State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Vir Bhan Sharma vs Cidco Ltd on 23 February, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMM CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI First Appeal no. 1523/2008 Date of Filing: 3/12/2008 Consumer Complaint No.126/2008 District Consumer Forum: Thane (Addditional) Date of Order: 23/02/2010 Mr.Vir Bhan Sharma, Appellant Office at Shop no.5, (Org. Complainant) Gr.floor, Shiv Triveni Galleria, Sector- 8, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai. V/S 1. Assistant Estate Officer, Respondents CIDCO Ltd., Nerul Node, (Org.Opp.Parties) Navi Mumbai- 400 706. 2. M/s. CIDCO Ltd., CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614. Quorum : Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon'ble President Mr.S.R.Khanzode,Honble Judicial Member.
Mr.D.Khamatkar, Honble Member.
Present:
Appellant in person.
Adv.Mr.Sameer N.Patil @ Adv.Mr.Prakash Kadam for respondent.
:- ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.B.Mhase, Honble President :
This appeal takes an exception to the order passed by Additional District Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.126/2008 dated 24/10/2008. By the said order the complaint has been dismissed.
The flat no. A-5/12/3, Millennium Towers, Sector-9, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai was standing in the name of appellant/org.complainant and his wife which was purchased for consideration of Rss.12,87,440/- as per agreement dated 02/03/2006 and on the same date they were placed in the possession of the flat. The wife of the complainant expired on 17/05/2008 and therefore, the flat was to be transferred in the name of complainant/respondent and for the said purpose the complainant approached to the CIDCO authorities. The complainant was informed that he should get heirship certificate and therefore, the complainant approached Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane by filing M.A.no.134/2007 wherein heirship certificate was granted by Civil Judge, Senior Division on 31/01/2008. It was produced before respondent/CIDCO authorities. After perusal of said certificate, it was returned to the complainant/appellant. On the next day of production of the heirship certificate, the flat in question was transferred in the name of the appellant. There is no dispute about the same. Only grievance of the complainant is that when the certificate was returned by the Clerk of CIDCO authorities, the complainant alleges that, said clerk of CIDCO stated that said certificate was not necessary and on production of NOC of the society, the flat could have been transferred in the name of the of appellant and therefore, the complainant/appellant has contended that he was required to spent an amount of Rs.38,000/- for obtaining said certificate which was not required under the law and he was put to the loss of Rs.38,000/- and therefore, he filed complaint in the District Forum. CIDCO has stated that at the relevant time society of the flat owners of the Millennium Towers was not formed though the proposal for formation of society. CIDCO submitted that at the relevant time society was formed in the month of October-2006. It is also admitted that complainant/appellant had approached CIDCO authorities in 2006 for transfer of the said flat. Since the society was not formed, the case of the complainant can not be considered under Section 30 read with Rule 25 of Maharahstra Co-operative Societies Act for transfer of share certificate and flat holding inquiry under said provisions and therefore, it became necessary for CIDCO authorities to instruct complainant to get heir-ship certificate. Counsel for the CIDCO further submitted that as the provisions of Maharahstra Co-operative Societies Act could not be invoked, the CIDCO authorities have replied upon the by-law no.L-3 and said action of CIDCO is proper and supported the order of District Forum. Therefore he relied upon by-laws of CIDCO and more specifically, the by-law no.L-3 and therefore, he submit that action taken by CIDCO was proper and complaint has been rightly rejected by the District Forum.
Since it is admitted fact that at the relevant time when the complainant approached to the CIDCO authorities, the society was not formed and therefore, in any way inquiry under Section 30 read with Rule 25 Maharahstra Co-operative Societies Act cannot be made for transfer of property by heirship. Under these circumstances, CIDCO has no option but to follow its own by-laws. By-law no.L
(ii) reads as follows:
Transfer/Assignment in case of death of original lease holders:
the leasehold rights are transferred to the successors on the basis of (a) Letter of Administration or b) Probate of will or (c) Succession certificate or (d) Heirship Certificate. Such transfer is allowed on payment of nominal administration charges of Rs.500/- only.
What we find that under the above referred circumstances, the CIDCO was right in invoking said by-law and therefore, its letter asking heirship certificate is justified and on production of such heir-ship certificate next day the property has been transferred and therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of CIDCO. The complaint has been rightly rejected by the District Forum. We uphold the said order. The appeal is without any merits. Hence we pass the following order:-
:-ORDER-:
1.
Appeal stands rejected.
2. Dictated on dais in presence of parties.
3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.
(D.Khamatkar) (S.R.Khanzode) (S.B.Mhase) Member Judicial Member President Nbh