G.G. ASSOCIATES Vs. COMMODORE RAVINDRA KUMAR NARAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMODORE Ravindra Kumar Narad and his wife Mrs. Usha Narad filed a consumer complaint against the three petitioners who were OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on account of violation of the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1964 by revising the plan without the consent of the complainants and by merging the common passage in the flats belonging to the adjacent flat owners. As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant had purchased Flat No. 501 in Building 'A' Ganga Melrose, situated on the 5th floor of the building. Adjacent Flat Nos. 503 and 504 were purchased by some other persons. The complainants were shocked to see on 10.6.2010 that landing space (common lobby) on the 5th floor was reduced to approximately 2/3rd and 1/3rd of its portion merged with Flat Nos. 503 and 504. According to the OP builder, petitioners herein, this was done after obtaining necessary approval from the Municipal Corporation for which the builder seems to have applied to the Corporation for sanctioning the revised plan on 18.9.2010 and the Corporation sanctioned the proposal with rather unusual speed on 23.9.2010, i.e., within 5 days As per the approval of the revised plan, the common lobby on the 5th floor of the building was merged with the Flat Nos. 503 and 504. According to the petitioners, they as builder under Clause 7(a) and (b) of the agreement had absolute right to reduce the area of the lobby. Clause 7(a) and (b) maybe reproduced as under:

(2.) BOTH the parties filed evidence in support of their contentions and on appreciation of the evidence adduced before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint by passing the following order on 29.6.2013:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OPs/Petitioners challenged the same by filing an appeal bearing No. A/13/261 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai which was dismissed by the State Commission by its impugned order passed on 15.2.2014 thereby confirming the order of the District Forum. In the circumstances, the OPs aggrieved of the impugned order have now challenged the same before us by filing the present revision petition.