Individual members of the respondent/complainant housing society purchased flats from the petitioner developers and builders, who were opp.parties before the District Forum.  Instead of the members filing the complaint in their individual capacity, the housing society formed of the members filed complaint before the District Forum with the grievance that the petitioners had failed to execute the conveyance deed; failed to give account of the amount collected from the flat purchasers towards share capital and the amount of deposits received from the flat purchasers.

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the share capital amountof Rs.261/- of each flat purchaser amounting to Rs.10,962/- to the complainant.  Petitioner was further directed to prepare account of the amount recovered from the flat owners at the time of entering to the agreement by statutory auditors and submit the same to the society.  Society was put at liberty to take action to recover the balance receivable amount from the petitioner and to convey the land in possession of the complainant.

        Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission disposed of the appeal only on one issue i.e. regarding the maintainability of the complaint by the respondent society.  Other points were not decided by observing “no other point is raised and prayed before us by the appellant”. 

        Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, along with the counsel who had appeared before the State Commission, contends that points other than maintainability of the appeal were also raised in the ground of appeal and argued before the State Commission and the State Commission has wrongly recorded that the points other than maintainability of the complaint were not argued.  Learned counsel Mr.Wavikar who had appeared on behalf of the respondent very fairly concedes that the points other than maintainability were argued before the State Commission and perhaps due to inadvertence the State Commission has not recorded any finding on those points.

        Without going into other points, which may have been raised by the petitioner before the State Commission, on a fair concession made by the counsel for the respondent which we appreciate, we set aside the order of the State Commission and remit the case back to the State Commission to decide it afresh after taking note of all the contentions raised by the parties.

        Nothing stated herein be taken as an expression of opinion.

        All contentions are left open.

        Parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 30.8.2012.

Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.