not provided any documents to the Complainant Society. So, the Complainant Society has pleaded that the Opposite Parties are under an obligation to provide them necessary documents like sanctioned plan, copy of the Commencement Certificate, Occupancy Certificate, Building Completion Certificate, list of persons who have purchased flats from the Opposite Parties.
[2] The Complainant Society further pleaded that the Opposite Parties, as the Builder/Developer, were under an obligation to provide adequate quantum of parking to old members as well as to new members. In the plan submitted to the municipal authorities, 20 parking spaces were shown as facility for the members. Builder was also under an obligation to demolish existing garages as per the plan sanctioned by the municipal authorities but, this was not done by the Builder. Moreover, said Builder erected one parking shade on the common space of the Complainant Society and has allotted to the new purchasers exclusive right of parking space thereby, depriving original members of parking space. According to the Complainant Society, under settled provisions of law, open parking space as well as stilt parking of the society cannot be sold or allotted by a builder under whatsoever condition. Therefore, a direction will have to be issued to the Opposite Parties, as the Builder/Developer, to remove illegal shade and to hand-over stilt parking as well as open space parking to the Complainant Society. The Complainant Society further pleaded that under the agreement, the Builder had agreed to do repairs of exterior portion of the building and promised to provide gas connection, internet cable T.V. connection, intercom connection and other amenities. For this purpose, the Complainant Society had appointed an architect, who submitted his report on 12/5/2008. The architect furnished list of 12 items, which listed items of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and estimated cost thereof comes to `11,32,000/-, which the Complainant Society is claiming from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant Society also pleaded that the builder is supposed to give them following documents by way of permanent record, which is also an obligation on the part of the Opposite Parties, as the Builder/ Developer; under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. However, the Opposite Parties have not provided copy of the sanctioned plan, copy of the floor plan, Commencement Certificate, copy of the amended plans if any, Completion Certificate, Occupancy Certificate, Certificate issued by the Chief Fire Officer of Fire Brigade and thereby, the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and a direction is required to be given to the Opposite Parties to do the needful. The Complainant Society further pleaded that the Opposite Parties were allowed to purchase TDR from the open market, which the Opposite Parties did purchase but, did not pay adequate stamp-duty on the said TDR purchased by the Opposite Parties. Consequently, the stamp-duty was required to be borne by the Complainant Society. The Complainant Society submits that the stamp-duty and penalty together amounting to `1,65,892/-
was required to be paid by the Complainant Society since it was not paid by the Opposite Parties, as the Builder/Developer. The Complainant Society further pleaded that it is totally in the dark as to how much FSI & TDR had been consumed by the Opposite Parties, as the Builder/Developer, and therefore, the Opposite Parties should be directed to produce certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai or a Government approved architect about actual use or consumption of FSI and TDR by the Opposite Parties and to pay compensation to the Complainant Society in terms of the said consumption of FSI or TDR. The Complainant Society further pleaded that the Opposite Parties did not complete the construction work within a period of 24 months from the date of obtaining Commencement Certificate from the municipal authorities and did not obtain Occupancy Certificate of new construction, and therefore, as per Clause (13) of the Development Agreement, the Developer was supposed to pay to the Complainant Society an amount of `5,000/-
per day for delay in procuring the Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate of the new construction and for this delay of 958 days, the Complainant Society has claimed an amount of `47,90,000/-
@ `5,000/-
per day for the delay occasioned by the Builders. The Complainant Society has pleaded in the complaint that earlier it had filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No.140 of 2007 on 12/9/2007 before the State Commission. Said consumer complaint was filed within a period of two years from the date of obtaining Occupancy Certificate. However, said consumer complaint was rejected on technical grounds by this State Commission, by an order dated 7/5/2009 but, this new consumer complaint has been filed after special general body meeting of the newly formed society decided to re-file a consumer complaint and passed a resolution to that effect on 7/7/2009 and thereafter, as per the directions given by the State Commission, the complaint has been filed in terms of resolution mentioned above and the delay if any, is sought to be condoned by making a separate application for condonation of delay. The Complainant Society has, therefore, made various prayers in paragraph (08) of the complaint, which we shall be discussing in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment.
