PREMA SURENDRA VIJAYKAR Vs. JAYANT V ISHANJI DHAROD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 16. 03. 2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. A/15/692, Mrs. Prema Surendra Vijaykar & Ors. vs. Shri Jayant Vishanji Dharod & Anr. , vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai on 14. 05. 2015 in Consumer Complaint No. CC/13/197, filed by the complainant/present respondent no. 1, Sh. Jayant Vishanji Dharod, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as per the consumer complaint filed by the respondent no. 1, Jayant Vishanji Dharod, M/s. Madhav Vasantrao Vijaykar HUF was the owner of immovable property, bearing survey no. 1485, Cadastral Survey No. 1772, Mahim Division, situated at Keluskar Road (South) Shivaji Park, Plot No. 62, together with building standing thereon, commonly known as "Prabha Vijaya". The late Surendra Madhav Vijayakar was the karta of the said HUF and he executed an agreement dated 26. 0 1979 under the provisions of the Apartment Ownerships Act, 1970 with a builder firm, the opposite party (OP-1), M/s. Pandit & Kirkire & Co. to construct additional floors on the existing building. The said Surendra Madhav Vijaykar died on 17. 04. 1994 and on the date of filing the complaint, the OPs no. 2 to 7 were the members of the said HUF as successors-in-interest. The present petitioners are OPs No. 3 to 7 in the complaint.

(3.) It is further stated in the consumer complaint that the OP-1 builder armed with the agreement dated 26. 02. 1979 from the owner of the property, executed an agreement dated 0 07. 1979 in favour of the complainant, Jayant Vishanji Dharod, according to which, flat no. 2, on the third floor of the building "Prabha Vijaya" was to be allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 1,61,000/- together with some additional payments vide clause 21 of the said agreement. It is the case of the complainant that under clause 24 of the said agreement, the complainant was to take steps to form an association of apartment owners, upon receiving due intimation from the OP-1, and the OP-1 was under obligation to assign and transfer the said premises to such association by conveying the said Premises under the deed of Apartment. As per the complainant, he was put in possession of the said flat after the completion of construction by the OP-1 builder, but the OPs failed to fulfil their commitment for conveying the said premises under a deed of Apartment. Even after the issuance of a legal notice dated 25. 06. 2013, the OPs did not execute the said deed of apartment. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to execute the necessary Declaration of Deed of Apartment in favour of the complainant and other Apartment owners under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 and to do all necessary acts and deeds under the said Act.