Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15.    Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 in the original complaint case stated that they are the directors of the opposite party No.1.  Learned counsel referred to the following observations of the State Commission:-

 "Now the crucial question is whether the opponents are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  It is vehemently urged on behalf of the complainants that amenities as represented, promised and assured to be provided to the flat purchasers are not provided till date.  As per representations made, the opponents failed to give parking space at basement, failed to leave recreation ground besides the building Monte Vista.  The recreation ground as per new plan is shifted to podium level.  Area of recreation ground is reduced.  The flat purchasers have invested huge amount for purchase of their dream houses but the acts of opponent no.1 are contradictory to the disclosure, promises and the representations made by them.

16.    Learned counsel further stated that the State Commission has relied on various other things beyond the main agreement, which cannot be permitted.  The State Commission has further observed the following:-

"Subsequently, opponent no.1 submitted latest plan to opponent no.4 in which recreation ground is not shown on ground floor, so also, parking space for residents of building was changed.  The latest plan with reference to letter dated 14/11/2014 issued by opponent no.4 is not disputed by the opponent. As per latest plan permission was obtained to make construction of new building i.e. 6th building.  In the said plan, recreation ground is not shown on ground floor but it was shown at podium level.  According to complainants not providing recreational space at ground level is a contravention of the directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court.  It is against the law of land."
37.    It is clear that there is no object of safeguarding or protecting the interests of the consumers in general or even of members of the association in general, however, in some specific fields, the promotion of interests of its members has been mentioned in the list of objects of the association. As the complaint has been filed on behalf of the members of the association and not for any outside consumer, it is required to be seen whether the reliefs claimed in the complaint correspond to any objective of the association. From this aspect, it is seen that the last object i.e. object No. (P)  mentions an object to do such other things which are incidental conducive to attainment of above objects. Object (D) relates to organizing different sports and to work for promotion of sports. The complainant association has claimed relief in respect of the recreation ground which is a space to organize sports and for other cultural activities and thus, the relief demanded in respect of the recreation ground is definitely linked to the object of the association. Hence, for this relief, the complainant association would be considered as a voluntary association competent to file the complaint in respect of this relief. For other reliefs sought in the complaint, the complainant No.1 association cannot be considered as a voluntary association competent to file the complaint in respect of these reliefs because the objects of the complainant association do not have any clause relating to safeguarding or protecting the interests of the consumers in general or of its members in general or even in respect of the reliefs claimed in the complaint except the relief in respect of recreation ground.
38.    On merits, the appellants/opposite parties are aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission in respect of the parking spaces and the recreation ground.  The recreation ground was originally proposed on the ground floor in the plan and accordingly the occupation certificate has also been issued.  However, in the revised plan, it has been shifted to the podium level.  The learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has claimed that the permission was given by the Executive Engineer for shifting of the recreation ground from ground level to podium level.  The question is whether this is the approval of the competent authority and whether the revised plan was approved.  The revised plan has been approved only in the year 2014 and by that time the law in this regard was propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in respect of the recreation ground in its judgment Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. Vs. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited & anr. (supra), wherein the following has been held:-