State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Lukesh Pillani vs Tricity Grand Chs.Ltd. And Ors on 20 September, 2024
A/20/572
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/20/572
(Arisen out of order dated 25/09/2019 in Complaint No.119 of 2018 passed by
the District Consumer Commission Thane Additional)
Mr.Lukesh Pillani,
Having Address at:
Flat No.B-704, Tricity Grand Co-operative Society
Ltd., Plot Nos.33, 33A, 34, 42, 43,
Sector-30, Kharghar 410 210 ....... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Tricity Grand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Having Address at:
Plot Nos.33, 33A, 34, 42, 43,
Sector-30, Kharghar 410 210.
2. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
Sector 15-A, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai - 400 614.
3. City & Industrial Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Limited,
CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur,
.........Respondent(s)
Navi Mumbai - 400 614.
BEFORE:
Justice S.P.Tavade - President
Poonam V. Maharshi - Member
For the Appellant(s): Advocate Sampat along with advocate
Arunkumar Yadav
For the Respondent(s): Advocate Kanchan Kambli
1
A/20/572
ORDER
(20/09/2024) Per Ms.Poonam V. Maharshi - Member:
(1) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 25/09/2019 in Complaint No.119/2018 dismissing the complaint, Complainant has filed this appeal.
(2) Facts giving rise to file this appeal may be summarised as under:
Complainant no.1 is member of the opponent no.1 Society and is paying maintenance. The opponent no.1 is co-operative Housing Society registered under the Provisions of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act. The opponent no.2 is the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The opponent no.3 is City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO). The complainant has submitted that till the date of filing of the complaint the share certificate was not received by the complainant or Complainant's Banker. He further contended that share certificate has to be issued within six months from formation of society and the society was formed on 21/01/2013. The complainant has further submitted that for the purpose of obtaining share certificate no other formality was pending from the Complainant and on the other hand nothing is stopped the society from issuing the same. He has further contended that on or before 22/08/2011 he had taken home loan from Citibank N.A. with interest @10% per annum. For having additional funds requirement he approached Citi Bank for top-up loan with application on 21/02/2017 who gave the complainant 2 A/20/572 limited time to provide documents to comply with the top-up loan formalities. The said time expired on 21/06/2017. Though the complainant has provided the format for the NOC to the Chairman of the Society by e-mail, society was negligent and has issued NOC not only in wrong format but also in wrong date. The Citi Bank then wrote letter to the society to make proper compliance but the opponent society delayed the said matter. The opponent no.1 via e- mail dated 07/04/2017 had taken stand that they will issue share certificate only to Bank but till filing of the complaint the same has not been issued. No NOC has been issued by the opponent no.1 society. It is contended that for obtaining top-up loan Bank requires NOC from CIDCO which in turn requires NOC from the Society which till the date of filing of the complaint was not provided by the Society. Also to the best of the knowledge of the Complainant the NOC has not been given to CIDCO as well. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent no.1 Hence, the complainant has filed complaint for directing the Society to pay Rs.2,57,985/- being the excess money the complainant had to pay over 117 months as the society failed to issue NOC and did not handover share certificate. The society be directed to handover original share certificate to the complainant along with compensation and costs. The opponent no.2 Municipal Corporation to ensure that the premises are as per the sanctioned plan of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Opponent no.2 be directed to remove the unauthorised construction in Tricity Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. along with compensation and costs.3
A/20/572 (3) Notice of the complaint was issued to the opponents. Opponent no.1 appeared and filed their written statement but opponent nos.2 and 3 failed to file their written statement. Hence No written statement order was passed against opponent nos.2 and 3.
(4) The opponent no.1 by filing written version denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint. It was also contended that the allegation made by the complainant that share certificate was not given is baseless as he failed to verify his own record with the opponent no.1 as they had issued NOC on 17/03/2017 and his wife namely Mrs.Sapana Lukesh Sahani received the same and the same is verified by Citi Bank's Executive and acknowledged in their e-
mail. They have further submitted that the share certificate of the member as per the resolution/policy of the said society original share certificate was handed over to the concerned Bank as and when required and photocopy of the same will be provided to the members. The above said procedure adopted to avoid fraud and forgery for multiple funding/loan on the same flat. Therefore, the opponent has modus operandi that if any member of the said society required share certificate for the sake of the financial institution or bank then for the sake of precautions from the fraud and multiple loan against one flat they handover to the financial institution/bank.
(5) Further they have contended that the complainant had mortgaged the flat with the Citi Bank and now he required the share certificate for top-up loan but he never disclosed the said fact to the society. Further they have submitted that they were ready to co-operate and 4 A/20/572 handover share certificate to Citi Bank and for that purpose their chair person had a talk with the employee of the Citi Bank and requested him to collect share certificate through authorised representative but the complainant as well as the Citi Bank employee did not take any initiative. They have further contended that as per the request in the month of February, 2017 of the Complainant, the Society immediately issued NOC in favour of Citi Bank dated 17/03/2017. Therefore, there arises no question of negligence or unfair trade practice. Therefore, the opponent no.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint of the complainant.
(6) The complainant filed this evidence but no evidence has been adduced by opponent no.2. On going through the evidence on record it appears that the District Commission framed the issues and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the subject property is situated within the limits of Khargar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Therefore, according to Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction of the District Commission.
(7) After hearing advocates for both the parties and perusing the record before us, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Commission of dismissal of consumer complaint is not proper and hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby partly allowed.5
A/20/572
(ii) The order dated 25/09/2019 passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consumer Complaint No.CC/18/119 is returned to the complainant for the proper presentation and he is permitted to institute the complaint before the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigad for proceeding according to law.
(iv) No order as to costs.
(v) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
[Justice S.P. Tavade]
President
[Poonam V. Maharshi]
Member
emp
6