State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indraprastha Co Op Hsg So Ltd. & Ors vs Mr Chintal Seth & Ors on 17 October, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/09/267
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 30/01/2009 in Case No. 43/2002 of District Pune)
1.
INDRAPRASTHA CO OP HSG SO LTD.
S. NO. 215/1, 218, 277, MANJARI PHATA, NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO STATION, AAKASHWANI, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411 028. Represented through its Secretary Shri. Aappasaheb Shivappa Teli.
2. Shri. Raghunath Yadavrao Girme Plot No. 193, S. No. 215/1, 218/, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune 411
028.
3. Mrs. Uma Uttam Kale R/at. Plot No. 242, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411
028.
4. Shri. Krishna Baburao Adsul R/at Plot No. 293, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune 411
028.
5. Mr. L. S. Surve R/at. Plot No. 243, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411
028. ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. MR CHINTAL SETH PRADEEP BOOK DEPOT SHOP NO 31 INDRAPRASTHA PLOT NO 293 S NO 215//1, 218,277, MANJARI PHATA NR ALL INDIA RADIO STATION AAKASHWANI HADAPSAR PUNE 411028
2. Mr. Sushil Pandurang Mantri 929, Mantri House, F. C. Road, Pune - 411 004.
3. Indraprastha Premises Pvt. Ltd.
929, Mantri House, F. C. Road, Pune - 411 004.
4. Mr. Verajlal T. Gala & Mr. Vinod T. Gala 929, Mantri House, F. C. Road, Pune - 411 004.
5. Shri. Subhash Samudayik Sahakari Shetki Sangha Maryadit Manjiri Budruk, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune
6. Shri. Dara Dinshaw Avari R/at. Plot No. 252, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411
028.
7. Mr. Tej Kishen Bhan Plot No. 94, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
8. Ms. S. S. Gandhi Plot No. 35, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
9. Mr. E. S. Dalal Plot No. 256, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
10. Mr. Ashok K. Tekawade Plot No. 282, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
11. Mrs. Daniella Wadia Schwarz Plot No. 294, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
12. Mr. Homi J. Wadia Plot No. 294, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
13. Mr. Cyrus H. Wadia Plot No. 296, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
14. Mrs. Edith H. Wadia Plot No. 297, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
15. Mrs. Shobnadevi Pardeshi R/at Plot No. 304, S. No. 215/1, 218, 277, Manjari Phata, Near All India Radio Station, Aakashwani, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/09/671 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2009 in Case No. 43/02 of District Pune)
1. SHRI SUBHASH SAMUDAYIK SAHAKARI SHETKI SANGH MARYADIT VILLAGE MANJARI BUDRIK, TAL. HAVELI, DIST. PUNE ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. MR DARA DINSHAW AVARI Plot no.252 SURVEYNO 215/1, 218/219 AND 277/01, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411 028.
2.Mr.Raghunath Y.Girme Plot no.193 SURVEYNO 215/1, 218/219 AND 277/01, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411 028.
3. Mrs. Uma Uttam Kale Plot No. 243, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
4. Mr. Tej Kishen Bhan (Dead) Plot No. 94, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
5. Mr. S. S. Gandhi Plot No. 35, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
6. Mr. K. B. Adsul Plot No. 242, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
7. Mr. E. S. Dalal Plot No. 256, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
8. Mr. L. S. Surve Plot No. 293, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
9. Mr. A. K. Tekawade Plot No. 282, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
10. Mrs. Daniella Wadia Schwarz Plot No. 294, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
11. Mr. Homi J. Wadia Plot No. 295, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
12. Mr. Cyrus H. Wadia Plot No. 296, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
13. Mrs. Edith H. Wadia Plot No. 297, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
14. Mrs. Shobnadevi Pardeshi Plot No. 304, Survey No. 215/1, 218, 219 and 277/1, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
15. Indraprastha Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.
Chairman/Secretary, Survey No. 215/218, 219 and 227/1, Hadapsar, Pune - 411 028.
16. Mr. Chintel Seth Pradeep Book Depot, Indraprastha, Shop No. 31, Manjiri Phata, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
17. Mr. Sushil Pandurang Mantri Mantri House, 929, F. C. Road, Pune 411 004.
18. Indraprastha Premises Pvt. Ltd.
Mantri House, 929, F. C. Road, Pune 411 004
19. Mr. Virajlal T. Gala / Mr. Vinod T. Gala, Mantri House, F. C. Road, Pune 411 004.
...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Adv.D.G.Sant for the appellant in A/09/267 and for respondent no.15 in A/09/671. Advocate Digambar Thakare for respondent no.2 in A/09/267 and for respondent no.17 ion A/09/671.
Advocate Anil Galgali for respondent nos.3&4 in A/09/267 and for respondent nos.18&19 in A/09/671.
Advocate Rahul Gandhi for respondent no.5 in A/09/267 and for the appellant in A/09/671.
