State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Girishikhar Building 'A'Co-Operative ... vs M/S Shyam Developers, on 11 May, 2012
UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/10/436
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 18/03/2010 in Case No. 548/2005 of District
Mumbai(Suburban))
1. GIRISHIKHAR
BUILDING
'A'CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY (PROPOSED), THROUGH ITS SECRETARY:MR.R.S.
ANGRE,
KAJUPADA, NEAR ABHINAV NAGAR, BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI
1. GIRISHIKHAR
BUILDING
'A'CO-OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY LTD., A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE MCS
ACT, 1960THROUGH ITS SECRETARY:MR.R.S. ANGRE,
KAJUPADA, NEAR ABHINAV NAGAR, BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S SHYAM DEVELOPERS,
THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR.DWARKESH PANCHMATIA,
102 RAM
DARSHAN CSC ROAD NO 3 DAHISAR (E) MUMBAI
400 068.
Maharastra
2. M/s. Ardour Builders Private Limited (Formerly
known as Nakshatra Builders Private Limited)
Thru its Director Mr. Shantilal Bohra, 101,
Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grant Hyatt, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055.
Maharashtra.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Building Proposals (West Sub.) 'R' Ward,
Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Market Bldg.,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai.
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr.S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mr.M.D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Prsiding Judicial Member:(1)
This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, in Consumer Complaint No.548/2005 decided on 18th March, 2010.(2)
The complaint was filed by Girishankar Building A Co-op. Hsg.
Society (proposed), through its secretary Mr.R.S. Angre and they had impleaded the present Respondent in the complaint. In the complaint the Complainant has prayed for so many things, the reliefs about procurement of water connection by construction of auxiliary tank immediately, to arrange for completion certificate and occupation certificate from the Municipal Corporation, to remove all illegal construction on the rear side of the building and the stilt floor and making the full stilt parking area available to the Society as per the original approved plan, to carry out pending repairs of the flats, namely cracks in the walls, leakage from the terrace, drainage and plumbing etc., to form cooperative society, to handover accounts and advance maintenance charges, share capital account etc. to transfer the electric meters and water connection, to execute the conveyance deed, in the name of the society, these were the main reliefs. However, the District Forum upon objection taken by the Opponent nos.1 to 3 held that the proposed Society of the flat purchasers which had filed consumer complaint cannot be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the District Forum by its impugned order dismissed the complaint.(3)
Aggrieved by this order of dismissal the original Complainants have filed this appeal. When this appeal was pending challenging the impugned order, the flat purchasers themselves formed the Co.operative Society, registered it and that registered Society has been impleaded as Appellant No.2 as per the order passed by this Commission on 8th June, 2011. That order was challenged by the Opponent No.1 Shyam Developers by filing Revision Petition No.2696/2011 before the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Honble National Commission held that the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction and therefore, the National Commission was pleased to direct this Commission to dispose of the appeal on merit.(4)
We are finding that since complaint was dismissed only on the ground that unregistered Society cannot be said to be consumer and since the Appellant No.2 is the Registered Society of the Appellant No.1 they can very well continue with the complaint in the District Forum because the District Forum has dismissed the complaint only on this ground and therefore, this ground is now not existent. So, we are inclined to remit this complaint back to District Forum for fresh hearing. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 18.03.2010 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, in Consumer Complaint No.548/2005 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Consume complaint is remitted back to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, Bandra, Mumbai with a direction to decide the consumer complaint afresh. All the issues are kept open. We direct District Forum to permit all the parties to file fresh affidavits, if any. All the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.06.2012.
(iv) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 11th May, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep