We are unable to accept the submissions made by the Lr. Adv. Shri P. H. Sawant. The intervener/society is not a voluntary consumer organization as contemplated either under Section 2(b)(ii) of the C. P. Act 1986 or Regulation 16 of the CP Regulations, 2005. The applications for intervention were opposed both by the complainants in the said cases as well as the OPs. The complaints were filed by the Complainants for reliefs in the nature of specific performance of their contracts with hte builders and in such cases the intervener society was neither a necessary nor proper party in the said complaints. Moreover, the complainants are the ’dominus litis’ and as such the interveners could not be made parties to the complaints against their wishes. The complainants could not be made to fight against those whom they do not wish to fight. No doubt, the builders are not entitled to sell parking space as it is common amenity.As rightly pointed by the Lr. D.F. in case the intervener society is entitled for contribution towards the paymnt of water bill their remedy lies elsewhere and not before the Fora under the C.P. Act which is meant to settle the disputes of only consumers and none others as against the traders or service providers.

In case the said flats occupied by the Complainants are illegal the right remedy for the intervener society would be to approach the authorities i.e. either Municipality of SGPDA for demolotion of the said structures and on their failure to do so approach the High Court for necessary directions.

On the facts of the cases, the rejection of the applications for intervention filed by the Appeallant/intervener/society cannot be faultd. In the circumstances those appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission.