HUBTOWN LTD Vs. VIMAL BHANNUDAS VARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present batch of the Revision Petitions under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties in the Complaint before the District Forum, assailing the Common Order dtd. 12/10/2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal Nos. A/15/1001 to A/15/1031. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed all the First Appeals preferred by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the Common Order dtd. 30/4/2015 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Mumbai Sub-Urban District (for short, "the District Forum") in Complaint Nos. 08/2009 to 38/2009 and upheld Order of the District Forum. By the said Order, the District Forum while partly allowing the Complaints filed by the Complainants, has directed the Petitioners/Opposite Parties to pay a compensation of ?3,00,000/- to each of the Complainants for mental torture and harassment within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the Order failing which the amount was to carry interest @18% p.a. from 7/1/2007 till actual payment. Besides, Petitioners were also directed to pay a sum of ?10,000/- to each of the Complainants for cost of litigation.

(2.) Since all the Revision Petitions have arisen from a Common Order passed by the State Commission, we dispose of the same with this Common Order.

(3.) Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petitions are that the Complainants were residing at Rukminibai Chawl, Room No. 60, Saiwadi, Teligalli, Andheri (East), Mumbai situated on the land City Survey No. 428, 429 and 430, Revenue Gundavali, Tehsil Andhri, Mumbai Suburban District. Under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Government of Maharashtra has declared the said land as Slum and gave a right to the Hut Holders/Slum Dwellers to appoint the Developer for development of the said Slum. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties promised to the Respondents/Complainants and other Hut Holders to give a permanent accommodation in lieu of their premises in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and the Respondents/Complainants accordingly accepted the said offer. Necessary approval in this regard was obtained from Saiwadi Slum Rehabilitation Authority by the Petitioners. An Agreement dtd. 26/12/1994 (for short, the "Agreement") was executed between the parties, according to which the Petitioners were allowed to construct Free Sale Buildings along with the Rehabilitation Buildings for rehabilitation of the Slum Dwellers including Complainants. In terms of the Agreement and the guidelines of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Petitioners were under an obligation to give permanent alternative Flats to the Complainants and other Hut Holders within a period of 18 to 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. On 19/5/2005, the Respondents/ Complainants and other Hut Holders received a notice from the Petitioners to vacate their huts and hence they vacated the land in the month of May, 2005 and shifted to a Transit Camp. However, since possession could not be handed over within the stipulated time, after protests from the Respondents, the Petitioners in writing on 2/4/2007, promised to the Complainants to hand over the possession within next 15 months. But still the Petitioners failed to keep their promise and possession could not be handed over to the Respondents. A notice dtd. 22/8/2008 was also served upon the Petitioners asking them to hand over the possession of the alternative Flats. Vide reply dtd. 16/9/2008, the Petitioners denied to having committed to give the possession within 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was alleged by the Complainants in the Complaints that although the Hut Holders were promised to be given Permanent Alternative Flats admeasuring 225 sq. ft. free of costs in exchange of their residing house under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Petitioners were getting the Floor Space Index (FSI) and Transferable Development Right (TDR) free of costs having area of 225 Sq. Ft. from the Government of Maharashtra in lieu of flats free of costs. It is further alleged that the Petitioners had given first priority for construction of the Sale Building and sold the flats and had avoided to construct rehabilitation building for accommodating the Slum Dwellers. Feeling aggrieved the Complainants filed the various complaints before the District Forum.