[3]Alongwith this complaint application, an application for condonation of delay was filed and the same was allowed by this State Commission, by an order dtd.2/3/2010, passed in Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2009. By that order, this State Commission was pleased to condone the delay in filing the consumer complaint and against that order, the original Opposite Parties herein had filed a revision petition bearing No.2918 of 2010 before the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by its order dated 14/12/2010, was pleased to dismiss the revision petition. Thereafter, written version came to be filed by the Opposite Parties.
[4] In the written version as filed, the Opposite Parties pleaded that the Complainant Societys consumer complaint seeking monetary compensation collectively amounting to `90,49,400/-
is false & frivolous and should be dismissed with compensatory costs and the same is hopelessly time-barred within the meaning of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996. The Opposite Parties further admitted that there was an agreement executed by them with the Complainant Society on 29/8/2001 and as per Clause (13) of the said agreement, the Opposite Parties were supposed to procure Commencement Certificate within a period of six months from the date of execution of the agreement and to apply for Occupancy Certificate within a period of 24 months from the date of issuance of the Commencement Certificate. As such, according to the Complainant Society, the Opposite Parties were supposed to procure Commencement Certificate on or before 29/2/2002 and to procure Occupancy Certificate on or before 29/2/2004 but the present consumer complaint came to be filed before this State Commission on 24/7/2009 and as such, it is hopelessly time-barred. The Opposite Parties pleaded that the Complainant Society is seeking monetary compensation of an amount of `1,25,000/-
together with interest thereon @ 21% p.a., with effect from 15/11/2006. Similarly, the Complainant Society is seeking compensation of `47,90,000/-
together with interest thereon @ 21% p.a. as from 15/11/2006. As such, complaint ought to have been filed within a period of two years from 15/11/2006 i.e. on or before 14/11/2008. According to the Opposite Parties, since the principal amount i.e. `1,25,000/-
and `47,90,000/-
is calculated by the Complainant Society from 29/2/2004, even the earlier consumer complaint bearing No.140 of 2007 was hopelessly time-barred since the same was not filed within a period of two years after 29/2/2004. According to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant Society ought to have filed present consumer complaint on or before 28/2/2006 and since the present consumer complaint is filed on 24/7/2009, there is a delay of more than 1800 days, which is not explained and on this ground alone, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
[5] The Opposite Parties further pleaded that the Complainant Society is not a consumer, within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Parties further admitted that the Complainant Society is the owner of immovable property bearing Final Plot No.430 of Bandra Town Planning Scheme-III, C. T. S. No.E/322, admeasuring 1063 sq. meters together with building standing thereon known as Ashok Hind, situated at 15th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400052; and on the strength of ownership of the said property, the Complainant Society executed an agreement dated 29/8/2001 in favour of the Opposite Parties to enable the Opposite Parties to consume the unconsumed FSI available on the said plot and also to procure TDR by purchasing the same from the open market to construct additional floors on the existing building belonging to the Complainant Society. According to the Opposite Parties, on bare perusal of the agreement, the Complainant Society is seeking indirectly specific performance of the agreement dated 29/8/2001 for which, it should have approached the Civil Court. This case does not fall within the ambit of Section-2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; on which ground, the complaint may be dismissed. The Opposite Parties pleaded that for a variety of reasons, though the agreement was executed on 29/8/2001, one of the members of the Complainant Society deliberately withheld his consent, which was finally procured on 18/5/2002 and it is only then, the Opposite Parties could apply for Commencement Certificate. Commencement Certificate was ultimately issued to the Opposite Parties on 25/9/2002 and as per clause (13) of the agreement, the Opposite Parties were supposed to apply for Occupancy Certificate within a period of two years from the date of Commencement Certificate. The Opposite Parties had made an application for procuring Occupancy Certificate on 7/10/2004. As such, there was a delay of 12 days, which was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties for which, payment as per Clause (13) of the agreement can be asked for. Besides this, as per agreement an amount of `1,76,000/-
was due and payable as per schedule of payment provided under the agreement. But said amount was not paid since there was notice issued under Section-226 of the Income Tax Act to the Complainant Society and since, no communication was received by the Opposite Parties from the Income Tax Authorities, they have not paid amount of `74,000/-
as per the agreement. So, at the most, total claim of the Complainant Society can be `1,34,000/-
and even if, claim for compensation and costs is added, total claim can be in the range of `1,60,000/-, which is far below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission, and therefore, the Opposite Parties pleaded that the complaint should be returned to the Complainant for filing it before the appropriate District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
