PRESENT

                   Complainant absent. 

                   Opponent by representative Shri. Sumit Kate present.

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.

1. The complainant filed complaint against the opponent for deficiency in service as per section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The husband of the complainant purchased a from Bombay Housing and Area Development Board in 1980.

2. The complainant alleged that the Konkan Board accepted monthly service charges till December 2003 and suddenly stop accepting the same from April 2004. It is alleged that, not rising the bill or written demand was made by Konkan Board for payment of pending dues which includes service charges, municipal taxes which amounts to deficiency in services.

3. The complainant stated that, entire amount of pending dues be recovered from the opponent. It is alleged that, cost of filling the complaint be recovered from the opposite party.

4. The opposite party alleged that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no cause of action for filling the present complaint.

5. The opposite party alleged that, tenement no. 64 in building no. 2 belongs to complainant. It is stated that a co-operative society has been formed by allotees’ in 1983 and on 20.11.2003 the conveyance has been executed in favour of society.

6. The opponent stated that, society collects the maintenance amount since April 2004 and not the opponent. It is deficiencystated that, conveyance is executed in favour of the society,

7. The opponent submitted that, there is no private of contract with reference to the present complainant after April 2004. It is prayed that, the present complaint be dismissed by imposing compensatory cost on Complainant.

8. We have heared the Ld. Adv. Mrunalini Warunjikar and also perused all the documents filed on record. The Ld. Advocate for opponent argued that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the parties. It is also submitted that, the conveyance is executed in favour of society, hence it is not concerned of opposite party regarding collection of amount.

9. The Ld. Adv. Mrunalini Warunjikar argued that, there is no any privity of contract between the parties after the conveyance has been executed in faviour of society. She further submitted that, complainant t is not a consumer as per the law.

10. We have considered all the submission made by Ld. Adv Mrunalini Warunjikarand found that, the complainant failed to prove that opponent is guilty for deficiency in service or adopted an unfair trade practice.

11. As the society is formed and conveyance is executed in favour of the society the complainant is not justified to insist opponent to issue bills of maintenance and other charges.

12. The complainant also failed to raise issue within a reasonable time. The case of the complainant fails and is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result we proceed to pass following order.

                      ORDER

1. RBTConsumer Complaint No. 560/2011

    2.           No order as to cost.

    3.          Copy of this order be sent to the both parties.