This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/3/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.363/2003 Hill View Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v/s. Bhushan Enterprises passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban. It is a dispute between the society of flat purchasers and builder. Builder did not execute conveyance in favour of the society, also did not give any account for the amount collected by him towards registration of the Society and other charges and since he failed to obtain Occupation Certificate, the society members had to pay water charges at higher rate till they themselves obtained the Occupation Certificate after taking round of litigation in the High Court. Further compensation is also claimed since the builder did not complete the work of water proofing for which the society spent and incurred Rs.1,50,000/-. Similarly, if the builder has provided only one lift instead of two lifts as shown in the sanction plan. Therefore, consumer complaint was filed which stood settled in favour of the complainant as per the impugned order and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by O.P. None present for the appellant. One Mr.Yogesh Kini is present who claims to be authorized representative and he has no authority. Appellant’s counsel is absent. We heard Ms.Rumana Bagdadi-Advocate for respondent. Perused the record. In the instance case, non execution of conveyance even till today is an admitted fact. Therefore, direction given to execute conveyance as per impugned order cannot be a matter of challenge. As far as monetary part of the impugned order is concerned, after carefully considering the details of the expenditure made towards repairs as well as considering other aspects regarding the collected amount, so the account is not given by the builder and the fact that he even agreed as per sanction plan to install second lift but was not provided and the fact that for want of Occupation Certificate, Society had to bear water charges at higher rate and, therefore, compensation awarded as per impugned order cannot be faulted with. Judicial discretion used by the forum below since not arbitrary, we find no reason to interfere in it. Other points raised by the appellant are about limitation but we find the same devoid of any substance since the cause of action is continuous one. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal and holding accordingly, we pass following order:- ORDER Appeal stands dismissed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to respondent. Amount deposited by appellant as condition of stay be sent to the forum below where execution is pending. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