[6] The Opposite Parties denied each & every allegation made in various paragraphs of the complaint. The Opposite Parties denied that there was a delay of 1273 days in procuring the Occupancy Certificate. The Opposite Parties denied that they had not complied with contractual obligations by providing adequate parking space to the existing owners. The Opposite Parties pleaded that since it is redevelopment of the society, there was no question of Opposite Parties making further provisions for parking on the said plot. The Opposite Parties denied that they were supposed to demolish existing garages, as alleged. The Opposite Parties denied that they were liable to remove the illegal shade and hand-over stilt parking and open parking space to the Complainant Society. The Opposite Parties further denied the architects report dated 12/5/2008, placed on the record by the Complainant Society. The Opposite Parties have raised a contention to the effect that the architects report was prepared at the behest of the Complainant society and it is a tailor-made report and as such, it is not binding upon the Opposite Parties. It is factually incorrect. The Opposite Parties denied that they had refused to hand-over documents as sought by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties deny that as per Clause (13) of the agreement, the Complainant Society is entitled to get claim of `47,90,000/-
towards damages for the delayed construction or for the delay in procuring Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate. The Opposite Parties further admitted that they have received a notice dated 2/2/2007, through the Complainant Societys advocate and the same was replied by the Opposite Parties, through their advocate. The Opposite Parties denied that they failed or neglected to discharge contractual obligation in completing the construction and arranging for Completion Certificate. The Opposite Parties pleaded that Occupancy Certificate was obtained on 14/11/2007 and as such, there is no question of cause of action being continuous. The Opposite Parties have denied the prayer clause made by the Complainant in the complaint. The Opposite Parties also prayed that the complaint as filed by the Complainant Society may be dismissed and delay in filing a consumer complaint should not be condoned.
[7] Both the parties to the complaint proceeding have filed their respective affidavits and supporting documents on the record.
[8] Heard Mr. U. B. Wavikar Learned Counsel for the Complainant; and Mr. S. B. Prabhawalkar Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
[9] Many objections have been taken by the Opposite Parties in their written version. However, we propose to deal some of them. As regards tenability of the complaint is concerned, we are of the strong view that in terms of agreement dated 29/8/2001, there was an agreement between the Complainant Society, on one hand and the Opposite Parties, as the Builder/ Developer, on the other. As per that agreement, services of the Opposite Parties were availed of by the Complainant Society and since there has been defects/deficiencies in service or lacunae in performance of the contract or in completion of the contract, we are of the considered view that the Complainant Society, who had given contract or who had availed services of the Opposite Parties, could file a consumer complaint within Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The definition of the term person, as defined under Section-2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; includes a firm, whether registered or not, Hindu Undivided Family or a Co-operative Society or every other association of persons, whether registered under the Societies Registration Act or not. Definition of person under Section-2(1)(m) of the said Act and definition of consumer under Section-2(1)(d) of the said Act, if read with definition of Complainant, as defined under Section-2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; would clearly mean that the Complainant Society herein can file a consumer complaint since it was a consumer with reference to the services hired of the Opposite Parties. In these circumstances, we hold that the present consumer complaint as filed by the Complainant Society is tenable before this State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and an objection raised about tenability of consumer complaint at the behest of the Complainant Society must be held to be not sustainable in law.
[10]Secondly, question of limitation is also pressed into service by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. In fact, when this complaint was filed, it was so filed since we had permitted the Complainant Society to file a fresh consumer complaint after they were duly authorized by the Managing Committee of the Society and as and when elected. Initially, when the Complainant Society was under an administrator, a consumer complaint came to be filed by the Members of the Managing Committee of the Complainant Society. At that time, we had passed an order of rejecting the complaint since it was filed by the members of the Managing Committee when the Complainant Society was superseded by the Government and was being administered by an Administrator. That was the order passed by this State Commission itself on 7/5/2009 in Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2007. Acting upon this order, wherein we had permitted the Complainant Society to file a consumer complaint after new Chairman or Honorary Secretary is newly elected and they are authorized to do so by a resolution passed to that effect in the meeting of the Managing Committee. It is in the light of this order, present consumer complaint came to be filed and it was so filed with an application for condonation of delay and we had allowed that application for condonation of delay. It was so allowed on 2/3/2010 in the present consumer complaint, which is registered as Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2009. We had condoned the delay by observing that monetary claim shall be decided with reference to law of limitation and the complaint was admitted since some prayers are such that they disclose continuous cause of action. This order was challenged by the Opposite Parties before the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by preferring a Revision Petition bearing No.2918 of 2010. However, the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission confirmed the order passed by this State Commission and dismissed the revision petition on 14/12/2010. As such, now we are required to see which prayer of the Complainant Society can be allowed and which prayer is required to be turned down, since barred by limitation.
