DILIP BAPAT Vs. PANCHAVATI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants, D.N. Bapat and Mrs. M.D. Bapat are members of Panchavati Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (respondent herein which is hereinafter referred to as the Society). The Society is constructing flats for allotment to its members. These appellants paid Rs. 60,500/- each as part payment towards the flat allotted to each of them. The flats were still to be constructed. The cost of each flat was Rs. 1 lac. Out of the remaining cost of the flat, Rs. 37,000/- were to be paid in instalments and Rs. 2,500/- were to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. The construction work had to be stopped by the Society in compliance with the notice issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Corporation removed the objection on 10th May, 1989 and the work was restarted by the Society. There was some dispute between the appellants and the Society about the payment of remaining amount, perhaps, due to the alleged escalation in the cost of construction. The Society was demanding more amount from each of the appellants. The appellants filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, New Bombay, alleging that they had stopped paying the installments as the construction work was stopped due to certain objections by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the Society had orally ordered the members not to pay the balance amount. It was also pleaded by the appellants that they wanted to raise loans for the payment of the instalments by the society, but the society was not furnishing them fresh certificates so as to enable them to obtain loan from the financing agencies. The complainants, therefore, prayed for the grant of Rs. 2,09,100/- as compensation.

(2.) The society contested the complaint petition on many grounds. However, it is not necessary to refer to them because before the State Commission the Society had stated that if the complainants paid the balance with interest the Society can undertake the completion of the remaining construction of the flats at the earliest because no construction could be made by the Society unless the funds were provided by the members (complainants are admittedly members of the Society). The State Commission remarked that the complainants would cooperate with the Society for payment of their balance amount of Rs. 39,500/- each, which was admitted by them with interest at the permissible rate as decided by the Society by a resolution under bye-law 74 of the Society, from the date of removal of the objection till the date of payment except Rs. 2,500/- which is to be paid on the date of possession. As regards the escalation of prices due to delayed construction, the State Com- mission remarked that the Society has to take into confidence the members of the Society including the complainants (now appellants) to arrive at the actual escalation of prices in relation to a particular item. The complainants indica led their willingness before the Commission to pay agreed balance amount of Rs. 39,500/- each and requested three months' time for making that payment. In view of the above concessions by the parties the State Commission passed the following order on 31.1.1991:

(3.) The Complainants were not satisfied with the above order and have filed this appeal. Their complaint is that the Commission was not justified in ordering the appellants to pay interest at the rate of 14% on the sum of Rs. 37,000/- for each flat from May, 1989 to the date of payment because they could not pay this amount to the Society for the fault of the society as it did not issue revised certificates for enabling them to borrow money and pay the instalments. They also objected to the State Commission's order about the escalation price to be paid by them. According to them they are not liable to pay escalation costs since the construction work was stopped by the Bombay Municipal Corporation due to Society not following the rules. It is also averred that the State Commission has not given any binding order to the Society to complete the flats within some speci fled time and hand over the possession of the two flats to the appellants.