NEO PACHISIA Vs. TOTAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Petitioner against the order dtd. 16/10/2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa, Panaji (herein referred to as the "State Commission") in First Appeal No.49/2015.

(2.) Case of the Complainants is that they purchased two storeyed villas C-11 and C-12, having built up area of 127.76 sq. mtrs. each, for a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs each, vide two separate registered sale deeds both dtd. 6/4/2011, in the project "Serenity at Verca." They also purchased flat D-6 admeasuring 125.41 sq. mtrs., for a sum of Rs.45.00 lakhs, in the said project. Opposite Party No.1 also charged Rs.3.00 lakhs towards electricity charges of the staircase block, including replacement of fuse bulbs and other fixtures, water charges, lifts, generator and other maintenance expenses. Opposite Party No.1 also issued bills dtd. 15/7/2011 for Rs.13,869.50, Rs.13,505.50 and Rs.48,969.00 respectively. The Complainants asked Opposite Party No.1 for breakup/details of the said bills. On being assured of breakup of the demands, the Complainants made the payments. As no response was received from Opposite Party No.1, Complainant No.2 sent email dtd. 25/9/2011 to the authorized representative of Opposite Party No.1 seeking clarification of the bills amount already paid by the Complainants. In December, 2011, the Complainants personally visited the office of Opposite Parties Nos.3 and 4 and the Director of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.3 abused and assaulted Complainant No.2, for which an FIR was also lodged by the Complainants. Electricity meter of the Complainants for all three units were in the name of Opposite Party No.2. The Complainants made repeated requests to the Opposite Parties for change of the electricity meter, which was not done. Complainants sent legal notice dtd. 26/3/2012 seeking refund of the amount deposited by them, which was not replied by the Opposite Parties nor refund was made. The Opposite Parties began to treat the residential complex as commercial complex and started giving the units on rent to strangers without the consent of the unit owners. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer: -

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing common written statement. It was stated that in terms of clause 5 of the sale deed, the Complainants were required to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 each for formation of the Association. The Opposite Parties charged maintenance charges for the entire complex from all purchasers including the Complainants, as per area of the premises. The Complainants were not living in the units and the units were locked. The Complainants purchased the said units for commercial purpose. The Opposite Parties were paying the electricity bill and house tax for the units of the Complainants. The Opposite Parties also furnished the bills paid by them alongwith details of maintenance charges. The Opposite Parties never refused to give NOC for transfer of electricity meter. The Complainants were required to follow the procedure for transfer of electricity meter for which NOC was not required from the Opposite Parties. The Consumer Complaint was filed for harassing the Opposite Parties.