Per Shri S.R. khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

  Heard Appellant in person.

(1)          Heard Appellant Mr.Jagdish  Ahuja, the Appellant No.1 in person appearing for himself and for his wife Mrs.ChandNi Ahuja.  Perused record.

(2)          Raising certain disputes regarding compliance of Sections 5 and 6 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (in short ‘MOFA’) read with Rule 10 of the Rules framed under MOFA, against the builder -  original Opposite Party No.1 – Mr.Sheikh M. Ayaaz (Respondent No.1) to demonstrate the compliance of those provisions and further to transfer all the unutilized sums collected from the Appellants on behalf of said Opposite Party No.2 Society which maintains accounts of the Opposite Party No.2 Society under intimation to the Appellants.  Further damages for harassment are claimed. 

(3)          Forum below as per impugned order dated 7^th August, 2010 admitted the consumer complaint as against Opposite Party No.2.

(4)          On merits, undisputed facts are that Appellant/original Complainants have received possession of their flat on 31^st January, 2006.  Thereafter, it appears that Complainants filed consumer dispute against the builder/original Opposite Party No.1 in this proceeding, which stood decided on 07.04.2008.  It was decided in favour of Appellant/original Complainant and direction was given to remove the deficiencies mentioned therein and also to obtain the occupancy certificate.

(5)          It is the grievance of the Complainant in this complaint that the builder is not giving accounts as per the MOFA to the Society and in the present complaint he wants relief against the builder that builder should comply those obligations since the Society is not giving the complainant any account.  Society is not the Complainant who put any grievance against the builder.  Therefore, there is no cause of action to this complaint in favour of the Appellant/Complainant.  Besides that even if a relief relating to the fulfilment of obligations under the MOFA about giving accounts of the deposited amount for particular purpose e.g. MSEB charges, the cause of action thereof arose when the Appellant/Complainant received possession on 31^st  January, 2006 and in any case not later than the initial consumer complaint was filed.  Under the circumstances, consumer complaint filed in the year 2010 is certainly barred by limitation in  view of  Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the builder against whom the complaint was not admitted. 

(6)          For the reasons stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dismissing the consumer complaint as against Opposite Party No.1 – Builder Developer.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

    (ii)       No order as to costs.