AZURE TREE TOWNSHIPS LLP A LIMITED LIABLITY PARTNERSHIP, REGISTERED UNDER LIMITED LIABLITY, PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 101, KALPATARU, SYNERGY, OPP. GRAND HYATT, SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI Vs. SRISHTI BUILDING NO. 343 CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.01.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaints No. CC/15/586, CC/15/748 and CC/15/749, filed by Srishti Cooperative Housing Society Limited against the appellant builders, Azure Tree Townships LLP. The complaints were filed alleging deficiency in service rendered by the OP builders to the complainant society and its members, as a result of statutory and contractual breach on the part of the OP Builders. Directions have been sought through the consumer complaints to the builders to remove defects in construction and to carry out repairs etc. Directions have also been sought for making payment of certain amounts alongwith interest towards compensation for delay of 15 months in handing over the possession. The particulars of the claim attached with the consumer complaint in one case shows that the total amount claimed is Rs. 98,68,432/-. During the pendency of the complaints before the State Commission, two interim applications were filed by the OP Builders before that Commission, challenging the maintainability of the consumer complaints. In one of the applications, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission to take cognisance of the complaints was questioned. The appellants/OPs took the plea that it was necessary to consider value of the flat also for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. In case, the value of the flat was taken into account, the case was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. It was stated however, by the complainants that although the possession of the respective flats had already been handed over, the relief was being asked only on account of deficiency in service on certain issues. The value of such relief demanded was less than 1 crore.

(2.) In another application challenging the maintainability of the complaints, the OPs sought directions to the other party to seek permission of the State Commission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing a joint complaint.

(3.) The State Commission vide impugned order dated 27.01.2016 held that the matter was within their pecuniary jurisdiction. The State Commission also held that the complaints had been filed by the Society for its members and hence, there was no question of attracting section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The State Commission vide impugned order decided to admit the complaints after rejecting both the applications, challenging their maintainability.