1.      South City Group Housing Apartment Owners Association (the complainant) has filed above complaint for following prayers:-

(a) Direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.887535000/-, as compensation, which sum is equivalent to the market price of the total relinquished land area of 8 acres and 6 guntas, along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. the date of payment by the allottees till the date of realization of the said amount;

(b) Direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.244553992/-, illegally collected in excess by OPs on account of statutory dues for security, water and electricity connections in the said project till 07.02.2013, along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. the date of payment by the allottees till the date of realization of the said amount;

(c) Direct OPs to provide detailed account for the amounts collected in excess from 07.02.2013 till Aug 2014 on account of securing water and electricity connections and direct the OPs to refund the same along with interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of payment by the allottees till the date of realization of the said amount;

(d) Direct the OPs to refund to the complainant association the ‘user charges’ of parking i.e. Rs.280192610/-, as on 31.01.2012 which has been illegally charged from the apartment buyers in absolute violation of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. the date of payment by the allottees till the date of realization of the said amount;

(e) Direct OP to provide detailed account for such ‘user charges’ collected subsequently from 01.02.2012 till August 2014 on account of ‘reserved car parking’ and direct the OPs to transfer the same to the complainant association, along with interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of payment by the allottees till the date of realization of the said amount;

(f) Direct the OPs to regularly pay the amounts due towards maintenance charges for the unsold flats and refund the excess amount of Rs.1.24 Cr/-, illegally collected by OP in excess of the actual charges to be paid by the allottees, along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. the due date of payment till the date of realization of the said amount;

(g) Direct the OPs to provide an account of the amounts illegally collected towards maintenance charges of unsold flats from April 2010 till May 2013 from the allottees and direct the OPs to refund the said amount along with interest @ 18 p.a. w.e.f. from the date of payment by the allottees till the realization of the amount;

(h) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1000000/- per allottee as compensation for the delay (for almost 10 years) in the completion of the amenities and facilities as provided in the brochures and the agreements; (i) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.500000/- (per allottee) towards mental agony and harassment caused to the members of the complainant Association; (j) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of case.

2.      In paragraph-1 of the complaint, it has been stated that South City Group Housing Apartment Owners’ Association is an Association duly registered under the provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. The said Association was comprised of 1323 apartment owners in the Group Housing Residential Apartment Project ‘South City’, situated at Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk, which was constructed by the Larsen and Toubro (L &T), the opposite party and another.

3.        The opposite parties relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1118 of 2016, Sobha Hibiscus Condominium Vs. Managing Director, M/s. Sobha Developers Ltd. and another decided on 14.02.2020 raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the complaint. It has been argued by the counsel for the opposite parties that only “voluntary consumer association” can file a complaint under Section 12(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. M/s. South City Group Housing Apartment Owners’ Association (the complainant), according to its own allegation was formed in view of mandatory provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, as such, it cannot be regarded as “voluntary consumer association” within the meaning of Section 12 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable.

4.      In order to appreciate the controversy, relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are quoted below:-

Section-12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.- (1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by-

(a)  ………………..

(b) any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "recognised consumer association" means any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force.

5.      The word ‘complainant’ has been defined under Section 1 (b) of the Act and under Section 2(1)(b)(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force is the complainant. 

6.      Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai Vs. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591 culled out following principles to give effect to an explanation to a statutory provision:-

(a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself,

(b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to sub-serve.

(c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful.

(d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to supress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and

(e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same.

7.      In MK Salpekar (Dr.) Vs. Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari and others, (1988) 4 SCC 21 held that when the section deals with two categories of cases for e.g. residential and non-residential accommodations and explanation of this section which is limited in scope to one category, namely residential accommodations cannot effect the scope of the section with reference to the second category, namely, non-residential accommodation.

8.      Under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act “any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be is a member of such association or not” can file a consumer complaint. The word ‘recognised’ means whose identity is fixed. An association registered under the provisions of law can be regarded as a recognized association. The object of the Act is to promote and protect the right of the consumers. In order to sub-serve the object, any recognised consumer association to which the actual aggrieved consumer is member or not can file a complainant regarding the grievances of a consumer. A voluntary consumer association may be one of the species of any recognised consumer association but not the only. If the explanation is given meaning that only voluntary consumer association registered under law is the only recognized consumer association, then the main Section 12(1)(b) will become redundant. Under the statutory interpretation of the explanation, it is not permitted as held by the Supreme Court in above cases.

9.      Supreme Court in Soba Hibiscus Condominium’s case (supra), in which, the complainant was an association registered under Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, held that it was not a voluntary association. The case law of Soba Hibiscus Condominium (supra) is fully applicable in the present case.  In such circumstances, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable.

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.