1. Heard Mr.Dnyanaraj Sant, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate for the opposite party.
2. Aforementioned complaint has been filed for following reliefs:-
“(a) The present complaint may kindly be ordered to be allowed in toto, please.
(b) The Opponent may kindly be ordered/directed to execute and register Deed of Conveyance/Sale Deed in favour of the Society, regarding the buildings constructed by the opponent, all the common arrears, passages, ways, common terraces etc. in the favour of the complainant society, at the cost and consequences of the opponent, within a period six weeks from the date of order of this Hon’ble Commission, please.
(c) The opponent may kindly be directed to hand over all the common terraces, common parking’s common areas, ways, passages and all the common amenities and facilities, to and unto the complainant society not to create any hurdles to the members of the complainant society from using the same perpetually, please.
d) The opponent be ordered /directed to provide all the documents mentioned in clause 11 (Eleven) above, to the complainant society, at the costs and consequences of the opponent, within a period of 4 weeks, from the date of the order of this Hon’ble Commission, please.
(e) The opponent may kindly be ordered/directed to pay Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rs. Five Crores only) for causing deficiency in service for indulging into unfair trade practice, for causing mental harassment and agony and for not executing the deed of Conveyance in time, please.
(f) Punitive damages of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three crores only) may kindly be awarded from the opponent to the complainant, as per the provisions of Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 please.
(g) Cost of this complaint Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs only) may kindly be awarded from the Opponent, please.
(h) It may kindly be declared that the opponent has caused deficiency in service to the complainant and the opponent has also indulged into unfair trade practice, as contemplated in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, please.
(i) Any other just and equitable orders even if not specifically prayed for, be passed in the interest of justice, please.”
3. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant is Co-Operative Housing Society duly registered under the Maharashtra, Societies Act, 1960 and the opposite party is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development and construction of multi-storey building in Pune City. The complainant was owner of S.No.13/10/2 and 13/11 (total area 7,900 sq.mtrs.) at village Dhayari Taluka, Haveli, District Pune. The complainant wanted development and construction of apartments for the members of the society and necessary declaration from Additional Collector, Pune in respect of aforementioned land for non-agricultural land had been obtained on 21.11.1996. The complainant approached the opposite party for development and construction of flats over the aforesaid land, which was agreed between them and development agreement dated 11.01.2005 was executed and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Pune. Subsequently a registered power of attorney was also executed in favour of the partner of opposite party to do necessary work relating to development and construction of multi-storey building on their behalf. The opposite party developed the said property and constructed multi-storey building named as Sai Puram which consists of 119 flats in it. The possession over the flats were delivered to the members of the complainant Society in the year 2009. However, the opposite party has not executed conveyance deed in favour of the members of the Society as required under Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (at present the aforesaid Act has been deleted by Maharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Act, 2012 which is operative). As and when the office bearer of the Society approached the opposite party for execution of the conveyance deed then they took shelter that three of the flats were not sold and as soon as it is sold the conveyance deed would be executed. It may be mentioned that the members of the society have also deposited Rs.40,000/-, per head/ members, the charges of Maharashtra State Electricity Board for electricity connection and installation of meters. When the Members were not satisfied with the excuse taken by the opposite party for not executing the conveyance deed then they gave a legal notice dated 12.06.2019 which was replied by the opposite party on 28.11.2019. Again vague and absurd reply was given. The opposite party is legally bound to execute the conveyance deed. On these allegations, the complaint has been filed on 25.02.2020.
4. By the order dated 16.06.2020 notice has been issued to the opposite party for filing his written statement/reply under Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1919 fixing 28.10.2020. Although, notice has been served upon the opposite party on 05.08.2020, but he did not file the written statement/reply. The Commission by order dated 28.10.2020 found that maximum statutory period of 45 days for filing the reply has expired as such right of the opposite party for filing the written version was closed. The opposite party moved an application RA/32/2021 for review of the order dated 28.10.2020 which was also rejected on 05.04.2021. Thereafter the matter was heard on 05.08.2021.
5. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The facts relating to ownership of the land of the society and the development and construction agreement between the parties dated 11.01.2005 and construction of multi-storey building and delivery of possession over the flats to the members of the Co-operative Society has not been challenged in the argument. The only argument has been raised by the counsel for the opposite party that the valuation of this complaint has been exaggeratedly made in order to confer the jurisdiction in this Commission. Although, according to its real valuation it was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission. He further submits that although admittedly the possession was delivered in 2009, but the complaint was filed in the year 2020 and it is highly time barred.
6. We have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Regarding limitation, the opposite party is bound to execute the sale/conveyance deed of the flats in favour of th
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e members of the Co-operative Society as such it is a continuing cause of action and the complaint is not barred by limitation. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been denied, nor challenged in the oral argument. ORDER In the circumstances, the complaint succeeds and is allowed with the cost of Rs.2 Lakh. The cost shall be paid to the office bearer of the society and opposite party is directed to execute the conveyance deed/sale deed in favour of the members of the Society in respect of the flats, which was allotted to them in Sai Puram situated at S.No.13/10/2 and 13/11 at village Dhayari Taluka, Haveli, District Pune within three months from the date of service of certified copy of the order upon them.