SUNIL BUILDERS Vs. KAVERI CHS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Builders, against order dated 13.08.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 696 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed two cross Appeals filed by both the Complainants (First Appeal No. 61 of 2011) and by the Builders (First Appeal No.696 of 2010). The said Appeals had been preferred against the order, dated 15.05.2010, passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra, Mumbai (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 583 of 2007. The District Forum had held that the Complaint filed by the Complainants/Society was within limitation and there was deficiency in service on the part of the Builders in not obtaining Occupation Certificate and executing Deed of Conveyance in favour of Complainant No.1/Society. Accordingly, partly allowing the Complaint, the District Forum had directed the Builder Firm and its Partners to jointly and severally obtain the Occupation Certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order and execute the conveyance deed in favour of Complainant No.1/Society in respect of the property mentioned in the agreement, within a period of six months from the date of their obtaining the Occupation Certificate. The District Forum had also directed that in the event of failure on the part of the Builders in this regard, they will pay to Complainant No.1/Society a sum of Rs. 1000/- per day from the date of expiry of the stipulated period of six weeks till the date of their obtaining the Occupation Certificate. Besides, the Builders were also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 95,700/- to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai towards Unauthorized Occupation Charges, sought to be recovered by them vide their letter dated 05.05.1999, as also Rs. 5000/- as litigation costs to Complainant No.1/Society.

(2.) Being aggrieved, as noted above, both the parties preferred the afore-noted Appeals before the State Commission. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Faqir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies (P) Ltd., 2008 10 SCC 345, the State Commission endorsed the view of the District Forum that it was the Builder who had failed to execute the Conveyance Deed after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Consequently, as noted above, the State Commission dismissed both the Appeals. Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Builders.

(3.) It is pointed out by the Office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 98 days in filing the same. Application praying for condonation of the said delay had been filed alongwith the Revision Petition. However, at the request of the Counsel for the Petitioners, vide order dated 27.11.2014, permission to file a better affidavit, explaining the said delay, was granted. In paragraphs 4 to 8 of the said affidavit, the explanation furnished is as under: