NAREN PRAVIN SANGHVI 153/8, SUNRAYS,2ND FLOOR, ABOVE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, SION CIRCLE, SION EAST, MUMBAI Vs. SUNRAYS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to assail the order of dismissal of the appeal dated 14.5.2015 by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") filed against the order of dismissal of the complaint by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai District (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") vide order 7.1.2014.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant had purchased flat from one Mr. Suri, and become a resident member of the OP Society vide order dated 28.3.2006. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties have unlawfully collected Rs. 1,11,111.00from the complainant in 2006 under the pretext of arrears due from the previous owner of the flat. The complainant claims that the opposite parties have arbitrarily charged Rs. 50,000.00 for parking space allotment from the complainant only and not from other residents. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have failed to maintain the building as well as the society premises, thereby causing inconveniences/disturbance and jeopardizing the safety of the residents. It is the case of the complainant that opposite parties have committed breach of the Bye-Laws and provisions of the Maharashtra Co-op Society Act, 1950. Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had approached the Assistant Registrar of the 25-31, March, 2017 Co-operative Societies but his application was rejected. Although, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, no cognizance was taken.

(3.) Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed a consumer complaint. The District Forum vide order dated 07.01.2014 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the claim of refund of amount paid to the opposite parties is barred by law of limitation.