ABHINI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD Vs. SWAPNAPURTI CHS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 22.11.2019 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.A/16/459 whereby Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Respondent/Complainant is a cooperative housing society having office at Ghatkopar, Maharashtra. Petitioner/Opposite Party constructed a building "Manas Sarovar" in city survey No.2 (pt.), 15 (pt.) and 20 (pt.) at Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The flat owners got possession of their respective flats in the year 2009. Thereafter on 25.05.2010 Swapanpurti Co-operative Housing Society/Complainant was registered and the flat owners became its members. The case of the Respondent/Complainant is that while handing over possession of the flats, water supply from the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was not provided, though it was agreed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties that the same would be provided. The Complainant was therefore compelled to get water through water tankers by spending huge amount. The Petitioners also did not provide access from the building to the main road nor street lighting. The Petitioners also did not connect the building to the main sewage line and therefore sewage was spreading outside. The Petitioners also had not properly carried out waterproofing work and the building suffered from leakage problems. According to the Respondent/Complainant, the Petitioners did not construct the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan and several deficiencies were noticed. Respondent also stated that the Petitioners did not convey the building as well as the land in favour of the Complainant Society. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with following prayer: -

(3.) The Petitioners/Opposite Parties contested the case as being false and frivolous and being barred by limitation. The flat holders, at the time of taking possession of their flats, gave an undertaking that they would not complain against the Petitioners regarding municipal water supply nor claim any compensation for the same and therefore at this stage cannot complain and seek compensation for the same. The other contentions of the Complainant that the building had no access to the main road was also denied. The street lights provided by them were damaged by the nearby slum dwellers and the Petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same. Parking space within the building was also provided and could not be disputed at this stage. The flat owners had accepted possession of the flats way back in the year 2009. The complaint of leakage had been made two years after the actual leakage and hence the Petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same. Leakages could have been caused due to internal structural changes made by the flat owners and due to social events held on the terrace. The Complainant had also not taken any action for transfer of land in favour of the Society and as such was barred by limitation. In view of the above, the Petitioner/Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.