State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Royal Construction vs Shri Janardan H Patil on 16 March, 2018
1 [FA/15/694]
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.FA/15/694
(Arisen out of Judgment and Order dated 05/01/2015 passed by Ld.Raigad District
Forum, Alibaug in consumer complaint No.16 of 2011)
1.M/s.Royale Constructions
Proprietary Firm Office
C/1202, Rameshwar Neelkanth
Height, Shivaji Nagar,
Pokhran Road No.2,
Thane (W).
2.Mrs.Neha vijay Rane
Proprietor of
M/s.Royale Constructions
R/at- Thi.C/1202, Rameshwar Neelkanth
Height, Shivaji Nagar,
Pokhran Road No.2,
Thane (W). Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Shri.Janardan H.Patil
R/at-Thi.Flat No.302,
Neha Apartment,
Plot No.92, Sector 34,
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai 410 209.
2.Shri.Sanjay Satappa Patil
R/at-Thi.Flat No.401,
Neha Apartment,
Plot No.92, Sector 34,
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai 410 209.
3.Shri.Rajesh Pandurang Bhosale
R/at-Thi.Flat No.204,
Neha Apartment,
Plot No.92, Sector 34,
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai 410 209.
4.Shri.Madhukar Vishnu Sawant
R/at-Thi.Flat No.201,
Neha Apartment,
Plot No.92, Sector 34,
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai 410 209.
5.Shri.Ramkrishna S.Dongare
R/at-Thi.Flat No.101,
Neha Apartment,
2 [FA/15/694]
Plot No.92, Sector 34,
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai 410 209.
6.Shri.Sunil Dalpatbhai Patel
R/at-Thi.Flat No.102,
Neha Apartment,
Plot No.92, Sector 34,
Kamothe, Navi Mumbai 410 209. Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Hon'ble Mr.A.K.Zade, Member
PRESENT:
For the
Appellant(s): Advocate Shri. Nagraj Hoskeri
For the
Respondent(s) : Advocate Shri.Prashant Patil for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
[1] Heard submissions at the bar. By present appeal, appellant has challenged validity and legality of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 05/01/2015 passed by Ld. Raigad District Forum, Alibaug in consumer complaint No.16 of 2011 whereby the Award was passed directing the opponents (appellant) to take steps to convey the plot No.92 sector 34 Tamothe, Navi Mumbai, Neha Apartment to the co-operative housing society of the flat pruchasers therein with direction to pay the sum of Rs.40,000/- which was deposited with CIDCO by flat purchasers. The opponents were directed to pay service charges payable to CIDCO in respect of property as arrears of N.A. taxes payable to the Tahasildar concerned and compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh. [2] Grievance of the appellant is that there was no lieu sort u/s 12(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the flat purchasers who filed the complaint. Our attention is invited to the certified copy of the application u/s 12(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 dated 24/02/2011 preferred by the complainant which was allowed by the 3 [FA/15/694] Ld.District Forum. That being so, the complaint cannot be bad as necessary permission was granted by Ld.District Forum u/s 12 (1) ( c) of the Act to the complainant. Another grievance is that purchasers together had deposited sum of Rs.40,000/- with CIDCO. That amount could not have been directed to be refunded by issuing direction to the opponent Nos.1 and 2 as the said amount was paid towards water charges. This submission is not disputed. [3] The grievance is also made regarding compensation which complainants had claimed for each of them in the sum of Rs.One lakh. Ld.District Forum, however, limited the compensation amount to the sum of Rs.One Lakh collectively. Accordingly to the Ld.Advocate for appellant one of the flat purchaser Shri.Sunil Dalpatbhai Patel resold the flat and left the project and he is not entitled for compensation or relief granted in his favour by the Ld.District Forum.
[4] While according to the Ld.Advocate for the Respondent compensation granted was low on side as each of the flat purchases had demanded sum of Rs.One Lakh payable to each of them. [5] We have considered the submission in the light of Judgment and Order awarded in favour of the flat purchasers and their society. In our view, since Shri.Sunil Dalpatbhai Patel left after reselling the flat, his name shall be deleted. We direct accordingly the complainants to delete his name from the proceedings in execution before the Ld.District Forum and appellant shall also delete the name of Shri.Sunil Dalpatbhai Patel from the memorandum of appeal. There was no dispute regarding occupancy permission. Considering the legal position that builder/ promoter/developer is under statutory obligation under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 to construct the building, compete the same and convey the right, title and interest therein to the Co-operative Housing Society or Association of the flat purchasers. We do not find anything wrong in this regard in the impugned Judgment and Order. However, we direct that the clause No.6 of the operative part of impugned Order shall be deleted and name of the Shri.Sunil Dalpatbhai Patel shall also be deleted and 4 [FA/15/694] executing Ld.District Forum is free to enforce the rest of the order as against the opponents. We accordingly partly allow the appeal and modify the same. Water charges paid by flat purchasers to CIDCO shall be recovered by flat purchasers from CIDCO.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties. Pronounced on 16th March, 2018 [JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [A.K.ZADE] MEMBER rsc