1.      Heard Mr. Nihant Panicker, Advocate, for the petitioner.

2.      The above revision petition has been filed against the order of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai dated 04.11.2022 in first appeal No.A/16/923, whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

3.      The complainant (respondent herein) filed Consumer complaint No.326 of 2010 with the District Commission for directing the opposite party to (a) execute conveyance of the land at Survey No.29, Hissa No.1A, admeasuring 2020 sq. meters and Survey No.29, Hissa No.1B, admeasuring 2530 sq. meters, situated at Revenue Village Kalwa, Taluka and District Thane; (b) complete the incomplete work as mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint; (c) handover the documents mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint; (d) make payment of compensation of Rs.19 lakhs to the complainant towards mental agony; (e) cost of the complaint to the complainant; and (f) any other relief which the Forum deems fit and proper in favour of the complainant.

4.      Complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The members of the society purchased respective flats from the opposite party M/s Shreekrupa Builders in a project situated at Survey No.29, Hissa No.1A ameasuring 2020 sq. meters at Village Kalwa, Taluka and District Thane. Conveyance deeds of the flats were to be executed as per the provisions of MOFA. The opposite party had failed to complete the work and obtain completion certificate as well as occupancy certificate from the concerned authorities. Even the opposite party had not got water connection from Thane Municipal Corporation. The opposite parties were required to supply as many as 25 documents to the complainant, which they failed to do. The opposite party has not executed the conveyance deed. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint No.326 of 2010 with the District Forum.

5.      The petitioner filed written version and contested the complaint denying the allegation that they had not obtained the water connection. It was also denied that the opposite party is not ready to execute the conveyance deed. Even the opposite party had asked the Secretary of the complainant society to send a draft conveyance deed. The opposite party has already obtained NOC from the Fire Brigade and has already applied for occupancy certificate. Electric connections have already been given and the electricity is being used by all flat owners. All requisite documents have been given to the flat buyers on the basis of which they have also taken home loan.

6.      The District Commission, vide order dated 30.04.2016 partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to hand over the documents to the complainant society before 30.06.2016, failing which the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.100/- per day from 01.07.2016 till compliance of the order. The opposite party was also directed to give occupancy certificate to the complainant society. The District Forum also directed the opposite party to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant and also pay Rs.50000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.

7.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the opposite party filed first appeal No.923 of 2016, which was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 04.11.2022 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the opposite party has filed the present revision petition.

8.      It is relevant to note that the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of both Fora below only on technical grounds and not on merits. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Fora below need not interference in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286.

9.      On 28.07.2023 arguments were heard and judgment reserved with the liberty to the petitioner to file written submissions within one week. The counsel for the petitioner instead of filing written submissions has filed an application requesting for constitution of Division Bench. It is stated that Delhi High Court has passed order dated 12.07.2023 observing that the Single Member Bench cannot hear and decide the matter, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. I have gone through the order dated 12.07.2023. There is nothing in the said order as stated by counsel for the petitioner. High Court has only issued notice in the matter and has not issued any direction as stated by the counsel for the petitioner. Section 20 (1-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly stipulates that a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more Members as the President may deem fit. Further, Section 58 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as he may deem fit. The application filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

10.    The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that complainant Society is not a voluntary consumer association under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but registered under the statutory provisions of MOFA is not tenable. Govind Dham Phase-II Cooperative Housing Society Limited is a Cooperative Housing Society voluntarily formed by flat owners and it was registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Simply for the reason that MOFA required for registration of society cannot be said that this society is not a voluntary consumer association. In any case Section 12 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 gives right to “any recognised consumer association” to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act. If the explanation shall be read that only voluntary consumer association is competent to file complaint under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 then “any” word used in Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act would become “only” which is not permissible inasmuch in the garb of explanation the main section would become redundant. Such type of interpretation is not permitted in a statutory interpretation. Thus, the respondent/complainant being a voluntary consumer association is fully competent to file a consumer complaint on behalf of its members. Further the argument of the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature is not sustainable as this is purely a consumer dispute based on the agreement for sale and the petitioner has failed to perform its obligations as per agreement. As far as argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum has passed the order beyond pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, I do not find force in this argument. On careful perusal of the order dated 30.04.2016 I find that the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.50000/- for causing incontinence to the complainant, apart from other reliefs as stated above, which is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.

ORDER

In view of aforesaid discussions, the revision petition is dismissed.