ORDER Per Honble Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member Both these appeals challenge the order dated 30/01/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.43/2002. Facts in brief leading to these appeals can be summarized as under:-
Initially, one Dara Dinshaw Avari along with other 13 members have filed a consumer complaint against the original opponent nos.1 to 5 alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent nos.1 to 5. The deficiencies were stated as not providing the overhead water tank with pump and motor, common electricity meter and water connection, the society office, internal roads and the street lights, MSEB meters, cables and the transformers. Similarly, common septic tanks and the common sewage lines were also not provided. It is also contended by the original complainants that the opponent no.5, which is a Co-operative society was the owner of the property bearing Survey No.215, Hissa no.1, Survey no.218, 219 & 277, Hissa No.1 situated at Hadapsar, Taluka Haveli. Original owner i.e. opponent no.5 executed a Development agreement in favour of opponent no.1 on 18/12/1989. The opponent no.1 had sold the developed plots to the prospective purchasers. Subsequently, the development rights were assigned by the opponent no.1 in favour of the opponent no.3 to which the opponent no.5 gave consent on 05/02/1990 for carrying out the development being the owner of the property. It is also stated that the possession of the developed plots were handed over to the original complainants during the period January 1993 to November 1997. It is alleged by the complainants that the amenities to be provided are incorporated in the agreements entered between the complainants and the developers. During the pendency of the complaint, the housing society was formed of the plot holders and the newly formed society was impleaded as necessary party in the array of complainants. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainants approached the District Forum and sought for the reliefs more fully described in the prayer clause of the complaint.
The opponents have contested the complaint by filing written version. Opponent nos.3&4 have filed written version stating therein that the complainants have purchased the plots from opponent no.1 and the claim raised by the complainants is barred by limitation so far it relates to common facilities like electricity meter, water meter, transformer to the society, etc. They further contended that separate society office is in existence and the society is functioning from it. When the plots were sold by the opponent no.1 to the complainant, the premises in question was not within the limit of Pune Municipal Corporation, however, now the premises is merged in the limit of Pune Municipal Corporation. From the pleadings of the opponents it was observed that opponent no.1, 2 & 5 are merely the formal parties and, therefore, opponent nos.3 & 4 have prayed that most of the prayers of the complaint are time barred, hence, complaint be dismissed.
District Forum after going through the complaint, written version of opponent nos.3&4, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and the pleadings of their advocates, came to the conclusion that most of the prayers are time barred and the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. District Forum in its order has further observed that since now the society is formed, there is no impediment in directing the opponent nos.3&4 to execute the conveyance in favour of the society of plot holders. Being not satisfied with the impugned order dated 30/01/2009, original complainant has filed Appeal no.A/09/267, whereas Appeal no.A/09/671 is filed by the original opponent no.5.
Both these appeals involve identical facts and common question of law, hence, both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.
Admittedly, a land bearing Survey No.215, Hissa no.1, Survey no.218, 219 & 277, Hissa No.1 situated at Hadapsar, Taluka Haveli belongs to the original opponent no.5-society. It is also on record that the original owner i.e. appellant in A/09/671 had executed development right in favour of opponent no.1 on 18/12/1989 and the opponent no.1 had developed the land and sold the plots to the original complainant i.e. appellant in Appeal no.A/09/267. It is also on record that subsequently the original opponent no.1 had assigned development rights of the said land to opponent no.3 with consent of opponent no.5 by an agreement dated 05/02/1990. The possession of the developed plots were handed over to the plot holders/original complainants between period 1994 to 1997 and the complainants have filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on 14/02/2002. While filing the complaint an application for condonation of delay was not filed. It is also on record that the society is registered on 25/11/2005 and the society has called its general body meeting on 19/07/2006. Minutes of the meeting revealed that Opponent nos.3 & 4 have agreed to give accounts in respect of arrears of maintenance charges collected from the members of the society. Admittedly, the appeal no.A/09/267 is filed for not allowing the complaint for providing the amenities. It is on record that the original complainant has got the possession of their respective flats in the year 1994 to 1997. However, they have filed a complaint in the year 2002 after a gap of nearly five years without filing a delay condonation application. Hence, excepting the legal obligation of the original opponents, the claim of the original complainant in respect of amenities became time barred. The original opponents except opponent no.5 have not challenged the impugned order. Hence the order has achieved finality in respect of original opponent nos.1 to 4. The appellant in Appeal no.670/2009 has challenged the order on the ground that in a complaint filed before the District Forum there was no prayer for directing the opponents to execute conveyance of the land.
The District Forum has directed the opponent nos.3 to 5 to execute the conveyance in favour of the society which was subsequently added as necessary party as the rights of the individual complainants were merged in it and executing the conveyance is the statutory obligation of opponents. Looking from this angle, the appellant being an original owner of the land and he consented to the transfer of development right in favour of original opponent nos.3 & 4 by original opponent nos.1&2. Under the circumstances, we do not find any impropriety in directing the appellant in Appeal no.670/2009 to execute the conveyance in favour of original complainant along with opponent nos.3 & 4 jointly or severally.
We find District Forum after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the legal position has passed an order and we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the District Forum. We do not find any substance or merit in the appeals. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal nos.A/09/267 & A/09/671 stands dismissed.
Order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 17th October, 2013.
[HON'ABLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.