[11] So far as monetary claim is concerned, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties has rightly pointed out that the agreement dated 29/8/2001 contained Clause (13), which mandated the Opposite Parties to procure Commencement Certificate within a period of six months from the date of execution of the said agreement and to apply for Occupancy Certificate within a period of 24 months from the issuance of the Commencement Certificate. Commencement Certificate was required to be procured on or before 29/2/2002 and the Occupancy Certificate had to be procured on or before 29/2/2004 and since the complaint is filed amongst many things to get Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate and since it is the case of the Complainant Society that for delay in completing construction, there was a penalty clause in the agreement and as per penalty clause, the Complainant Society was seeking compensation of `47,90,000/-
together with interest thereon @ 21% p.a., as from 15/11/2006. Likewise, the Complainant Society was also claiming unpaid monetary consideration of `1,25,000/-
together with interest thereon @ 21% p.a., with effect from 15/11/2006. This consumer complaint has been filed in the year 2009 and since, the amount of interest is claimed from 15/11/2006, that can be said to be a cause of action for claiming original amount as well as interest thereon and the complaint has been filed on 21/7/2009, which is clearly after a period of two years so far as monetary claim is concerned. Thus, we are of the strong view that the complaint as filed by the Complainant Society in respect of monetary claim, basically claim of `1,25,000/-
together with interest thereon @ 21% p.a., and another claim of `47,90,000/-
together with interest thereon @ 21% p.a., must be held to be barred by limitation and though we have allowed an application for condonation of delay, we had specifically mentioned thereon (in our order passed on delay condonation application) that we will be deciding monetary claim with reference to law of limitation and since these amounts are claimed in the year 2009, for which cause of action accrued much prior to the year 2006, we are of the view that these monetary claims are specifically barred by limitation and they are not saved despite our order of condoning the delay as mentioned supra. So, these two claims are held to be barred by limitation.
[12] So far as other reliefs are concerned, in terms of the architects report for defects and deficiencies in service, the Complainant Society has claimed an amount of `11,32,000/-.
Architects report is dated 12/5/2008 and as per the architect, by name Mr. Shrikant Hadke; there had been some defects/ deficiencies in completion of the construction for which, he had assessed the cost of repairs at `11,32,000/-.
However, Occupancy Certificate was issued by the concerned municipal authorities on 14/11/2006. This is an admitted position. Once Occupancy Certificate is issued, from that date within a period of two years one has to complain of deficiency in service or defects in construction or any other grievance by filing a consumer complaint. But this complaint as has been filed in the year 2009 is complaining of defects and deficiencies noted by the architect in his report dated 12/5/2008. We cannot rely upon this report of the architect for the simple reason that this architect was appointed by the Complainant Society on 22/4/2008, whereas earlier consumer complaint filed by the Complainant Society, which was rejected on technical grounds, was filed in the year 2007 being Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2007. In that complaint, report of this architect was not relied upon because at that time, this architect was not at all appointed. It means that to file a consumer complaint, the Complainant Society appointed Mr. Shrikant Hadke on 22/4/2008 and he submitted report about deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Parties on 12/5/2008. This is nothing but an afterthought. This report cannot be looked into or taken into account because within two years from the date of Occupancy Certificate this report was not got procured by the Complainant Society. After a period of four years since the date of Occupancy Certificate, this report was procured to claim additional amount of `11,00,000/-
by way of deficiencies and defects in construction carried out by the Opposite Parties. It is for this reason, we hold that what-ever recommendations have been made by the architect Mr. Hadke will have to be turned down or overlooked for the reason that within two years from the Occupancy Certificate these defects were not pointed out by filing any consumer complaint. Prescribed period for making out grievance in respect of deficiencies or defects on the part of the service provider is two years from the date of Occupancy Certificate because on that date one is entitled to occupy the premises and before occupying the tenement one has to inspect the premises and one may come to know on inspecting the premises what are the lacunae, defects or deficiencies left in the construction made by the service provider. So in our considered view, no relief can be granted in favour of the Complainant Society relying upon the architects report dated 12/5/2008.
