M/S. KARWA DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THROUGH ITS PARTNERS, HAVING ITS PLACE OF ADDRESS AT 303, UNIQUE TOWER, BEHIND PATEL PETROL PUMP, OFF. S.V. ROAD, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI Vs. SHREE VINAYAK CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. CC/14/139, vide which, while partly allowing the complaint, a direction was given to the appellants/opposite parties (OPs) to pay a sum of 5 lakh to the complainant cooperative housing society for the delay in handing over the possession of the property to the members of the society in terms of the agreement between the parties. A litigation cost of 30,000.00 was also allowed to the complainant society.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant Shree Vinayak Cooperative Housing Society Limited, registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, filed a consumer complaint No. CC/14/139 before the State Commission, saying that the Society had entered into a development agreement on 01.08.2009 with the OP/ Builders vide which, they were required to re-develop the plot, measuring 717 sq. yard and the building thereon, and to provide flats to the members of the said society. It has been alleged that the developers failed to honour their commitment as per the development agreement. They provided flats of less area to the members of the society and also less space for car parking. A number of amenities/facilities as promised were also not provided to the members of the society. The consumer complaint was filed seeking directions to the OP builders to make payments on various counts for compensating the members of the society. However, the State Commission vide impugned order, allowed the consumer complaint only partly and directed that payment of 5 lakh should be made to the society for the delay of 5 months in handing over the possession, because the OP developers were bound to pay a sum of 5 lakh for the delay as per clause 14(a) of the development agreement. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the OP builders, are before this Commission by way of the present appeal.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the State Commission was perverse in the eyes of law, because the complaint filed by the society was not maintainable, as the society itself was not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The society had not paid any consideration to the builder and hence, it was not a consumer. Further, a resolution authorising Mr. Bhonsale for filing the complaint had been passed by the Managing Committee of the Society only, whereas such resolution should have been passed in the meeting of the General Body of the society. The complaint was also barred by limitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, as per clause 14(a) of the agreement, only monetary relief had been asked due to delay in handing over the possession. The society should have filed a civil suit under the Specific Relief Act for seeking compensation under this clause. It is also stated in the grounds of appeal that the complaint was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.