Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Sant
Opponents through Lrd. Adv. Jagtap
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(02/01/2014)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against builder, developer and society for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant has purchased flat no. 305 in Kumar House Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. The opponent no. 1 is the builder and the opponent no. 2 is the society. It is the case of the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement i.e. clause no. 21 of the agreement, it was agreed by the opponent no. 1 that he shall pay 9% interest on the consideration amount, if conveyance deed is not executed within prescribed period, till the date of execution of conveyance deed. It is further contended that, the opponents have not properly maintained the society. Water pipeline and lift are not in working condition. The complainant has prayed for directing the opponent no. 1 to effect conveyance, to pay an amount of Rs.8,03,250/- and to pay Rs. 2,625/- per month till the date of execution of conveyance. It is also prayed that the opponents be directed to repair the water pipeline, to procure pure potable water supply and repair lift.
2] The opponent no. 1 and 2 have resisted the complaint by filing separate written versions. They have denied the contents of the complaint. It is the case of the opponent no. 1 that in the same clause i.e. clause no. 21 of the said agreement, it is further mentioned that till date of conveyance, the flat owner is treated as a tenant and he should pay rent @ 9% p.a. on the consideration amount. It is also contended by the opponent no.1 that complainant alone can not seek relief of conveyance and conveyance deed is to be executed in favour of the society. According to the opponent no. 1, as the premises is handed over to the opponent no. 2, he has no concern with the repairs and maintenance of the society. Opponent no. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] According to the opponent no. 2, the society is maintaining the premises properly. The maintenance charges can not be refunded, as those had been spent for the maintenance of the society. It is further contended by the opponent no. 2 that some of the flat holders had not submitted remaining payment of stamp duty; hence conveyance deed could not be obtained. The opponent no. 2 has contended that the lift is in working condition and there is sufficiency potable water. Both the opponents have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant alone can seek relief of conveyance deed? | In the negative. |
2. | Whether complainant is entitled for interest from the opponent no. 1? | In the negative. |
3. | Whether complaint is entitled for refund of maintenance charges? | In the negative. |
4. | Whether complainant is entitled for any relief? | In the negative. |
5. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
5] The opponents have produced deemed conveyance deed, which is executed in the name of the Chairman of the society. The complainant has asked relief of conveyance deed, but as per the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963, the conveyance deed is to be executed in the name of the society and not in the name of individual. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the said relief.
6] It is the case of the complainant that the opponent no. 1, Builder and Promoter, had not paid 9% interest on the consideration amount as per agreement, in which the opponent no. 1 had agreed to pay interest till the date of execution of conveyance deed. The Learned Advocate for the opponent no. 1 drew our attention to the said clause, in which there was obligation on the flat holder to pay interest @ 9% by way of rent to the opponent no. 1 till the execution of the conveyance deed. Thus, it reveals from the clause no. 21 of the agreement that both parties are not entitled for any amount from each other.
7] Rest of the reliefs are not maintainable against the opponent no. 1, as the premises had been handed over to the society long back. The opponent no. 2 has contended that the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the maintenance charges, as the society is properly maintained. The complainant has not established any cogent evidence to show that water pipeline as well as lift has required repairs. In such circumstances, this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, we answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with
no order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date- 02/01/2014