[13]Grievance of the Complainant Society is further that the Opposite Parties have not given them building completion certificate, by procuring it from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The Complainant Society also prayed in paragraph (f) and in paragraph (i) of the complaint, as also, mentioned in prayer clause that the Opposite Parties may be directed to return original deed of conveyance, property card given by the Complainant Society to them and to hand-over original IOD, Commencement Certificate, Occupancy Certificate, approved plans and other necessary documents and certificates in possession of the Opposite Parties relating to the said construction work. The Complainant Society has also prayed in paragraph (g) of the prayer clause that the Opposite Parties should be directed to disclose all liabilities on an affidavit, arising out of development work carried out by them and to submit original receipts for having paid fully all such dues & liabilities to the respective authorities. The Complainant Society has also sought for a direction from the State Commission to the Opposite Parties to submit a certificate issued by the competent Government approved architect or from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai about the actual FSI consumed by the Opposite Parties and to further direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation towards excess FSI, if any, consumed by the Opposite Parties at the prevailing market rate. So far as first limb of this prayer is concerned, we are of the view that this request of the Complainant Society can be acceded to, but so far as latter part of this prayer is concerned, we cannot direct the Opposite Parties on the assumption or hypothesis that the Opposite Parties must have consumed excess FSI and if, they have so consumed excess FSI, they should pay compensation to the Complainant Society for excess consumption of FSI. This latter portion of the prayer in prayer clause (h) cannot be granted because it is simply hypothetical proposition or it is based on contingency not well demonstrated so as to pass any award in that behalf.
[14] In the prayer clause (j), the Complainant Society has prayed that the Opposite Parties should be directed to demolish illegal shade or garage and the Complainant Society should be put in possession of said demolished portion, as also, stilt parking space and open parking space to the Complainant Society free from encumbrances. This sort of prayer, as it is a composite one, cannot be granted by the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; because demolition of any illegal shade is a matter which is required to be taken to Civil Court and not before the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. With a limited summary jurisdiction we are having, we cannot pass such an order of demolition of illegal shade or garage, and therefore, this prayer cannot be allowed.
[15] In the light of discussions made hereinabove, we are inclined to direct the Opposite Parties to arrange for building Completion Certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, so also, to give all the documents as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the prayer clause of the complaint. We also can direct the Opposite Parties to submit a certificate issued any competent Government approved architect or from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai about the consumption of actual FSI by the Opposite Parties in carrying out the construction or redevelopment of the Complainant Societys building. We are also inclined to grant some compensation for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant Society by the acts or omission on the part of the Opposite Parties and to that extent we are inclined to grant reasonable compensation of `50,000/-
to the Complainant Society. Likewise, we are also inclined to grant an amount of `25,000/-
to the Complainant Society from the Opposite Parties towards costs of litigation. No other relief can be granted while allowing this complaint.
With this, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER [1] The complaint is partly allowed.
[2] The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed to hand-over to the Complainant Society, original Deed of Conveyance & Property Card, original IOD, Commencement Certificate, Occupancy Certificate, Building Completion Certificate, approved plans alongwith all other necessary documents and certificate in possession of the Opposite Parties relating to the redevelopment work carried out by the Opposite Parties of the Complainant Societys building;
[3] The Opposite Parties shall also submit to the Complainant Society, a certificate issued either by a competent Government approved architect or by concerned officer of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; as regards actual FSI consumed by the Opposite Parties while carrying out the redevelopment work of the Complainant Societys building;
[4] The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the Complainant Society; an amount of `50,000/-
by way of compensation;
[5] The Opposite Parties shall also pay to the Complainant Society, an amount of `25,000/-
towards costs.
[6] The Opposite Parties shall comply with the foregoing order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a., as from the date of expiry of stipulated period of two months till realization of entire amount by the Complainant Society.
[7] Rest of the claims of
the Complainant Society stands rejected.
[8] Copies of the order be
furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 13th
June, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]
Member
kvs